GOS campaign gets the response it wants

The efforts to garner support from MPs to fight the proposed change to GOS in England gathered pace with campaigners delighted over the Government’s latest response.

This week one MP raised the controversial matter of the reorganisation of GOS during questions to the Government’s health team in the House of Commons, while another awaits a written response from the health secretary Patricia Hewitt after lodging his concerns.

Over 60 MPs have been personally contacted, the campaign organisers have claimed, with many expressing an interest to help the profession’s aim of preventing the national GOS budget being capped and devolved to PCTs.

David Amess, MP for Southend West, posed his questions in the House on Tuesday (October 25).

First he asked: ‘How much has the Government spent on General Ophthalmic Services in England in 2004; how much is estimated will be spent in 2005, and [does] this provide patients in England with good value for money?’

Public health minister Caroline Flint said that provisional data for 2004-05 on GOS in England was £340m, and for 2005-6 £354m, but added that the final spend would be dictated by demand.

Amess then asked if she would congratulate the optical sector on delivering both patient choice and high-quality care as part of its comprehensive provision of General Ophthalmic Services within the NHS, and if she will confirm that the forthcoming review of the GOS will do nothing to undermine this.

The minister succinctly replied: ‘Yes’. 

Afterwards John O’Maoileoin, Parliamentary adviser for the AOP, said he was encouraged that Amess had not only been able to raise his query during the limited time which is allowed to quiz the Government’s health team, but also received the reply to his second question. 

‘We wanted a positive response from the Government to this question about the forthcoming review,’ he said.

‘We wanted them to guarantee that any plans they have in the Health Improvement & Protection Bill which involve optometry won’t undermine the service.’

O’Maoileoin claimed that because Amess structured his question to ask the Government whether or not the service would be undermined ‘in any shape or form’, and received a  positive reply, the profession could approach Rosie Winterton, who is expected to be instrumental in the discussions about the reorganisation to GOS, and health secretary Patricia Hewitt to secure changes to the proposals.