DOCSLIB.ORG

Public–Private Partnerships for Hospitals Martin Mckee,A Nigel Edwards,B & Rifat Atun C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public–Private Partnerships for Hospitals Martin Mckee,A Nigel Edwards,B & Rifat Atun C Public–private partnerships for hospitals Martin McKee,a Nigel Edwards,b & Rifat Atun c Abstract While some forms of public–private partnerships are a feature of hospital construction and operation in all countries with mixed economies, there is increasing interest in a model in which a public authority contracts with a private company to design, build and operate an entire hospital. Drawing on the experience of countries such as Australia, Spain, and the United Kingdom, this paper reviews the experience with variants of this model. Although experience is still very limited and rigorous evaluations lacking, four issues have emerged: cost, quality, flexibility and complexity. New facilities have, in general, been more expensive than they would have been if procured using traditional methods. Compared with the traditional system, new facilities are more likely to be built on time and within budget, but this seems often to be at the expense of compromises on quality. The need to minimize the risk to the parties means that it is very difficult to “future-proof” facilities in a rapidly changing world. Finally, such projects are extremely, and in some cases prohibitively, complex. While it is premature to say whether the problems experienced relate to the underlying model or to their implementation, it does seem that a public–private partnership further complicates the already difficult task of building and operating a hospital. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2006;84:890-896. ميكن اﻻطﻻع عىل امللخص بالعربية يف صفحة Voir page 894 le résumé en français. En la página 895 figura un resumen en español. .895 Background construction of a health facility and the and Ouchi,8 with Preker et al.9 applying ongoing provision of its nonfclinical it to health care. Arguing that the public The delivery of health care in almost (and in some cases clinical) services sector is intrinsically less efficient and fre every country involves some form of within a public system of provision. sponsive than the private sector, Preker et public–private partnership. In countries Private provision of essential public al. propose a matrix with one axis defined where care is delivered mainly through services has a long tradition, especially by the degree of contestability involved the public system, many inputs, such as in major infrastructure projects in the in providing a service (i.e. ease of market pharmaceuticals and support services, transport sector and in the provision entry), while the other is defined by the ease are sourced from the private sector. In of utilities. The private sector played a with which the outcomes of the service can countries with predominantly privately crucial role in developing these services be measured. owned facilities, the state influences in the 19th century but, in the postfwar Where there is low contestability their configuration through regulations period, many were taken into public and problems of measurement then a and financial incentives. In hospitals, the ownership because of market failure.2 service should be provided within a situation is further complicated because Privatization of public services bef managerial hierarchy; conversely where of the many functions provided by such came more widespread in the 1980s with measurement is straightforward and institutions: the training of health proff the emergence of a neoliberal consensus provision is highly contestable it should fessionals and research and development, that sought to reduce the role of the be purchased from the private sector. for example, are activities that are pubf state.3 In the health sector, however, Supporters of this approach have striven 1 licly funded to varying degrees. comprehensive privatization was ref to reduce barriers to market entry and to However, even the concept of a jected because of the existence of market enhance the ability to measure quality. public–private dichotomy is problemf failure.4 Instead, various quasifmarket Yet the basic premise is not borne out atic. States often limit the scope of prif solutions were developed, typically the by the evidence.10 Australian research vate contractors to decide where to place separation of purchasers and providers showed that, after adjusting for case mix, facilities. Furthermore, there is a differf within the public sector.5 The logical public hospitals are more efficient than ence between forfprofit corporations next step was to move the delivery of those that are privately operated,11 posf that operate hospitals as one business health care out of the public sector. This sibly due to the more intensive managef among many and notfforfprofit organif was seen as a means to increase value for ment of patients in private hospitals.12 zations (including religious foundations) money, innovation, and responsiveness A systematic review identified 149 that exist solely to provide health care. to users.6 comparisons of forfprofit and notfforf This paper will examine one particular The conceptual underpinning of this profit health facilities (of various types) type of public–private partnership — the approach was developed by Williamson7 undertaken over the past two decades in a European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, England. Correspondence to this author ([email protected]). b Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England. c Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, England. Ref. No. 06-030015 (Submitted: 3 March 2006 – Final revised version received: 8 June 2006 – Accepted: 5 July 2006) 890 Bulletin of the World Health Organization | November 2006, 84 (11) Special Theme – Contracting and Health Services Martin McKee et al. Privately financed hospitals the USA. Of these studies, 88 concluded Franchising is an alternative model, of high cost legal, financial and other that nonfprofit facilities performed betf where a private company takes over technical advice — the process remains ter with respect to cost, outcomes of management of an existing public daunting for parties on both sides of the care, access and social mission, 43 studies hospital. This approach has been tried transaction. found no difference, and 18 reported in Sweden17 (including the sale of a In theory, the British PFI model forfprofit facilities to be better.13 public hospital to a private company) should contain the cost to the health and in Italy. A unique model has been authority by transferring risk to the Public–private partnerships developed in the Alzira Hospital, in contractors. But in practice, the corf Valencia, Spain, which is managed by a porate bonds used to finance PFI deals to build and run hospitals private consortium that accepts responf are typically awarded BBB+ status by The model in which a public authority sibility for the health care for a defined financial rating agencies, just above contracts with a private company to population in return for an annual per junk bond status, while government build or run a hospital is, inevitably, capita payment. bonds are considered less risky, and for seen mainly in countries with national There is still relatively little expef many European governments attract health services. Various models have rience with these models of hospital AAA ratings.19 The consequence of this been developed (Table 1). Australia has provision, and governments have yet to low rating is that the cost of borrowing the most diverse range of models, with undertake rigorous evaluations. Thus money is higher than it would be for differing versions in several states.14 The the merits of these models compared governments. A particular problem arises Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the with the traditional model of provision with the way that the risks of construcf United Kingdom is a design, build, remain highly contentious but it is tion are bundled with those associated finance and operate (DBFO) model. It already possible to identify several key with the operation of services. Whereas has been the primary means of financing issues that have emerged. These are cost, construction risks may be high and quite major capital investments in the health, quality, flexibility and complexity. real, the operation of services carries a education and prison sectors during the much lower risk, not least because hosf past two decades. While this arrangef Key issues pitals are financially backed by governf ment provided a source of much needed ment — i.e. the government is a single new finance, a great deal of this funding Cost payer, meaning that income streams to was “offfbalancefsheet” financing and There are significant costs not only for hospitals are less at risk than in markets did not appear in the government books the firms bidding for a public–private with multiple payers. However, some as new borrowing. This arrangement enf partnership, but also for the healthfcare contend that several of the risks factored abled the government to remain within provider. Prospective bidders incur large into PFI business cases are unlikely or targets set for public sector borrowing. costs in developing their tenders, and notional and appear to be an accountf Moves by the British Office for National losing contenders must find a way of ing device designed to favour private Statistics to redefine such expenditure are recouping their expenditure from subf procurement in cost comparisons with likely, at a stroke, to remove one of the sequent contracts. A sequence of losf its public alternative.20 The reason for main reasons justification for pursuing ing bids by a leading British company this may have been a very strong signal the DBFO model.15 involved in PFI deals led to fears of from government that schemes relying In the British model, a company — insolvency.18 Although the PFI prof on public funding rather than PFI were usually in the construction sector — will cess has been simplified by the use of very unlikely to succeed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The New Health and Social Care Economy Sefton MBC, Liverpool and Greater Manchester City Regions and North West Regional Economy
    The New Health and Social Care Economy Sefton MBC, Liverpool and Greater Manchester City Regions and North West regional economy Dexter Whitfield New Directions Head Office 3rd Floor, The Investment Centre 375 Stanley Road Bootle L20 3EF Tel: 0151 934 3726 www.ndirections.co.uk A care provider owned by Sefton Council July 2015 (Continuing the work of the Centre for Public Services) Dexter Whitfield, Director Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Workplace Innovation and Social Research Centre, University of Adelaide Web: www.european-services-strategy.org.uk The European Services Strategy Unit is committed to social justice, through the provision of good quality public services by democratically accountable public bodies, implementing best practice management, employment, equal opportunity and sustainable development policies. The Unit continues the work of the Centre for Public Services, which began in 1973. Research has included health and social care economy studies for the North West and East of England regions; two social and economic audits of health care in North Ireland; critical analysis of the case against the sale of residential care homes and/or outsourcing adult social care in over 15 local authorities, many in the North West; a successful alternative to the outsourcing and offshoring of prescription processing by NHS Business Services; the case for a Public Duty for Age Equality; the gender impact of outsourcing; and a analysis of the original Cashing in on Care proposals in 1984. THE NEW HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ECONOMY
    [Show full text]
  • PFI and the National Health Service in England
    1 PFI and the National Health Service in England Allyson M Pollock, Professor David Price, Senior Research Fellow Queen Mary, University of London June 2013 Key points By April 2011, across the public sector, more than 700 PFI contracts had been signed in the United Kingdom with an estimated capital value of almost £50 billion in England alone and annual repayments estimated at £8 billion for 30 to 60 years. PFI has been the dominant form of procurement for large national health service (NHS) projects. More than 90% of the £11.6 billion of capital expenditure contracted to take place under England’s hospital-building programme has come through PFI. By April 2009, 101 of the 133 new hospitals built between 1997 and 2008, or under construction, were privately financed. PFI costs drive service closures, bed and staff reductions due to the high cost of debt servicing and enormous transfers of resources from patient care to bankers, shareholders and financiers. PFI lacks accountability as the contracts are secret and hidden from public view. PFI involves a long term, 30 to 60 year, contract between the public and the private sector. Sovereign debt is always cheaper that finance borrowed privately for individual investments (‘project finance’). Successive governments have argued that the higher cost of private finance reflects risk transfer to the private sector, which generates savings that outweigh the extra cost. However, risk can be transferred to the private sector by using fixed price contracts and public borrowing instead of private finance. Although governments justify PFI on cost efficiency grounds, they are usually thought to adopt the policy for fiscal not efficiency reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaoul, J., Stafford, A, Stapleton, P
    FIN(3)-PPP-014a Papers on PFI/PPP Papers SHAOUL J., STAFFORD A., STAPLETON P. “Private finance: public infrastructure without accountability? The case of privately financed roads in the UK Forthcoming in Journal Tidsskriftet Politik. ACERETE B., SHAOUL J., STAFFORD A. “Taking its toll: the cost of private roads in Spain” (2009, Public Money and Management) SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. “The cost of using private finance to build, finance and operate the first 12 NHS hospitals in England”, Public Money and management, 2008, forthcoming SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. (2007) “Evidence based policies and the meaning of success: the case of a road built under Design Build Finance and Operate”, Evidence and Policy, Vol 3, Issue 2, SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. “Private control over public policy: financial advisors and the private finance initiative”, Policy and Politics, July 2007. SHAOUL, J., STAFFORD, A, STAPLETON, P. (2006) “Highway Robbery? A financial evaluation of Design Build Finance and Operate in UK roads”, Transport Reviews, Vol 26, No 3, pp257-274 SHAOUL, J., “A Critical Financial Analysis of the Private Finance Initiative: Selecting a financing method or reallocating economic wealth?” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol 16, 2005, pp441-471. SHAOUL, J., “Financial analysis of the National Air Traffic Services Public Private Partnership”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 3, No 23, July 2003, pp185-194. EDWARDS, P., and SHAOUL, J., “Partnerships: For Better for Worse?” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16, No 3, 2003, pp397-421. EDWARDS, P., and SHAOUL, J., “Controlling the PFI Process: The Case of Pimlico School”, Policy and Politics, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wrong Medicine
    The wrong medicine A review of the impacts of NHS reforms in England New Economics Foundation (NEF) is an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being. We aim to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environmental and social issues. We work in partnership and put people and the planet first. Contents Summary 2 Introduction 4 The ground prepared: changes prior to 2012 7 Changes since 2010 13 Where is the evidence? 24 Lessons from UK experience 27 Costs of market reforms 41 Who will bear the brunt of the changes? 44 Conclusion 45 End notes 47 2 DiversityThe wrong and medicine Integration Summary The NHS is rated more highly than any other comparable healthcare system in the world. But it is often thought to be beset by crises and in danger of falling into decline. Market-based reforms have been presented as “solutions” to a continuing “problem” of an under-performing public institution. Does the evidence support these changes? Market-based reforms began in the 1980s, when support services were first contracted out, and continued in the 1990s, with the creation of an internal market for clinical services. In the 2000s, patients were allowed to choose where they received some treatments; prices were attached to units of completed healthcare; the first privately owned centres were established to take on NHS business; some hospitals became independent foundation trusts; and private companies built most new hospitals, recovering their investment by renting them back to the NHS for 30 years or more.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Labour Government and the Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service: a Case of Pragmatic Policy-Making?
    The British Labour Government and the Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service: A Case of Pragmatic Policy-Making? Dr Eric Shaw Department of Politics University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA Scotland, UK Email: [email protected] Abstract In Britain no issue is at present more controversial than the Labour Government 's advocacy of 'Public Private Partnerships' or the importation of private capital, managerial techniques and business practices into the public sector. The most important single policy measure here is the Private Finance Initiative, a scheme for the involvement of private sector capital and operating methods in the delivery of the public services. It has been described by the Blair Administration as ‘a cornerstone of the Government's modernisation programme for the public services’. The PFI has been presented as the main policy embodiment of 'New' Labour’s and explained as an example of ‘policy learning’. This paper provides a critical analysis of the operation of the PFI in the UK National Health Service, contends that the explanation of its adoption in terms of a shift from ideology to pragmatism is misleading and suggests an alternative approach. Introduction Countries throughout the western world find their welfare state under pressure and especially so in their healthcare systems. A combination of factors – the pressures of an aging population, the mounting costs of medical technology and drugs, rising expectations and, not least, intensifying budgetary constraints – are propelling governments of all stripes to re-evaluate the bases of their health-delivery systems. The most common response has taken the form of a move towards greater 1 reliance on the private sector and upon market incentives.
    [Show full text]
  • North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust Annual
    North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2018/19 1 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................ 4 1. PERFORMANCE REPORT ................................................................................ 7 1a Overview ............................................................................................................... 7 Our Year at a Glance .......................................................................................... 8 Our Values .......................................................................................................... 9 Our Priorities 2018/19 ....................................................................................... 10 Principal Activities of the Trust .......................................................................... 10 Our Key Issues and Risks ................................................................................. 12 1b Performance Analysis ......................................................................................... 12 Care Quality Commission (CQC) Registration and Inspections ........................ 20 Our Achievements 2018/19 .................................................................................. 29 2. Accountability Report ........................................................................................ 32 3a Corporate Governance Report ............................................................................ 32 Charitable
    [Show full text]
  • At the University of Edinburgh
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. A fair return for risk? An examination of structure, competition and profitability in the market for private finance in the National Health Service By Mark Hellowell This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Edinburgh Global Public Health Unit Social Policy School of Social and Political Science University of Edinburgh i Title: A fair return for risk? An examination of structure, competition and profitability in the market for private finance in the National Health Service. Abstract Since 1993, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been the dominant form of large-scale infrastructure procurement used by National Health Service (NHS) organisations in the United Kingdom. As of April 2011, 123 PFI projects for new hospital facilities had been agreed between NHS organisations and private sector consortia, representing privately financed investment of £15.9 billion (in 2010 prices), and a projected long-term cost to the NHS of £70.5 billion.
    [Show full text]