Skip to main content

P3 hospitals forced to spend "EXTORTIONATE SUMS" on contractors -- Health Minister

Last night Andrew Lansley, the British health minister, condemned the high fees charged by private corporations to do basic repair work in public private partnership (P3) hospitals.   P3s allow private corporations to become involved in the financing and maintenance of hospitals.   Ontario has followed Britain into using P3s for hospital projects.

Lansley told the Telegraph: "[Hospitals are] being forced to spend extortionate sums on private contractors rather than spending that money on helping sick patients get better."

The Telegraph (a conservative newspaper) reports that a series of Freedom of Information requests has disclosed how hospitals that are locked into long term P3 deals are forced to pay “hyper-inflated” charges for basic services.  Figures uncovered by the Telegraph show the following examples of charges from private corporations that won P3 hospital contracts:
  • North Staffordshire hospital paid £242 to put on  a padlock
  • North Cumbria University Hospital paid £466 to replace a light fitting and £75 for an air freshener.
  • A hospital in Salisbury paid £15,000 to “install a laundry door following feasibility study”. 
  • £8,450 to install an “additional dishwasher” for a hospital in Hull, 
  • £962 to “supply and fix notice-board” at a hospital in Leeds, 
  • £26,614 for the “replacement of shower room doors” at the Sussex hospital,
  • The Coventry and Warwickshire University Hospital was charged £4,459 to “supply and install a new CCTV camera”, 
  • Ipswich Hospital was billed £120 to call out an engineer to reset an alarm.  The same trust in Ipswich also was charged four separate payments of £120 on false call-outs.

These costly P3 deals are causing significant problems for British public healthcare – 22 hospitals appealed to the Department of Health earlier this year for financial support because high P3 bills threatened their clinical and financial health.
No one from the PPP Forum, which represents construction companies, financial businesses and law firms that make money from 'PFI' (the British name for P3s), was available for comment to the Telegraph.
The Conservative Health minister Lansley blames the previous government for the mess: “Unless we take action, these post-dated cheques left to us by Labour could seriously impact on patients.  That is why this Government is working with trusts with PFI related financial problems. We will not make the sick pay for Labour's debt crisis.”
Last month, George Osborne, the Chancellor, published plans to overhaul PFI. But, despite all the complaints from the government about PFI, it is unlikely the Conservatives will make any fundamental changes. 
Labels:

Comments

  1. BruceDecember 23, 2011 at 2:56 PM

    While the fees are in & of themselves offensive, I'll bet my figgy pudding that the workers aren't being paid above the bare minimum (w/ no benefits, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  2. LeftwordsDecember 23, 2011 at 2:58 PM

    I think you are up one figgy pudding...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Huge cuts in public sector wages predicted

The Ontario Financial Accountability Office (FAO)   says  that, with inflation, real wages in the public sector will decline 11.3% over the three year period  2021/2 - 2023/4 .  This would radically deepen the trend towards lower wages during the last ten years.   The FAO reports that since 2011, the average annual salary for the Ontario public sector employees (defined here as employees of schools, colleges, provincial government, provincial agencies, and hospitals) has increased by $10,385   -- or 1.6 per cent on average annually.  This is the lowest increase of all the sectors and lower than inflation, which averaged 1.8 per cent per year. Over the ten years that would be about a 2% pay cut.   The FAO reports that wage settlements were the lowest in the provincial public sector over the last decade:   Hospital Wages Especially Challenged: The FAO predicts hospital wages will increase even less than in the public sector  -- just ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Too many public sector workers in Ontario?

Opponents of public services often try to portray the public sector as having grown disproportionately.  In fact, since 1976, the number of public sector employees has not quite kept pace with the population. In 1976, the number of public sector employees in Ontario  as reported by Statistics Canada averaged 830,800.  By 2012, the number had increased to 1,330,700 -- a 60.2% increase.  That sounds like significant growth -- true. But the population has increased  from 8,413,779 in 1976 to 13,505,900 in 2012, a 60.5% increase.   In other words, population growth has run slightly ahead of the growth in public sector employment.     In 1976, close to 10% of the population worked in the public sector.  It stayed pretty much this way until the Mike Harris government came to power when it dipped below 9%.  It returned close to the historical range in the last six years or so, declining in 2012 to below the 1976 averag...
16 comments
Read more

Are health care administrative expenses out of control in Ontario?

The Progressive Conservative government has justified its health restructuring plans with the claim that administrative expenses are much higher in Ontario than in Canada.  When introducing the reforms, health minister Christine Elliott  claimed , “Over the last five years, Ontario has spent 30% more than the Canadian average in administrative expenses on its health care system.”   Elliott did not indicate her source of information. Presumably, however, the Progressive Conservatives are referring to the CIHI simplified and user friendly “ Your Health System ” graphs. Those graphs show “administrative expenses” in Ontario at 5.8% in Ontario while it is 4.5% in Canada.   This CIHI measure is actually fairly narrowly defined. It is the percentage of “the legal entity’s” total expenses associated with the administrative, finance, human resources and communications functional centres. However “the legal entity” used for this estimate is [1] only...
Post a Comment
Read more