British Tories recognize P3 failure (but not the solution)

After repeated British reports revealing failure of public private partnerships (P3s) for public infrastructure projects, the British Chancellor has announced a fundamental review of the government's use of P3s (or, as the Brits call them, PFIs) .

A recent House of Commons Committee report put the cost of capital for a typical PFI project at 8%, which is double the government rate of around 4%. And for capital intensive projects like new hospital buildings, that adds up to a whole lot of extra cost for the public to swallow.

Chancellor George Osborne said “We have consistently voiced concerns about the misuse of PFI in the past and we have already taken steps to reduce costs and improve transparency...We want a new delivery model which draws on private sector innovation but at a lower cost to the taxpayer and with better value for public services.”

The Financial Times suggests that the government wants more "direct" private sector investment in public infrastructure, possibly through pension plans Instead of banks financing these projects for decades through a mixture of debt and equity, banks would finance projects only until building was complete.

This would reduce the period of time that the public is stuck covering the high cost of bank borrowing. Pension plans (or other "direct" investors) would then buy out the debt, once construction was complete, and hold on to it for good long time.

Of course, the public is still going to have to pay a profit to those "direct" investors for many years.

The financial crisis is driving up the costs of private sector P3 borrowing and even conservative governments are beginning to look for alternatives. But, even in the face of failure, they are unwilling to give it up completely.

Likely, government authorities in Canada are coming up with all sort of inventive plans to deal with the crisis of private finance of P3s too. They just aren't telling the public.

We'll see what the British Tories come up with....

Comments

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

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.

Paramedic Services in Canada: Structure, Privatization, Unionization and other issues

Governance and Funding : While police and fire services are usually municipal services, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are typically controlled by provincial governments. In Ontario, regional municipal governments have responsibility for delivering and funding EMS. But even in Ontario the province plays a key role, strictly regulating EMS, providing funding for 50% of the approved land ambulance costs, and paying 100% of the approved costs for air ambulance, dispatch, base hospitals, First Nation EMS, and for territories without municipal government. Delivery : Like police and fire services, EMS is predominantly a publicly provided service in Canada. But businesses have now made some significant in-roads into EMS, primarily Medavie, a private corporation based in the Maritimes that describes itself as not-for-profit. Medavie goes back over 70 years, with its roots in health insurance. It still operates Medavie Blue Cross with 1,900 employees. It now a

Defend Public Healthcare

Search This Blog