MPs call for review of NHS IT programme costs

Tags: Budget Government HIS iS Labour Lansley

24 May 2006

Tim Farron, Liberal Democrat MP for Westmoreland & Lonsdale, has stepped up his campaign for an independent review of the costing on the National Programme for IT.

Farron, who earlier last month initiated an early day motion asking for a full, independent investigation of NPfIT's finances, told Parliament that he believed the level of spending on the programme was causing local services to suffer, including the coronary care unit at the general hospital in his constituency.

Connecting for the Health was cited to cost £6.2bn, but costs were soaring, claimed the MP.

He asked Andy Burnham, new minister of state for the Department of Health: "Will the minister commit today to a full, independent, technical and financial audit of the project to ensure that public money is spent on the public's priorities?"

Burnham stressed in his reply that the NHS was getting value for money from its contracts. "In contrast to NHS projects of the past, payment will be made only when the project is delivered. When the project is delivered, it will go further in improving patient care in the NHS."

Farron says he is leading calls for an independent review because some of the projections of NPfIT's costs are far and away above the local deficits suffered by trusts in his area, and to "ensure that money that could save the NHS is not wasted on an expensive computer system through bad budget management."

Burnham also faced criticism from Andrew Lansley, shadow health minister, for the late running of the electronic health record and electronic transfer of prescriptions. Lansley told Parliament that while the target for the issue of prescriptions was 600,000 per month, in reality only 13,000 were being issued daily so far.

Earlier this month Labour MP for North-West Leicestershire, David Taylor, told the Commons that the government had delivered major improvements in public services. "However, one area where we have, sadly, maintained the record of the previous government is in the acquisition, design, build, implementation and running of major computer systems such as Connecting for Health, which had an original cost estimate of £2.3 billion.

"However, different estimates that have recently been made in the Sunday Times and elsewhere— 23 academics wrote to the Select Committee on Health—suggest a cost of £15 billion or more."

Taylor added that the "overshoot of £12.5 billion would fund the deficits in NHS trusts for the next two decades…"

Readers Comments

What about the NAO report?

24 May 06 07:55

Err .... won't the long-awaited NAO report (said to be due "this Summer") be looking at CfH's costs?

Whitewashed NAO Report

24 May 06 10:57

Since NAO reports have to be agreed by the relevant department, and this one has been delayed by DoH for so long, the rebuff will obviously be that it is out of date. I am sure that the relevant people were banking on 'And look at what we have delivered meantime', which has largely not happened.

The scope and direction of what the NHS needs to do now is not delivered by these contracts. I don't think that they are capable of delivering either the original vision, nor what we now find we need, which are quite different.

The CfH programme caused paralysis on lots of good local projects. I would hate a parliamentary review to cause yet another significant hiatus, but I do not believe my Tax money is being spent to best effect, or that it will deliver a good clinical system/service, whatever CfH might claim.

Time for a radical review

24 May 06 13:59

Given the all-too-obvious problems with CfH - well stated in the previous posting - then a hiatus is probably better than pressing-on regardless. It must surely be time to take stock of the whole approach to NHS IT, as well as the DH's contribution to the policy, strategy and management arrangements. Taking a lead from John Reid's comments yesterday about the Home Office, perhaps it's time to assign some individual DH responsibilities for the evolving CfH debacle? This might even result in some heads rolling!