Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of proposals under consideration by Kent and Medway Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in respect of proposed policy changes to Assistive Reproductive Therapies (ART) and funding of assistive conception treatments. 

Discussion:

The Chief Operating Officer, NHS Medway Clinical Commissioning Group introduced the report, which set out the forthcoming review of policies relating to Assistive Reproductive Technologies (ART), by the Kent and Medway Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), in response to financial pressures faced by Kent and Medway CCGs. The review would also consider funding of assistive contraception treatments to ensure equality of access. The local and national context was explained and the consultation process, as set out in paragraph 6.3 to the report, was outlined.

It was suggested by the Chief Operating Officer, NHS Medway Clinical Commissioning Group that the proposals might include reducing the number of NHS funded IVF cycles from two to one in line with 63% of England’s CCGs which offered one or zero funded IVF cycles.

Members raised a number of questions and comments, which included:

·         The proposed policy revisions – In response to a request from some Members, the Chief Operating Officer, NHS Medway Clinical Commissioning Group clarified that the policy revisions, including those pertaining to the use of donated genetic materials would be proposed by the Health Policy Support Unit. The intention of the review would be to ensure the same access to IVF for all eligible patient groups.

·         Overview and Scrutiny – As requested by some Members, the Partnership Commissioning Programme Lead, Children and Families clarified that this report provided the Committee with notice that a review of policies relating to ART and funding of assistive contraception was due to commence and that a further report with the proposed policy revisions would be presented to the Committee in January for the Committee to determine whether the proposals constitute a substantial health service development or variation. If this Committee and Kent County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee were to determine the proposals amount to a substantial variation, a Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be convened. A Member added that the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be able to comment on the proposals and require the provision of information. A Member suggested that the report on ART should perhaps be considered by the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee as it did not relate to children’s health.

·         Consultation – Officers were encouraged by Members to work with Ward Councillors to generate a higher response rate. In response to a question concerning the risk of a poor consultation response, the Partnership Commissioning Programme Lead, Children and Families explained the consultation response might be low owing to few families accessing the service or not knowing at the point of consultation they would access the service in the future. In respect of what would be considered to be a low response, it was added that this would be guided by the North and East London (NEL) Commissioning Support Unit. However, to mitigate the risk, the consultation would be published on all CCG websites and social media feeds and public information meetings would be held in each of the CCG areas. 

·         Drivers for review - The Chief Operating Officer, NHS Medway Clinical Commissioning Group confirmed that the decision to review the above mentioned policies was financial and that the potential savings would be between £600,000 to £700,000. A Member expressed dissent with the proposal to reduce the funded cycles of IVF from two to one. The Chief Operating Officer, NHS Medway Clinical Commissioning Group agreed that the issue was sensitive, but recognised the current service provided was not in line with the national offer and merited review.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)    Noted the review of Assistive Reproductive Technologies (ART) policies, set out in the report, in light of the financial challenges faced by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs); and

b)    Noted the review process set out in section 6 of the report, in particular the public consultation element.