Written questions by Blake.

How much new funding healthcare providers in Sheffield Hallam have received since the general election, by provider; and what impact this has had on the number of appointments available for people in that constituency.

Through Phase 1 of the Spending Review for 2025, the Government has reset public spending for 2024/25 and set departmental budgets for 2025/26. The Government has prioritised investment into the National Health Service, and this is reflected by a £22.6 billion increase in resource spending and a £3.1 billion increase in capital for the Department over this year and next.This includes the additional £1.8 billion in direct support of elective activity since July 2024, which has supported the NHS to deliver an additional two million appointments. This settlement also makes progress towards meeting the commitment that, within our first term, patients should expect to wait no longer that 18 weeks from referral to consultant led treatment.The 2024/25 financial year has not yet concluded so we do not yet have final outturn figures for expenditure and activity by provider. The NHS is currently planning for 2025/26, including for the delivery of the elective targets that systems have been given. We currently do not have the outcome of the planning round for individual providers, including those in Sheffield.

What steps his Department is taking to reduce gaps in rehabilitation and long-term care provision for people living with acquired brain injury.

The Government wants a society where every person, including those with a long-term condition such as an acquired brain injury (ABI), receives high-quality, compassionate continuity of care, with their families and carers also supported.We will change the National Health Service so that it becomes not just a sickness service, but one able to prevent ill health in the first place. This will help us be better prepared for the change in the nature of disease and allow our services to focus more on the management of chronic, long-term conditions, like ABIs, including rehabilitation where appropriate. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently developing the guidance Rehabilitation for chronic neurological disorders including acquired brain injury, which is expected to be published in September 2025. Further information is available at the following link: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ng10181 The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention met the original proponent of the ABI strategy, Sir Chris Bryant MP, in November to discuss ABIs, and had a very fruitful discussion about what might be achievable in both the short and long term. Sir Chris Bryant MP remains an advocate for those who have suffered an ABI and the Department agrees with him that we should, and importantly will, do more, including showcasing those areas that have effectively integrated post-hospital care and support, including rehabilitation, to other areas where patients are not getting the care and support they deserve.We have announced that we are setting up a new United Kingdom-wide neuro forum, facilitating formal, biannual meetings across the Department, NHS England, the devolved administrations and health services, and the Neurological Alliances of all four UK nations. The new forum will bring key stakeholders together to share learning across the UK, discuss the transformation of important neurology services, workforce challenges, best practice examples, and potential solutions that will add to both the existing programmes of work and wider health plans. A decision on the next steps for ABIs at the national level will be taken in due course.Meanwhile, we have committed to develop a 10-year plan to deliver an NHS fit for the future. We will be carefully considering input from the public, patients, health staff, and our stakeholders as we develop the plan over the coming months. The engagement process has launched, and I would encourage my fellow parliamentarians and stakeholders to engage with that process to allow us to fully understand what is not working as well as it should and what the potential solutions are, including on ABIs. This is available at the following link: https://change.nhs.uk/en-GB/

If his Department will take steps to improve data collection on suicide rates of (a) asylum seekers and (b) refugees.

The cross-Government suicide prevention strategy for England sets the direction for departments and a wide range of other organisations, and makes clear that nobody should be left out of suicide prevention efforts. This includes being responsive to the needs of marginalised communities and addressing inequalities in access to effective interventions to prevent suicides, including for vulnerable groups like refugees and asylum seekers. The ambitions in the strategy include more comprehensive research on, and better understanding of, national trends and suicide rates in particular groups of people, with a focus on at-risk groups that include refugees and asylum seekers. Official statistics on deaths by suicide for England are collected and published by the Office for National Statistics, and not by the Department. The official statistics are based on information recorded when deaths occur, are certified, and then registered. For deaths by suicide, registration can occur up to two years after the date of death, and on occasion longer. There is no information recorded as part of the death registration process to inform if a person was a refugee or an asylum seeker. Improved data collection is part of ongoing wider action. This includes the development of the near to Real Time Suspected Suicide Surveillance (nRTSSS) system. Drawing upon data collected by the local police force attending deaths considered a ‘suspected suicide’, the nRTSSS provides an early warning system for potential changes in trends in suicides. There are current efforts to investigate the potential for this system to include intelligence relating to refugee and asylum seekers.

Whether his Department has conducted an equalities impact assessment on the NICE severity modifier for secondary breast cancer.

The Department has no plans to conduct an equalities impact assessment on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) severity modifier, or to undertake a review of its adequacy in the context of secondary breast cancer.The NICE is responsible for developing the methods and processes it uses in its evaluations independently and in consultation with stakeholders. The severity modifier that the NICE introduced in 2022 is based on evidence of societal preferences and was introduced as part of a comprehensive review of the NICE’s methods and processes, following extensive public and stakeholder engagement. The NICE considered equality issues in an equality impact document that accompanied the introduction of its new methods and processes, including the severity modifier.The NICE recently concluded a review of the severity modifier and found that it is operating as intended. Since its introduction, the severity modifier has resulted in a higher approval rate for cancer medicines than under the NICE’s previous methods, and has also allowed greater weight to be applied to non-cancer medicines that address a broader range of severe diseases, enabling the NICE to recommend medicines for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and hepatitis D. The NICE is keeping the impact of the severity modifier under review and is scoping further research into society’s preferences on how much additional weighting to give to health benefits for people with severe diseases.

If he will undertake a review of the adequacy of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence severity modifier in the context of secondary breast cancer.

The Department has no plans to conduct an equalities impact assessment on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) severity modifier, or to undertake a review of its adequacy in the context of secondary breast cancer.The NICE is responsible for developing the methods and processes it uses in its evaluations independently and in consultation with stakeholders. The severity modifier that the NICE introduced in 2022 is based on evidence of societal preferences and was introduced as part of a comprehensive review of the NICE’s methods and processes, following extensive public and stakeholder engagement. The NICE considered equality issues in an equality impact document that accompanied the introduction of its new methods and processes, including the severity modifier.The NICE recently concluded a review of the severity modifier and found that it is operating as intended. Since its introduction, the severity modifier has resulted in a higher approval rate for cancer medicines than under the NICE’s previous methods, and has also allowed greater weight to be applied to non-cancer medicines that address a broader range of severe diseases, enabling the NICE to recommend medicines for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and hepatitis D. The NICE is keeping the impact of the severity modifier under review and is scoping further research into society’s preferences on how much additional weighting to give to health benefits for people with severe diseases.