Request
1. Whether your strategic health authority (SHA) included selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres) as a treatment to be reimbursed by the interim Cancer Drugs Fund (October 2010 – April 2011)?
2. Whether your SHA includes selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres) as a treatment to be reimbursed by the Cancer Drugs Fund (from April 2011)?
3. How many applications for selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres)were (a) received, (b) approved and (c) denied under the interim cancer Drugs Fund in total by your SHA?
4. How many applications for selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres) have to date (a) been received, (b) been approved and (c) denied under the Cancer Drugs Fund in total by your SHA?
5. What was the average time it took your SHA to process applications for the interim Cancer Drugs Fund from point of receipt?
6. What was the average time it takes your SHA to process applications for the Cancer Drugs Fund from point of receipt?
7. The criteria to decide whether a product is included in the Cancer Drugs Fund?
Our Response
I refer to your letter to Kevin Orford requesting information in respect of the inclusion of radiopharmaceuticals in the Cancer Drug Fund.
I can confirm in accordance with S.1 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) that we do hold some of the information that you have requested.
I will address each of your points in turn:
1. Whether your strategic health authority (SHA) included selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres) as a treatment to be reimbursed by the interim Cancer Drugs Fund (October 2010 – April 2011)?
2. Whether your SHA includes selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres) as a treatment to be reimbursed by the Cancer Drugs Fund (from April 2011)?
3. How many applications for selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres)were (a) received, (b) approved and (c) denied under the interim cancer Drugs Fund in total by your SHA?
-
The CDF is administered by the East Midlands Specialised Commissioning Group and they will hold detailed information on the number and type of applications. The following link will enable you to contact the EMSCG separately for the information that you require: http://www.emscg.nhs.uk/.
-
The SHA is directly involved in reviewing unsuccessful applications to the fund at the request of the referring clinician. No requests for review have been received for Yttrium-90 microspheres. We can confirm that a small number of cases (less than 5) involving SIRT have been reviewed by the SHA’s clinical panel and were unsuccessful. We will not give further details for patient confidentiality reasons. We are therefore of the opinion that Section 40 (2) of the FOIA is engaged in this instance.
-
Section 40 (2) applies to third party personal data and is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA if disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles contained within Part 1 of Schedule One under Section 4 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Such information would not be released under the FOIA unless there is a strong public interest.
-
One of the main differences between the FOIA and the DPA is that any information released under the FOIA is released into the public domain, not just the individual requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even third party personal data, is exempt.
-
All persons whose personal data is processed by NHS East Midlands, regardless of whether they be staff or members of the public, have an intrinsic right to privacy and these rights are protected by virtue of the DPA. Release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
-
The Section 40 exemption is an absolute exemption (except in some limited circumstances). This therefore means that it is not necessary to carry out a public interest test.
-
It is our view that Section 40 (2) is engaged because the persons concerned are likely to be identified by the disclosure of the information as such small numbers are involved. Such a disclosure would be a breach of Principle One of the DPA. Members of staff and the general public can expect NHS East Midlands to secure their personal information and only process their personal information in line with the principles contained within the DPA.
4. How many applications for selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT, SIR-Spheres or Yttrium-90 microspheres) have to date (a) been received, (b) been approved and (c) denied under the Cancer Drugs Fund in total by your SHA?
5. What was the average time it took your SHA to process applications for the interim Cancer Drugs Fund from point of receipt?
6. What was the average time it takes your SHA to process applications for the Cancer Drugs Fund from point of receipt?
7. The criteria to decide whether a product is included in the Cancer Drugs Fund?
- Please see the response above.
I hope that this information is of use. If you are dissatisfied with the way in which we have dealt with your request you can ask us to review our decision by writing to:-
Mr Moosa Patel
Director of Corporate Affairs
NHS East Midlands
Octavia House
Interchange Business Park
Bostock's Lane
Sandiacre
Nottingham
NG10 5QG
If at the conclusion of any review you remain dissatisfied you may complain to the Information Commissioner who can be contacted at:-
The Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
