HC Deb 30 June 1986 vol 100 cc432-3W
Mr. Janner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received seeking the provision by prescription of incontinence aids and garments for elderly and for disabled people.

Mr. Whitney

In the past three years an average of five inquiries a year have been received. There is no evidence of general dissatisfaction with current arrangements for supply via health authorities.

Mr. Janner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to establish the feasibility of combining the present system of contract buying of incontinence aids and garments with provision of such aids and garments on prescription.

Mr. Whitney

We are always concerned to discover the most cost-effective way of providing services. The present system enables health authorities to obtain favourable terms for bulk purchase.

Mr. Janner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates to be the cost of the provision of incontinence aids and garments under the present system operating in England and Wales; what he estimates would be the cost of the provision of such aids and garments by prescription; and upon what basis such estimate is made.

Mr. Whitney

In England and Wales, National Health Service supply of incontinence aids and garments is the responsibility of Health Authorities and is met from within their financial allocations. Figures on the cost of such provision are not kept centrally. The estimated cost of supplying incontinence aids only on prescription would be about £15 million a year. This is a pro-rata estimate based on the 1984 prescribing figures for these items in Scotland.

Mr. Janner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an inquiry into the feasibility of providing elderly and disabled patients with incontinence aids and garments on prescription; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitney

No. The question of transferring responsibility for supply from health authorities to the family practitioner service has been considered. It would mean increases in public expenditure to cover the whole cost of provision under the family practitioner services unless compensating reductions were made to health authority cash limits. A change in the existing supply arrangements cannot be justified at present as a priority over other competing claims for resources. We will continue to keep these arrangements under review.