New figures reveal weight of PFI burden on NHS trusts
David Kingman explores some new figures which demonstrate the unsustainable burden private finance initiative (PFI) contracts are placing on a large number of NHS trusts
The controversy over PFI deals in the NHS shows no sign of dying down, according to recently released figures. These show that the total bill for PFI repayments has increased by nearly £200 million in just two years, from £459 million in 2009/10 to £628.7 million in 2011/12 (these amounts only apply to NHS trusts in England).
The figures, which were released as part of a new report by the healthcare think tank the Nuffield Trust, showed that PFI repayments have risen by an average of 18% a year over the last two years.
What’s gone wrong with PFI?
For the uninitiated, a useful guide to PFI schemes and the problems which are associated with them is available here:
To summarize, PFI deals have become problematic for three major reasons: they usually have very high interest rates, they impose much higher debts upon the taxpayer than the actual value of the infrastructure they originally helped to build (in 2011 the taxpayer owed £121.4 billion to pay for infrastructure which was only valued at £52.9 billion) and they often include expensive maintenance and service contracts which charge the public purse vastly inflated fees for performing simple tasks (one PFI hospital was apparently charged £333 to have a new light bulb installed under the terms of their maintenance contract, for example).
As PFI repayments come out of hospital budgets, they also divert money away from other services which the hospital could be providing, and can lead to redundancies, ward closures and the loss of departments if resources are spread too thinly. This is especially difficult in an era when most NHS trusts are facing squeezed budgets anyway, because of rising demand for services.
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
And as ever Mark, you are rude - at least some things never change ;^ )
If Danny Boyle had known what we know today, he'd have used coffins, hearses and undertakers in place of children, beds and nurses in the London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony.
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
the BBC were running 13,300 number this morning, why wouldn't people quote it ?
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
Time to lighten the mood with intellectual powerhouse/TV obsessive Philomena Cunk. ;^ )
If Danny Boyle had known what we know today, he'd have used coffins, hearses and undertakers in place of children, beds and nurses in the London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony.
New figures reveal weight of PFI burden on NHS trusts
David Kingman explores some new figures which demonstrate the unsustainable burden private finance initiative (PFI) contracts are placing on a large number of NHS trusts
The controversy over PFI deals in the NHS shows no sign of dying down, according to recently released figures. These show that the total bill for PFI repayments has increased by nearly £200 million in just two years, from £459 million in 2009/10 to £628.7 million in 2011/12 (these amounts only apply to NHS trusts in England).
The figures, which were released as part of a new report by the healthcare think tank the Nuffield Trust, showed that PFI repayments have risen by an average of 18% a year over the last two years.
What’s gone wrong with PFI?
For the uninitiated, a useful guide to PFI schemes and the problems which are associated with them is available here:
To summarize, PFI deals have become problematic for three major reasons: they usually have very high interest rates, they impose much higher debts upon the taxpayer than the actual value of the infrastructure they originally helped to build (in 2011 the taxpayer owed £121.4 billion to pay for infrastructure which was only valued at £52.9 billion) and they often include expensive maintenance and service contracts which charge the public purse vastly inflated fees for performing simple tasks (one PFI hospital was apparently charged £333 to have a new light bulb installed under the terms of their maintenance contract, for example).
As PFI repayments come out of hospital budgets, they also divert money away from other services which the hospital could be providing, and can lead to redundancies, ward closures and the loss of departments if resources are spread too thinly. This is especially difficult in an era when most NHS trusts are facing squeezed budgets anyway, because of rising demand for services.
Rumours circulating that Labour endorsed PFI initiatives were funded by Wonga.com have as yet not been denied by Andy Burnham who presently is unavailable for comment down a mine shaft near Falkirk.
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
And as ever Mark, you are rude - at least some things never change ;^ )
And you have been posting fictitious nonsense , some things never change .
A simple question, why cant labour or the left leaning posters on here simply admit that although more money was spent on the NHS during 1997-2010 patient outcomes were sometimes appalling, some hospitals were run for the staff and not the patients and some patients died unnecessarily Why is that so hard to admit, why all this dont blame us we are fantastic we love the NHS, its all the tories fault, nothing to do with us and how dare the nasty tories say that we were in government while some of these failings happened. Its just nonsense. How does this attitude help patients in the future.
To be fair most of the day was wasted trying to teach the lower leaguers about basic statistics, and it wasn't just the left it was Charles and Neil and LIAMT.
Nobody believes systems are perfect, but
Jamie Reed @jreedmp 1h In the Prof Keogh briefing: mortality rates in the 14 fallen between 30 -50% since 2005. Some media sold a complete pup.
Seen this too often, tim. You are wrong about something, you go quiet for an hour, you come back and claim to have been "educating the PB tories". You are crap at statistics: you don't realise why "that's an anecdote" doesn't automatically invalidate a piece of evidence, you don't even recognise an anecdote for what it is (see your recent post on packed lunches which began "I 'eard about this bloke, see, wot put this [?], see, in 'is kid's lunch box). As for Charles' contribution, it assumed that neither Plato nor Prof. Jarman would realise that specialist units can imply non-culpable higher death rates. I thought you had a problem with Old Etonians patronising women?
Yes, we must let all the Tory whoppers stand just in case someone gets offended.
Yes, just like the 'possibly one' death at Stafford that you used to peddle. Just as insidious and nasty as the other claims.
Once again, this is not my claim.
This is a comment on Stafford Hospitals HSMR after the data was corrected (and audited).
I'm sorry it undermines a key plank of your deep loathing of the NHS, but there you are.
You repeatedly claimed it, and it is wrong. It's a shame you don't have the intelligence and/or honesty to see the flaws in the 'evidence' of that claim as presented in that blog.
As for my 'deep loathing' of the NHS: I would be interested to see any time I have shown a deep loathing for it. But neither do I worship it. When it makes mistakes I criticise. When it does well I congratulate it (as I have several times on here in the past).
The people who do patients the most harm are those who think the NHS should not be criticised.
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
And as ever Mark, you are rude - at least some things never change ;^ )
And you have been posting fictitious nonsense , some things never change .
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
And as ever Mark, you are rude - at least some things never change ;^ )
And you have been posting fictitious nonsense , some things never change .
What a pity and predictably so that Labourites and those who will bear no criticism of the NHS are nit-picking over whether 13300 are really dead, really people et al.
The whole point is that appalling care was endured by tens of thousands of patients and that 14 hospitals were so poor that their death rates were well beyond the expected levels for their demographics.
That no responsibility is being accepted, no contrition shown is just immensely depressing. And frankly feeling sorry for Andy Burnham is bottom of my sympathy list.
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
Well at least it has been established that the 13,000 deaths that you have been shrieking about all day long is fictitious nonsense . Talk about epic hyperbole from pbtories .
And as ever Mark, you are rude - at least some things never change ;^ )
And you have been posting fictitious nonsense , some things never change .
Fools parrot fictitious numbers as fact . More intelligent people question them and try to establish if they are true .
So you don't know; neither do I. But faced with this morning's choice of Labour's zero and HMGs 13,000 I know which looked more likely - some not none.
If Labour haven't got their act together on the matter because of their own internal politics too bad, they've had the shoe on the other foot often enough and not corrected it.
As for the media, 13,000 was being reported for the most of the morning and still is on many leading websites. For better or worse that's the number that will stick.
" As the Commons angrily contested the findings of the Keogh report on NHS mortality rates, Andy Burnham had some stern advice for the Tories. “The simple truth,” he snapped, “is that people watching want solutions, rather than point-scoring!”
Noble words, I’m sure we’d all agree – although perhaps with one small caveat. The Shadow Health Secretary’s words would have sounded even nobler had he said them the moment he rose to the dispatch box, rather than after spending seven minutes calling his opponents “cynical”, “outrageous”, “partisan” and “shocking”. Because spending seven minutes calling his opponents “cynical”, “outrageous”, “partisan” and “shocking” may have looked to some people like point-scoring.
Such people would have been mistaken, of course, because we know how strongly Mr Burnham disapproves of point-scoring. Indeed, he must have been livid, about 20 minutes later, when his colleague Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) mockingly accused Jeremy Hunt of being “run by” Lynton Crosby, the Tory strategist. How Mr Burnham must have fumed when he heard that. “That’s nothing but point-scoring!” he must have thought. Lord knows how he resisted shouting his colleague down.
Then, as other Labour MPs repeatedly tried to drown out Mr Hunt by yelling “Shameful!”, “Terrible!” and “Disgraceful!”, it must have taken all the strength Mr Burnham had not to turn to the benches behind him and bellow, “Would you all stop trying to score points, and offer some solutions! It’s solutions that people want! Why oh why won’t you think of the people watching!”
Andy Burnham @andyburnhammp 13m What rubbish > “@BBCNormanS: Hunt "I dont know how that number was put out there"- on weekend reports of 13,000 avoidable deaths re #keogh”
You seriously think Ed want's to mention the 13,000 number? If he goes down the road of conceding any excess deaths, its game over.
'While I am not responsible for what the Sunday Telegraph writes, I am glad the honourable gentleman recognises that standards of care in some areas of the NHS were inadequate under the previous government, that the current government are addressing this - and I'm sure he agrees that one excess death is one too many...'
FPT. Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance. Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Hey ho malcolmg.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
Very true Jack , but I really do not dabble in great depth and so would not like to just post a pointless view. I do expect the YES vote to cause a very strange vote, as well as panic in labour ranks.
The Honourable gentleman does himself a disservice is thinking he lacks depth. We may disagree on the type of depth but might I suggest he has enough wobble room to breach the surface and venture a provisional view on the Yes/No vote ratio ??
Jack, my thinking is it will be in the region of 54% Yes to 46% No. Still a very lot to play for and the negativity of the NO campaign is starting to cost them , people just think it is silly now. Couple that with labour in disarray and not wanting to be seen with Tories/No campaign etc and it could be an even bigger gap.
FPT. Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance. Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Hey ho malcolmg.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
Two respected posters offering different spellings of 'hey/heigh ho'!
Which is correct?
Jack wins unless you are wanting the Disney version
Two respected posters offering different spellings of 'hey/heigh ho'!
Which is correct?
Heigh-ho! sing, heigh-ho! unto the green holly Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly
As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII
Jack probably remembers an earlier spelling.
Thank you
jack's was indeed the original ..........
The saying first appeared in print in 1471, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which says it has nautical origins, meant to mark the rhythm of movement in heaving or hauling.
Eventually, it blended meanings with the similarly spelled "heigh-ho," which was first recorded in 1553 and is defined as an expression of "yawning, sighing, languor, weariness, disappointment." OED definition It began as a nautical term
Hey-ho is similar to phrases like "hey, hey" and "heave ho," says Jane Johnson, senior editor of etymology for the Oxford English Dictionary. And over time, it has become a "meaningless" refrain in various chants and songs.
It had fallen out of favour in the past few decades, but recently hey-ho references have begun to creep back into popular usage.
" As the Commons angrily contested the findings of the Keogh report on NHS mortality rates, Andy Burnham had some stern advice for the Tories. “The simple truth,” he snapped, “is that people watching want solutions, rather than point-scoring!”
Noble words, I’m sure we’d all agree – although perhaps with one small caveat. The Shadow Health Secretary’s words would have sounded even nobler had he said them the moment he rose to the dispatch box, rather than after spending seven minutes calling his opponents “cynical”, “outrageous”, “partisan” and “shocking”. Because spending seven minutes calling his opponents “cynical”, “outrageous”, “partisan” and “shocking” may have looked to some people like point-scoring.
Such people would have been mistaken, of course, because we know how strongly Mr Burnham disapproves of point-scoring. Indeed, he must have been livid, about 20 minutes later, when his colleague Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) mockingly accused Jeremy Hunt of being “run by” Lynton Crosby, the Tory strategist. How Mr Burnham must have fumed when he heard that. “That’s nothing but point-scoring!” he must have thought. Lord knows how he resisted shouting his colleague down.
Then, as other Labour MPs repeatedly tried to drown out Mr Hunt by yelling “Shameful!”, “Terrible!” and “Disgraceful!”, it must have taken all the strength Mr Burnham had not to turn to the benches behind him and bellow, “Would you all stop trying to score points, and offer some solutions! It’s solutions that people want! Why oh why won’t you think of the people watching!”
A very witty piece, Plato. Thanks for pointing it out.
'This is what they are scared of, the Keogh report links mortality to understaffing'
'The scandal at Stafford Hospital occurred after massive staff cutbacks, which meant that on one floor of the hospital, there were just two qualified nurses to care for patients at night.'
So Labour now taking full responsibility for the Stafford hospital deaths?
Comments
I'm sure all those unhappy with the care of their family members will be reassured totally.
10:11AM
Hidden in the Guardian's account of the ICM poll is a bit of important political gossip:
"A reshuffle in the ministerial ranks outside cabinet, which had been pencilled in for this week, now looks likely to take place in the autumn."'
@antifrank Saw this tweet a couple of days ago.
Fiona-Natasha Syms @fifisyms 14 Jul
have it on good authority from impeccable source NO reshuffle. Hope they're lying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXZpoeGqoe4
As for my 'deep loathing' of the NHS: I would be interested to see any time I have shown a deep loathing for it. But neither do I worship it. When it makes mistakes I criticise. When it does well I congratulate it (as I have several times on here in the past).
The people who do patients the most harm are those who think the NHS should not be criticised.
http://www.itn.co.uk/UK/80696/hospitals-set-for-criticism-over-needless-deaths
What's your number and it's source ?
The whole point is that appalling care was endured by tens of thousands of patients and that 14 hospitals were so poor that their death rates were well beyond the expected levels for their demographics.
That no responsibility is being accepted, no contrition shown is just immensely depressing. And frankly feeling sorry for Andy Burnham is bottom of my sympathy list.
If Labour haven't got their act together on the matter because of their own internal politics too bad, they've had the shoe on the other foot often enough and not corrected it.
As for the media, 13,000 was being reported for the most of the morning and still is on many leading websites. For better or worse that's the number that will stick.
" As the Commons angrily contested the findings of the Keogh report on NHS mortality rates, Andy Burnham had some stern advice for the Tories. “The simple truth,” he snapped, “is that people watching want solutions, rather than point-scoring!”
Noble words, I’m sure we’d all agree – although perhaps with one small caveat. The Shadow Health Secretary’s words would have sounded even nobler had he said them the moment he rose to the dispatch box, rather than after spending seven minutes calling his opponents “cynical”, “outrageous”, “partisan” and “shocking”. Because spending seven minutes calling his opponents “cynical”, “outrageous”, “partisan” and “shocking” may have looked to some people like point-scoring.
Such people would have been mistaken, of course, because we know how strongly Mr Burnham disapproves of point-scoring. Indeed, he must have been livid, about 20 minutes later, when his colleague Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) mockingly accused Jeremy Hunt of being “run by” Lynton Crosby, the Tory strategist. How Mr Burnham must have fumed when he heard that. “That’s nothing but point-scoring!” he must have thought. Lord knows how he resisted shouting his colleague down.
Then, as other Labour MPs repeatedly tried to drown out Mr Hunt by yelling “Shameful!”, “Terrible!” and “Disgraceful!”, it must have taken all the strength Mr Burnham had not to turn to the benches behind him and bellow, “Would you all stop trying to score points, and offer some solutions! It’s solutions that people want! Why oh why won’t you think of the people watching!”
'While I am not responsible for what the Sunday Telegraph writes, I am glad the honourable gentleman recognises that standards of care in some areas of the NHS were inadequate under the previous government, that the current government are addressing this - and I'm sure he agrees that one excess death is one too many...'
The saying first appeared in print in 1471, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which says it has nautical origins, meant to mark the rhythm of movement in heaving or hauling.
Eventually, it blended meanings with the similarly spelled "heigh-ho," which was first recorded in 1553 and is defined as an expression of "yawning, sighing, languor, weariness, disappointment."
OED definition
It began as a nautical term
Hey-ho is similar to phrases like "hey, hey" and "heave ho," says Jane Johnson, senior editor of etymology for the Oxford English Dictionary. And over time, it has become a "meaningless" refrain in various chants and songs.
It had fallen out of favour in the past few decades, but recently hey-ho references have begun to creep back into popular usage.