PFI Hospitals

Really, who would have thought it, something good coming out of the Private Finance Initiative for hospitals?

Hospitals built under Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) are so costly to run that they risk a permanent deficit, according to an economic analysis produced by the NHS in London and seen by The Times.

But they cannot be closed because the debts incurred would still have to be repaid, and a hospital that treats no patients generates no income.

The analysis, aimed at stemming a £65 million deficit in southeast London, concludes that savings can be made only by closures at older hospitals that have not yet been rebuilt under a PFI.

Two PFI hospitals in the area are technically bankrupt, with no realistic prospect of repaying their deficits — Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust, and Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich. But neither can be closed without making things worse, so cuts are more likely to fall on Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, which is also heavily indebted but which made a small surplus in 2006-07.

No, not that bit, that’s the evidence. This:

The paper, produced last month, says that there are already too many beds in southeast London and the excess will increase markedly over the next few years as lengths of stay shorten. This means that income will fall while costs at the PFI hospitals will not. The result will be a growing deficit unless something is done.

Yes, that. The PFI is, to my mind at least, grossly wasteful and the only reason it exists at all is to allow captial spending to be kept off Gordon Brown’s books so that he can meet his targets for the PSBR.

But look what one of the side effects is. By making clear what the actual costs are, in a stream of payments with a requirement for the hospitals to produce an accounting profit after said costs, it’s showing that we’ve actually built too many hospitals. If this was buried in the more normal public sector accounts we’d never have found this out.

I agree it’s an expensive and wasteful way to find this out but nice to find such a silver lining, eh?

Now, given the way in which this very limited fiscal transparency is showing up the gross waste of the system of public spending, which other areas shall we try to shine the same light on?

(Please note that if the hospitals had been built without the PFI, in terms of economic efficiency or wise use of the tax money, those hospitals would still need to pay back those capital costs. That under normal public finance rules we can’t actually see that they don’t is really rather the point.)

6 responses

  1. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    The impact of PFI funded healthcare projects on healthcare services is an aspect of Blair’s legacy we won’t be hearing so much about in the clamour of the triumphalism. A bit more context helps to illuminate:
    “The impact of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the National Health Service will be questioned today in a highly critical report from parliament’s spending watchdog.
    “The public accounts committee details how some of the top business names in the country, including an arm of Barclays bank, took money out of a hospital project and left it with huge debts.”
    http://society.guardian.co.uk/privatefinance/story/0,,1766212,00.html
    The NHS signed up to PFI (Private Finance Initiative) deals worth a total of £53 billions, of which only £8 billions relate to the construction of new hospital buildings. Ministers seem to be a bit coy about what the other £45 billions relate to but, broadly speaking, that seems to be for building design, management and cleaning services.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6089122.stm
    The impact of PFI on Scotland’s NHS:
    http://www.health.ed.ac.uk/CIPHP/Documents/CIPHP_2006_ImpactOfPFIOnScotlandsNHS_Hellowell_000.pdf
    You can bet too that we won’t be hearing much about Blair’s legacy and the UK lagging behind other western countries in cancer survival rates:
    “Cancer patients face ‘stark inequalities’ in access to treatment globally, with the UK lagging behind other western countries in its use of new drugs and survival rates, a report said today.
    “The study found that uptake of new cancer drugs is ‘low and slow’ in the UK, as well as in New Zealand, Poland, Czech Republic and South Africa. Austria, France, Switzerland and the US were leaders in using new cancer drugs. . .
    “Generally, the greatest differences in uptake were noted for the new colorectal and lung cancer drugs, which are among the world’s top cancer killers for both men and women. The US uptake of bevacizumab for colorectal cancer was 10 times the uptake of the European average, with the UK having a very low uptake.”
    http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2076707,00.html

  2. Having had several elderly relatives have the misfortune to have fallen into the clutches of the Queen Elizabeth Hosp, I am not sure if closing the place and having to keep paying for it anyway might not actually result in a net improvement in the quality of life of those dependant on the place.
    The QE appeared to have forgotten an elderly relative was in there for several days and she got infected with MRSA. Having seen the QE when it was a military place to say it appeared, based on my experiences to have gone down hill, is to compare Everest with an ocean trench.
    The Queen Mary, by comparison, came out rather well. Typical that they will probably be the ones to suffer cuts.

  3. Andrew Paterson Avatar
    Andrew Paterson

    One of Queen Mary’s biggest problems, other that its appalling financial management (to put that into context, Queen Mary’s has almost a big a deficit as the QE despite the fact it doesn’t have huge PFI costs to deal with), is its location. On the edges of Sidcup its simply too far away from what should be its main catchment area: Bexleyheath and Welling, which are densely populated.

  4. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [Please note that if the hospitals had been built without the PFI, in terms of economic efficiency or wise use of the tax money, those hospitals would still need to pay back those capital costs]
    Not quite so much. A big element of the PFI cost problem is that the hospital is the tenant of the PFI company and has some quite specific and onerous obligations under the lease. They could allow a building they don’t use to fall into disrepair (or sell it and transfer the upkeep costs to someone else) if they owned it, but they don’t, so they’re stuck with paying gold-plated maintenance.

  5. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    However murky the accounting, these PFIs are a gross waste of money (but then Nulab have to keep their donors happy). It is a simple fact that once you have struck a PFI deal, you can sell the benefit of a contract for £ millions to somebody else without having laid a single brick.
    If a contract has a large positive value to the supplier on day 1, it must have a large negative to the customer, i.e. the State, ie. .they are striking really bad deals.

  6. An economist of my acquaintance is fond of referring to Gordon Brown as “the world’s biggest user of Enron-style accounting”, pointing out that PFI is exactly the kind of hide-the-liabilities-in-special-purpose-vehicles shenanigans that Enron’s directors got up to.
    The difference being, of course, that the Enron directors got a number of years in jail for their fraud, and Gordon Brown got a number of years in Downing Street for his.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading