HOSPITAL bosses must save another £13.9 million in the next 12 months - but chiefs said they would try to avoid job losses or service cuts.
The savings are needed as part of the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust's five-year-financial recovery plan, which began in 2006 after the Trust was heavily criticised for financial failings.
Over the last two years, redundancies across all hospital departments at both the Royal Blackburn and Burnley General were needed to balance the books
No detailed analysis is yet available to show exactly how the money will be saved, but planned budget cuts include:
Medical facilities - £4,100,000
Surgical facilities - £3,953,000
Women's and Children's services - £3,220,000
Estates and Facilities - £1,250,000
Council leaders hit out at the further cuts. Leader of Blackburn with Darwen Council Colin Rigby said: "It's a private-finance hospital and they are paying out more than £20 million a year just in paying back private firms at massive interest rates. Those charges are seriously affecting our service provision.
advertisement
"There would be enough money for the recovery plan and to keep the services as they are if they hadn't signed up to the PFI. It's simple economics."
Burnley Council leader Gordon Birtwistle said money should be no object in healthcare provision.
He said: "I don't agree with the recovery plan at all. They are imploding under the pressure as it is at Blackburn and more budget cuts will make that even worse.
"There are a lot of things the government could cut spending on - nuclear weapons, bringing the troops home from Iraq - but they shouldn't be making hospitals scrimp on money.
Acting chief executive of the hospitals trust Gary Graham said: "Every year, in line with every other Trust in the country, we set a target to deliver improved services whilst working ever more efficiently within the resources we are given through setting Cost Improvement Programmes.
"The programme allows us to compare ourselves with peers in other Trusts and helps us identify and focus on opportunities for improvement in our services.
"Inevitably, improving our services may have an impact on roles and jobs needing to change but, as always, if this were to be the case we would work in partnership with Trade Unions and our staff to ensure that our Cost Improvement Plan allows us to retain the skills and job flexibility needed for improved clinical care. This is a forward moving organisation, but rest assured that we are committed to trying to avoid situations that would result in the loss of services or experienced staff. "
Posted by: Political Observer, Pendle on 7:08am Sun 11 May 08
The comments from Councillors Rigby and Birtwistle indicate a severe case a 'failure to engage brain before opening mouth'.
Let's deal with the issue of PFI, of which incidently I'm no great fan.
PFI is a way of politicians having their cake and eating it. It is a mechanism by which new facilities can be provided, and politicians are able to claim the credit, while hiding the true nature of the nation's total indebtedness. It appeals to politicians because the benefits accrue now (new facilities) while most of the burden is transferred to the future.
Turning now to the idea that money should be no limit in matters of healthcare. I'm sorry but this is just absurd.
Of course at an individual level one feels this, and especially so if one is or has a close relative impacted by money rationing of healthcare (which has existed since the year dot) but there are other competing health related claims upon the public purse that are just as valid - care for the elderly, public and environmental health etc.
Those who say that public healthcare provision should be provided without monetary limit must tell us by how mcuh they are going to raise taxes to pay for it, or which other public services (police, fire, education, highways, etc) they will cut in order to spend everything we have and more, on healthcare.
The comments from Councillors Rigby and Birtwistle indicate a severe case a 'failure to engage brain before opening mouth'.
Let's deal with the issue of PFI, of which incidently I'm no great fan.
PFI is a way of politicians having their cake and eating it. It is a mechanism by which new facilities can be provided, and politicians are able to claim the credit, while hiding the true nature of the nation's total indebtedness. It appeals to politicians because the benefits accrue now (new facilities) while most of the burden is transferred to the future.
Turning now to the idea that money should be no limit in matters of healthcare. I'm sorry but this is just absurd.
Of course at an individual level one feels this, and especially so if one is or has a close relative impacted by money rationing of healthcare (which has existed since the year dot) but there are other competing health related claims upon the public purse that are just as valid - care for the elderly, public and environmental health etc.
Those who say that public healthcare provision should be provided without monetary limit must tell us by how mcuh they are going to raise taxes to pay for it, or which other public services (police, fire, education, highways, etc) they will cut in order to spend everything we have and more, on healthcare.
Posted by: Pendlereader, Pendle on 9:28am Sun 11 May 08
Political Observer - councillor Rigby is correct about PFI (Pay For It later) schemes.
The Royal Blackburn Hospital will cost taxpayers an estimated £680m in interest to the private firms which funded its construction. Despite the hospital costing £113m to build, the East Lancashire Hospital Trust will spend around £1.3m a month for the building over 35 years - enough to employ 1,000 nurses a year during this time.
the acting executive Gary Graham talks absolute nonsense. How can shedding jobs and consequent skills be an improvement in services? The only improvement will be in the financial savings for the trust, the 'cost improvement programme' Gary Graham speaks of.
And as we've seen since the NHS reforms last November, this will be at the expense of patient healthcare.
The last paragraph by the acting chief executive sums up how little he and the Trust understand about financial management. Shed jobs to improve services and commit ourselves to retaining skills needed to provide improved clinical care? The man lives in cloud cuckoo land!
Political Observer - councillor Rigby is correct about PFI (Pay For It later) schemes.
The Royal Blackburn Hospital will cost taxpayers an estimated £680m in interest to the private firms which funded its construction. Despite the hospital costing £113m to build, the East Lancashire Hospital Trust will spend around £1.3m a month for the building over 35 years - enough to employ 1,000 nurses a year during this time.
the acting executive Gary Graham talks absolute nonsense. How can shedding jobs and consequent skills be an improvement in services? The only improvement will be in the financial savings for the trust, the 'cost improvement programme' Gary Graham speaks of.
And as we've seen since the NHS reforms last November, this will be at the expense of patient healthcare.
The last paragraph by the acting chief executive sums up how little he and the Trust understand about financial management. Shed jobs to improve services and commit ourselves to retaining skills needed to provide improved clinical care? The man lives in cloud cuckoo land!
Posted by: Political Observer, Pendle on 11:47am Sun 11 May 08
Pendlereader,
Thanks for your post. Very helpful and some points well made.
While I am no fan of PFI if the deal for the hospital is as bad as we are led to believe then this has not happened by chance.
As I understand it PFI contracts are freely entered into. The situation with the hospital at Blackburn says an awful lot about those who negotiated the deal. There are only two conclusions: either they knew what they were doing or they didn't. It looks to me as though when it comes to striking deals the public sector is outsmarted by the private sector everytime.
The alternative to PFI is for politicians to fund their spending desires by raising the money through additional taxation or to borrow it. Either way there would be financial and political consequences. This too is simple economics.
As you so rightly observe at the end of the time the citizens pay the price - we always do.
Pendlereader,
Thanks for your post. Very helpful and some points well made.
While I am no fan of PFI if the deal for the hospital is as bad as we are led to believe then this has not happened by chance.
As I understand it PFI contracts are freely entered into. The situation with the hospital at Blackburn says an awful lot about those who negotiated the deal. There are only two conclusions: either they knew what they were doing or they didn't. It looks to me as though when it comes to striking deals the public sector is outsmarted by the private sector everytime.
The alternative to PFI is for politicians to fund their spending desires by raising the money through additional taxation or to borrow it. Either way there would be financial and political consequences. This too is simple economics.
As you so rightly observe at the end of the time the citizens pay the price - we always do.
Posted by: observer, Hyndburn on 7:53pm Sun 11 May 08
I had reason to visit Burnley General Phase 5 the other afternoon. It was like the Marie Celeste.Is there no illness in Burnley or are they all over in Blackburn?. Just 2 people sat in reception.No shoppers in the retail shopping opportunity facilities. Through to the lifts and up on to the wards. Took ages to find someone in charge. Weird!
I had reason to visit Burnley General Phase 5 the other afternoon. It was like the Marie Celeste.Is there no illness in Burnley or are they all over in Blackburn?. Just 2 people sat in reception.No shoppers in the retail shopping opportunity facilities. Through to the lifts and up on to the wards. Took ages to find someone in charge. Weird!
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
