Exclusive: South London Healthcare Trust's suitors revealed
Details have emerged of the plans of many of the 39 bodies that have written to South London Healthcare Trust’s special administrator to express an interest in running trust services.
Matthew Kershaw, the special administrator brought in to work out the future shape of health services in south east London, has received bids from private companies, social enterprises and other NHS trusts.
HSJ understands there have 39 been expressions of interest. For the full list of organisations bidding to take over South London services see today’s HSJ Local briefing
Less than a third of the 39 expressions of interest are being taken forward by the administrator, with many of them seen as too small.
It is not known which bids were still being considered but Mr Kershaw must submit his interim report making recommendations to health secretary Jeremy Hunt by the end of October. HSJ understands no bidder has indicated an interest in taking over South London in its entirety.
Among the options being considered are combining Lewisham Healthcare Trust with South London’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Lewisham, a neighbouring £222m-turnover district general hospital, has confirmed its plan for becoming an independent foundation trust “will need to be rewritten”.
A merger with Queen Elizabeth Hospital could have implications for the future of Lewisham’s accident and emergency, HSJ has been told.
There is more interest in taking over the other two main sites run by South London, Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup and the Princess Royal Hospital in Bromley.
One senior source told HSJ there had been “lots of keenness on assets, surgery, cardiology and the Bromley private practice” from bidders but that “everyone was less keen on [Queen Elizabeth hospital’s] PFI”.
South London Healthcare Trust was one of seven nationally that the government has confirmed will receive support for their PFI running costs.
However, senior figures told HSJSouth London’s problems were only partly down to the repayments on the PFI, with internal inefficiencies and being underpaid for some activity comprising equal parts of the deficit.
The trust, which finished the 2011-12 financial year with a deficit of £69m, was placed in the failure regime in July by then health secretary Andrew Lansley.
After delivering his interim recommendation, Mr Kershaw will consult further before delivering a final report to Mr Hunt in January. The 2006 NHS Act says the health secretary must then use it to make a decision within a month.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (3)
Patrick Newman | 1-Oct-2012 1:12 pm
The picture portrayed is reminiscent of a reading of the last will and testament of the trust with all and sundry hoping for a piece of the estate. It is the job of the NHS to design a solution not to conduct a quasi 'fire sale' as if the trust was a failing private company. Calling for bids may produce hybrid and sub-optimum solutions. It is the marketisation of healthcare decisions.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Roger Nettleship | 1-Oct-2012 4:24 pm
The Government Must Be Held Responsible for the Plight of NHS Trusts. It is a strange definition of “bankruptcy” and “failure regime” that the Health Secretary is using by subjecting hospitals to this. It could be said that the Health Secretary’s logic is bankrupt, and the regime of privatisation and business models for the NHS is failing. the hysteria about “bankruptcy” and “failure” is completely fraudulent. It covers over the fact that the government is both slashing its investment in health care for society, and turning over the health service to become a sphere of rich profits for the healthcare companies. The issue of who sets the budget is never mentioned. It is the marketisation of health decisions and wrecking and has nothing to do with the needs of the people for health care. The future of the NHS must be fought for by affirming that health care is a right, and that the people have a right to decide on the future of the NHS.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Kosta Manis | 2-Oct-2012 8:49 am
Real Cutting Edge Investigative Journalism.
Careful reading of "For the full list of organisations bidding to take over South London services see today’s HSJ Local briefing" clearly demonstrates that the City chancers have done their homework well with the cherry-picking of services with huge potential savings.
I am a bit surprised by the lack of comments by UNISON and UNITE on the potential loss of jobs.
Unsuitable or offensive?