Nowmedical, everyones favourite independant and utterly impartial providers of medical advice.
Everyone in this case means Local Authorities.
Not being a Local Authority I'm not a fan.
In Shala v Birmingham CC clause 19 Lord Justice Sedley wondered how many cases there had been where nowmedical (well specifically Dr Keen) had supported a decision of priority need.
Toying with this in a recent section 202 review where nowmedical had advised on Intentionality I requested, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the number of cases the LA had referred to nowmedical where the applicant's medical circumstances may have influenced a decision of Intentionally homeless and how many decisions in support of a finding of intentionality nowmedical had made. The LA hasn't yet carried out the review but they have placed pending which is always good.
I don't see why the same thing can't be done with priority need decisions and it would be interesting to note the results.
If anyone has any feedback on how else the Freedom of Information Act might be used to ascertain whether nowmedical is truely impartial or indeed whether you think such requests are worth while at all! please feel free to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment