Selling bonds -- a cheaper alternative to P3s

As noted earlier, the British government is reviewing its use of public private partnerships (P3s, or, as the British call them, PFIs) for the development of public infrastructure like new hospital buildings. The government now says it's the ‘end of PFI as we know it’.

Unfortunately, they seem to be more interested in simply pulling pension plans and foreign money into the PFI vortex.

The PFI advisor to the British House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, Mark Hellowell waded in to this mess earlier this week. Instead of wrapping pension plans into PFIs, he points to a cheaper way to involve pension plans in infrastructure.

"The Treasury is currently pulling its hair out trying to find ways of bringing pension funds into infrastructure investment. But the cheapest way to do this is, of course, to sell bonds to them. They will currently buy them at a real interest rate of something like minus 3% – not bad for projects that will put people into work in the short-term and increase the economy’s productive potential in the medium and long term."

The cheaper way, it seems, is pretty much the traditional public sector model for public infrastructure. Not PFI.

Moreover, Hellowell notes government "officials want to find a way of transferring some risk back into the public sector to ‘credit enhance’ the deals, allowing associated bond issues to achieve the triple-A rating that institutional investors require."

"The challenge, which has eluded successive governments, is to do this while maintaining PFI’s ‘fiscal advantage’ – its ability to allow investment to occur without the related borrowing showing up on the headline measures of government deficit and debt. This, after all, is the reason successive governments have found the PFI so irresistible. While the balance sheet benefit of PFI must be retained, there is a political imperative for change – even if it’s only a change of acronym."

In other words, the government wants to transfer risk back to the public even while they keep the massive PFI debts off the public books.

There's a word for that isn't there?

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