Bradshaw reveals NPfIT contract reset values

11 Sep 2008

BT will now be paid £1 billion to deliver the NHS data spine, following a contract re-set earlier this year. Health minister Ben Bradshaw revealed the new figure in a commons written answer, published at the start of the month.

The spine contract was originally worth £620m. However, Mr Bradshaw insisted that the increased cost reflected “changes and additional requirements” and that they had been negotiated through “normal governance procedures.”

NHS Connecting for Health has indicated that the changes and requirements include new functionality to support policy objectives, such as the 18 week waiting time target, and “wider NHS work and requirements.” A separate contract reset means that BT will also earn more than £1 billion as local service provider for London.

In a series of responses to detailed questions from opposition MPs, Mr Bradshaw also indicated that there is a cap on the amount of money that former local service provider for the South, Fujitsu, may be able to claim in compensation, following the termination of its contract in May.

The company has issued a procedure initiation notice to CfH as a first step to resolving outstanding contract issues. Newspaper reports indicated that it might be looking to claim £700 million. But Mr Bradshaw told MPs that: “The contract, which was reset in September 2005, provides for caps of liability.

“Fujitsu’s liability to the Department is capped at £100 million per contract year, and to an aggregate total of £500 million. The Department’s liability is capped at £50 million per contract year. In both cases, the liabilities have potential to apply from the last contract reset.”

In response to a further question from Conservative MP Stephen O’Brien, the minister added that he could not quantify the delays that were likely to arise from Fujitsu’s departure.

However, he said: “It is possible that some services, such as systems to support mental health and community health services, may in the event be delivered more quickly than was originally anticipated through existing contracts with other suppliers.”

In other responses, Mr Bradshaw confirmed that Release 1 of the iSOFT’s Lorenzo software was delivered to the NHS in May this year. E-Health Insider reported last week that podiatrists at South Birmingham Primary Care Trust had been the first to use the new system earlier this month.

However, a much bigger deployment is due at Morecambe Bay NHS Trust. Although a number of go-live dates have slipped, EHI understands that CfH is confident the system will go-live this autumn; once trusts managers are satisfied with it.

Link

Ben Bradshaw’s written replies

Lyn Whitfield

Reader's Comments

Acceptance criteria

11 Sep 08 07:33

"Once Trust managers are satisfied with it."

Any clinical or patient input into this process?

Cost not value

11 Sep 08 11:24

Given all the delays and failure to deliver value to the front line, the title is surely wrong ?

Join the dots

11 Sep 08 11:39

.. and we still don't know what Accenture and CSC make/made - or the trust side costs of collaboration with NPfIT to date and keeping legacy systems alive.

It's lucky the present Government funds the NHS so well that it still has the money to fight a patient's claims for cancer therapy in court

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/sussex/7608868.stm

and run the QANGO NICE for the two and a half years it took them to OK the funding of sight saving therapy already in use in throughout the First World, much of the Second and Scotland while thousands in England went blind needlessly.

I guess Jon won't allow this to be posted, but someone must surely start asking these questions and get some answers from our elected officials! Am I the only one seeing a connection here?

Meanwhile thank you Mr Bradshaw - I expect you and your sociopathic administration will continue to sleep as soundly as you evidently have been for the past 11 years.

Acceptance criteria

11 Sep 08 17:34

Why would there be patient input into an NHS clinical IT system? Are the patients going to be using it? Were they consulted over the previous ancient PAS implementations?

And there would be more clinical input if you could actually get the bu**ers to sit down, engage, and give it to you..

re: Join the dots

11 Sep 08 17:38

"It's lucky the present Government funds the NHS so well that it still has the money to fight a patient's claims for cancer therapy in court "

Well, what is the alternative? Allow access to every drug that is produced? There will never be enough money. Especially when it is the pharmaceutical companies who hold all the cards.

And joining the dots between NPfIT and NICE? I think your vision mayhap be blurred.

So what would YOU do?

11 Sep 08 22:10

Jon and correspondents,

Isn't it about time we had a nicely structure place for people who are (or who think they are) in the know to post their alternative strategies for information systems and management in the English NHS? We tried the consultative and distributed but ultimately no-teeth Information for Health; we tried (and spent and are spending far more on) the big centralised shouty-bully procurement-is-the-answer NPfIT. And every week people take the time to say it shouldn't be like this and at least hint at how it should be instead.

I think it's time for a more structured approach, and am sure Jon can think of a competition or similar which draws attention to the conversation. Max N (500?) words so we don't get folk posting their PhD theses or dusting of their hobbyhorse strategies, but surely we can distill a few principles of what we would do if given the opportunity to change the Health Information world? We all know how much easier it is to be an armchair ref than out there on the field. I think EHealth Insider needs to (metaphorically of course) walk into a few living rooms, grab people by the scruff of the neck, and say "come on then, clever-clogs, you're in charge - what are you going to do".

An afterthought: entries should be disqualified if they don't address fully both of the following questions: (1) what would you have done instead of NPfIT (and/or IfH)? (2) what would you do starting from here?