P3s don't provide value for money: British House of Commons Treasury Cttee

Public private partnership "funding for new infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, does not provide taxpayers with good value for money," according to the Treasury Select Committee of the British House of Commons.

The Committee found that the capital cost of even a low risk P3 project is over 8% – double the long-term cost of government borrowing.

Higher borrowing costs since the credit crisis mean that PFI (as the British call P3s) is now an ‘extremely inefficient’ method of financing projects, according to the Committee. Analysis commissioned by the Committee suggests that paying off a PFI debt of £1bn may cost taxpayers the same as paying off a direct government debt of £1.7bn.

The Committee also stated it has "not seen any convincing evidence that savings and efficiencies during the lifetime of PFI projects offset the significantly higher cost of finance."

The business publication Health Investor adds that PFI schemes perform poorly in some respects such as design innovation, and flexibility – something that is of particular concern when it comes to health care projects.

The committee concluded that the widespread use of the model over the last 15 years was because of "significant incentives... which are unrelated to value for money". These include the fact that PFI does not appear in government debt figures, and do not use up limited departmental capital funding, according to Health Investor.

The Conservative Party Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee states the PFI funding mechanism should be used "as sparingly as possible until the value for money and absolute cost problems associated with PFI have been addressed." "We can’t carry on as we are, expecting the next generation of taxpayers to pick up the tab," he added.

OCHU and CUPE have long claimed that the supposed benefits of P3 projects (like risk transfer) were overstated and did not make up for the extra costs associated with P3s.

The Treasury Select Committee also "raises concerns that the current Value for Money appraisal system is biased to favour PFIs," another point long raised by P3 critics in Canada.

The British public sector union UNISON is calling on the government to ditch P3s in its response to the Committee report. The Treasury Select Committee report is available here.

Comments

Ford government fails to respond to 72% increase in COVID inpatient days, deepening the capacity crisis

COVID infections continue to drive up hospital costs and inpatient hospitalizations in Ontario. For the most recent fiscal year (April 1, 2022- March 31, 2023) hospital stays related to COVID cost $1.221 billion, according to new CIHI data. This is about 4% of total hospital spending, creating a very significant new cost pressure beyond the usual pressures of population growth, aging, inflation, and rising utilization. Costs for COVID related hospitalizations increased 22.2% in Ontario in 2022/23 from the previous fiscal year, rising from $999 million to $1.221 billion. That rise is particularly notable as the OMICRON spike of late 2021 and early 2022 had passed by the the 2022/23 fiscal year. The $222 million increase in COVID hospitalization costs came in the same year as the Ford government cut special COVID funding and, in fact, cut total hospital funding by $156 million. In total, there were 60,653 COVID hospitalizations in Ontario in 2022/3, up from 47,543 in 2021/2.

More spending on new hospitals and new beds? Nope

Hospital funding: There is something off about the provincial government's Budget claims on hospital capital funding (funding to build and renovate hospital beds and facilities). For what it is worth (which is not that much, given the long time frame the government cites), the province claims it will increase hospital capital spending over the next 10 years from $11 billion to $20 billion – or on average to about $2 billion per year. But, this is just a notional increase from the previous announcement of future hospital capital spending. Moreover, even if we did take this as a serious promise and not just a wisp of smoke, the government's own reports shows they have actually funded hospital infrastructure about $3 billion a year over the 2011/12-2015/16 period. So this “increase” is really a decrease from past actual spending. Even last year's (2016-17) hospital capital funding increase was reported in this Budget at $2.3 billion - i.e. about 15% more th

The hospital crisis: No capacity, no plan, no end

While Canada has achieved universal public healthcare coverage, that does not mean conservative forces have given up trying to erode that coverage and expand corporate care where it does not currently exist. The battle has become particularly intense in Ontario under the Ford Progressive Conservative government, which is implementing serious cuts to the level of care and moving to bring in for-profit mini-hospitals. Inadequate Staﬃng. Less and less of hospital spending is on staff. Employee compensation as a share of hospital expenditures has consistently shrunk in Ontario. This is not some immutable law of hospital development. It is in stark contrast with the rest of Canada, where compensation has become a larger share and now accounts for 67.1%. Hospitals in provinces other than Ontario now have 18 percent more staﬀ per capita than hospitals in Ontario. Overall, if Ontario had the same staﬃng capacity as the other provinces and territories, there would be another 33,778 full t

Defend Public Healthcare

Search This Blog