Select Committee on Health Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 7

Supplementary memorandum by North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (PS 45A)

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING MATERIAL

Question

  Was there an overall difference in the number of planned beds between the PFI and PSC?

Answer

  At the time of Full Business Case (FBC) the number of beds in each equation was 474. To achieve further integration and with new models of care, between FBC and commissioning bed numbers were reduced to 444. This reduction in bed numbers would have applied to either model of service provision.

Question

  Why is the bed space lower than was provided in the former hospital sites?

Answer

  Bed space is only lower within the "5 bedded" areas. The 5 bedded bays were always planned to accommodate this number of beds. At no stage were these areas expected to accommodate 4 beds.

  At financial close the contract was agreed on 1:200 scale floor plans and generic activity data base sheets. This agreement was signed off by clinical leaders, however, as was mentioned in the formal briefing sessions had more detailed design plans/"modelling mock ups" been made available the bed space may have been re-visited.

  As was mentioned in the briefing sessions, to manage patient care effectively and safely the Trust carried out a number of clinical simulations including resuscitation techniques. Consequently we were satisfied that there would be no compromise to patient safety in the 5 bedded areas.

Question

  How did the Trust evaluate the private sector scheme against the public sector option?

Answer

  The Trust rigidly followed the Treasury guidance regarding the economic appraisal of the scheme. In the spring of 1999 the Trust produced a document to explain and inform the public/interested parties about the process and amounts involved. A copy of this document is attached as Appendix 1.[2]

Question

  If the scheme had been publicly funded what would the cost of capital (capital charges) have been?

Answer

  Based on a publicly funded scheme of £83.7 million the capital charge would have been:

  6 per cent rate of return  £5,022,000

  Depreciation                      £3,069,000 (assumes 60 per cent cost = buildings, 40 per cent plant etc)

                                              £8,091,000.





2   Not printed. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 15 May 2002