Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews


Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



King's College London - Health: More than a medical matter






Better regulation for fertility treatment: a review of the options

09 July 2012

By Professor Alison Murdoch

Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Newcastle upon Tyne

Appeared in BioNews 664
Government intends to save money by improving the efficiency of regulatory bodies, of which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is one. Providers of fertility treatments also favour more efficient regulation as it would help them improve their own services.

This common purpose - the need for improved efficiency - is reflected in the consultation announced by the Government (reported in BioNews 663). The central question is how it should be achieved, the favoured option being the integration of HFEA functions into existing organisations.

Providers and purchasers of NHS care are the target audience of the consultation, and as the NHS looks to implement the NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) guideline more fully, regulatory cost is becoming a significant drain on resources. Thus the NHS is being asked to select the option that gives the best savings and it's that consideration that I address here.

The consultation gives three options that can be briefly summarised as:

(1) abolish the HFEA and absorb its functions into the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Care Quality Commission (CQC);

(2) as (1) but with some functions allocated to other organisations;

(3) retain the HFEA and require further efficiency savings.

The third option, I think, can be dismissed - the 'status quo' is not an optimistic long-term strategy. Actions already taken by the HFEA have made significant savings in infrastructure and administration (where office moves are concerned, for example). Further savings will need reform of the regulatory process but experience demonstrates that HFEA process changes have increased expenditure. Figures from the HFEA's reports show that between 2000 and 2009 expenditure increased from £1.7m to £7.1m while the number of clinics/treatments rose from 116/46,398 to 134/61,530 per annum. Thus, despite plans for efficiency savings, the regulatory cost per clinic rose from £14,796 to £53,843. Given this history, option (3) does not look promising.

Options (1) and (2) are similar and follow the same drive to streamline regulatory services and reduce duplication. With option (1), there is the risk that the current HFEA regulatory practices will continue under the direction of the CQC executive without significant change. Although there are senior staff savings to be made, it is unlikely that any further efficiency savings will result unless the regulatory process is also revised. The professional societies have argued strongly that process revision is both necessary and potentially cost-efficient.

Option (2) has the advantage that it is more likely to force change but risks fragmentation and continuing duplication so needs to be considered carefully. However, there are two functions that sit more comfortably elsewhere. Firstly, policy decisions should be made by an accountable body and it is logical that this should be a Department of Health-led function. Although high profile, policy issues arise infrequently and are probably better dealt with on an ad hoc basis by relevant bodies for each issue.

Secondly, donor-conceived adults wanting to trace their donor are in a similar situation to adopted adults tracing birth parents. The expertise and support needed is not found in the CQC. Devolution of these functions should improve practice. Cost savings are anticipated as, with minimal investment, the work could be absorbed into existing organisations.

HFEA data collection and storage has primarily related to clinic licensing. Thus it is probably best that this stays with the CQC. Current HFEA procedures for data collection have been criticised and much simpler methods are proposed by the professional societies. If adopted, these could replace the HFEA register without the loss of data, and would represent significant cost savings for both the clinics and the regulator.

There remains a concern that the CQC has little experience of laboratory accreditation. Nonetheless, the principles of regulation within a quality management system are generic and collaboration between the professional societies, the current HFEA expertise and the CQC should provide an appropriate structure against which a compliance assessment can be made that could improve efficiency.

The transfer of research regulation from the HFEA to the new HRA has been widely supported. Apart from the statutory requirement for licensing, all the HFEA regulatory oversight duplicates that of the National Research Ethics Service (NRES). Experience tells us that the NRES process is more efficient and ethically robust, particularly since it works within the context of other medical research.

Potential cost savings of the transfer to the HRA are unclear because not all research-related activity costs are identified in the HFEA accounts. Nonetheless, the HFEA has only 27 research licences compared with about 6,000 projects regulated by NRES so it is likely that the work could be absorbed with minimal additional resources.

Providers who anticipate that reforms will ease the regulator's requirement for compliance are misinformed. This reorganisation is an opportunity to improve efficiency. With appropriate support from the professionals, it could be more robust but justifiable and accountable.

Purchasers who are concerned that compliance against standards might fall with a revised regulatory process should be reassured. The most important issues relating to the creation and use of embryos remain subject to primary legislation. There is a significant opportunity to cut costs but this will require radical change.

 

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

28 January 2013 - by Baroness Ruth Deech 
In January the Department of Health published its response to the consultation on proposals to transfer the functions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority to the Care Quality Commission and the new Health Research Authority... [Read More]
23 July 2012 - by Walter Merricks 
To many people concerned with donor conception - patients, parents, donors and donor-conceived people - the Government plans to abolish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) sound extremely worrying... [Read More]
16 July 2012 - by Rachel Cutting 
At the Association of Clinical Embryologists - the professional body representing clinical embryologists in the UK and abroad – we have grave concerns about dissolving the HFEA... [Read More]

02 July 2012 - by Ayesha Ahmad 
The UK Government has launched a consultation on the future of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and Human Tissue Authority (HTA) amid proposals to transfer the regulators' functions elsewhere.... [Read More]
02 July 2012 - by Earl Howe 
Standards should never come into question, but it's clear to this Government that NHS administrative costs can be streamlined. That is why I set out proposals to change responsibility for regulating fertility treatment and human tissue last week... [Read More]
02 April 2012 - by Tamara Hirsch 
A recent report claims England's regulator of health and social care, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), is not at present ready to take on the functions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)... [Read More]
16 January 2012 - by Dr Allan Pacey 
Crystal ball gazing has never been my strong suit but I found myself rising to the challenge now that I have taken over the mantle of Chairman of the British Fertility Society. What is clear is that 2012 should turn out to be an interesting year... [Read More]

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to Login or Register to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

 


 

- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
RISK ASSESSMENT:
BREAST CANCER, PREDICTION AND SCREENING
FREE public event in central London, 6.30pm on Thursday 8 May 2014 - find out more HERE

ANNIVERSARY APPEAL
Please donate HERE, so that the Progress Educational Trust can continue throughout 2014 (and beyond) while keeping BioNews FREE for you to read

The Progress Educational Trust was shortlisted for the Charity Times Awards 2011

Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE, and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation