4. 4. Statement: Establishment of the New Treatment Fund and the Independent Review of the Individual Patient Funding Request Process

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 3:35 pm on 27 September 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Vaughan Gething Vaughan Gething Labour 3:35, 27 September 2016

At the Plenary session on 12 July, I set out my plans for establishing a new treatment fund and undertaking a sharply-focused, independent review of the individual patient funding request process, commonly known as IPFR. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide Assembly Members and the people of Wales with an update on the progress that we have made over the summer.

I’ll begin with the new treatment fund. Work is progressing well to set up the fund, which will make £80 million available over the life of this Government. It will provide these extra funds for new medicines that represent a significant advance in treatment for life-limiting and life-threatening diseases. The fund will support the introduction of medicines that fit these criteria that are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, known as NICE, or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, the AWMSG. I expect this additional financial support will be for up to 12 months, giving health boards time to factor in future spending from within their budgets.

We rely on the expertise of NICE and the AWMSG to assess the effectiveness of a new medicine, taking account of clinical opinion and the patient perspective. Both of these highly-respected organisations base their recommendations on the most up-to-date evidence. Basing our access to new medicines policy on the authoritative guidance of NICE and AWMSG reduces the risk of inequalities and variation in access. It will ensure patients across Wales receive treatments proven to be clinically effective, with a price in balance with the benefits. The new treatment fund will support our evidence-based approach, providing health boards with additional funding to ensure innovative, new medicines are introduced as quickly as possible. Options for the operational set-up of the fund are being developed and we are on target to establish the fund by December this year. I will, of course, make a further, detailed announcement later in the year.

Turning to the review of the IPFR process, there is a good deal to report. The NHS Wales IPFR process is the mechanism used by all health boards across Wales to make a decision at an individual patient level on access to a treatment not routinely available. Following the 2014 IPFR review and the implementation of its recommendations, I agreed the time was right for a new, independent review of the IPFR process. This will concentrate on the number of panels, the clinical exceptionality criteria, and take account of the patient’s perspective.

I am pleased to announce today the membership of the group that will take forward the review. Mr Andrew Blakeman will chair the review group. Mr Blakeman is a chartered accountant and has worked for BP for over 20 years in a variety of senior financial roles. He will bring a solid customer-focused background to the work of the group. There are five more members comprising the rest of the group. Mr Irfon Williams is a retired senior nurse, who will provide the review with valuable insight based on his recent experience of the IPFR process. Professor Peter Littlejohns is an independent medical academic and professor of public health, being an honorary consultant at King’s College London. Professor Littlejohns has extensive experience and understanding of the medicines appraisal process and the equity issues arising out of treatment decisions. Professor Phil Routledge is a former chair of the AWMSG and director of the All Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre; that is the executive arm of AWMSG. The review group will benefit from his extensive experience of the medicines agenda in Wales, and the ethical and safety considerations associated with access to new medicines. Dr Ben Thomas is a consultant nephrologist and will provide expert input into medical ethics and law. Professor Chris Newdick is a barrister and professor of health law at the University of Reading. His special interests are the rights and duties arising within the NHS, including medical ethics and prioritisation.

So, I hope Members will see that, from its membership, the group is independent of Welsh Government and comprises a range of relevant expertise and knowledge. I want to reassure Assembly Members that the review group will have sole responsibility for the content of their report, their findings and their recommendations. I’ve circulated a short note detailing their biographies and the terms of reference I agreed with opposition health party spokespeople. I would also like to take this opportunity of thanking the review group members for agreeing to give us their expertise and time to undertake this challenging work.

In broad terms, the review group will examine the evidence of current good practice in Wales, the UK and elsewhere for making individual funding decisions on treatments that are not routinely available. It will consider the advantages and disadvantages of retaining eight IPFR panels or moving to a smaller number, including the possibility of a national IPFR panel. The review group will examine the criteria that an IPFR panel will use to make their decisions, including clinical exceptionality. It will consider options for improving how the IPFR process and subsequent decisions are communicated to patients. The end result will be a report with practical recommendations for next steps.

Assembly Members will know from my earlier announcement in July that I want this review to be sharply focused. I have therefore asked the group to work towards producing their report by end of this calendar year, and I will, of course, keep Members updated. Last week I met with Andrew Blakeman, and he also took the opportunity to brief personally the health opposition spokespeople and other parties, reassuring them of the independence of the review and how he intends to ensure patient views are fully reflected during the process.