ESTATES & FACILITIES
Post election, healthcare provision will need a faceLIFT
Political statements about protecting healthcare aside, NHS staff are faced with a massive challenge in the immediate future if they are to meet demands from all political parties to improve services and reduce spending – all the while also meeting needs of the public who, while regaled with news of the state of public finances, will continue to expect excellence of clinical care and its facilities, says Chris Whitehouse
N
Chris Whitehouse is chairman of The LIFT Council, the representative trade body for private sector partners in LIFT schemes
HS chief executive Sir David Nicholson has forecast that NHS trusts will
have to deliver £15-20 billion in efficiency savings over three years from 2011 to 2014.
At the same time, the NHS continues to face other major challenges including rising patient expectations, an ageing population and often expensive advances in treatment.
This makes value for money, efficiency, productivity, excellence and performance the watchwords within the NHS for the foreseeable future.
Healthcare and associated social care provision must therefore meet the challenge of the existing and growing needs of the population, but doing so in a leaner and more efficient manner.
How this will be achieved over the longer term is yet to be determined, but a greater
NHS Oldham Integrated Care Centre
emphasis on the role of primary healthcare and care in the community is inevitable given its potential for achieving the demanded savings and efficiency.
This, however, leaves primary care trusts in something of a quandary, having to reconcile the need for savings with meeting both existing and new commitments – not least of which is the maintenance and updating of many facilities and GP surgeries that are currently out of date, poorly located, or unable deliver enhanced services in existing settings.
The only practical solution is consolidation and the housing of many of these NHS and local authority services under the one roof that best meets the needs of local communities whilst also delivering real financial savings and estate management efficiencies.
In areas where such facilities do not currently exist, trying to provide them from the public purse flies in the face of economic reality and scarce public finances, making the only solution the continued capital investment from the private sector.
This should come as no surprise. Private sector investment has been at the heart of healthcare construction over the past decade and this access to private capital has allowed public funds to support the delivery of NHS
74 nhe
services in a way not otherwise possible.
However, access to private capital is only half the battle. The other half is its effective use – and thus future development must result in facilities that will both be fit for purpose for many decades but that can also adapt to the changing needs of local communities.
This means that parts of the health service unfamiliar with developing facilities through private capital must learn from successful initiatives, of which the principal example is LIFT - Local Improvement Financial Trusts
Since its inception in 2000, LIFT has contributed more than £1.8 billion in private sector investment with more than 260 facilities either completed or under construction and a further £1 billion earmarked for future developments.
Where LIFT differs from the other private finance models of PFI and PFP is in the nature of the partnership between public and private sectors and it is in this respect that the health service can learn valuable lessons in the application of capital for the delivery of solutions to meet the needs of local populations.
Under the LIFT initiative, healthcare facilities are developed by a LIFT company (LIFTCo) comprising a private
Jul/Aug 10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100