Computer Weekly will tomorrow report that NHS Connecting for Health (CfH), which runs the £6.2 billion National Programme for IT (NPfIT), has so far released only £234m to the main contractors – only 4% of the contract value two years into the deals,
The LOW PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS, DISCLOSED in a parliamentary written answer, highlights THE EXTENT OF delays in the delivery of the world’s largest civil IT programme and concerns about whether suppliers are being paid enough to maintain the economic feasibility of the contracts.
Vital
The programme is vital to New Labour’s plans for the NHS which includes projects to create 50 million electronic health records for people in England. This will introduce the ability to electronically transfer prescriptions and medical images and allow patients to choose their hospital appointments with an electronic booking system. It also aims to build a new broadband network for the NHS.
In 2003 when the project was launched, the Department of Health said the central funding for the National Programme would be £400m in financial year 2003/04, £700m in 2004/05 and £1.2bn in 2005/06.
A source told Computer Weekly that around £120m had been spent on CfH administration. This leaves £2.18bn available to suppliers with only £234m spent to date; roughly 11% of the total available.
Late Delivery
Sinead Quinn, healthcare programme manager with Intellect, a body representing IT suppliers in the UK, confirmed the shortfall was due to late delivery in the programme. “The programme is not exactly running to plan. That is the main reason for the discrepancy in what has been paid to the suppliers,” she said.
Richard Bacon, Conservative MP and member of the Common’s Public Accounts Committee, said, “I think the management of the programme from the outset illustrates the worst facets of IT project management. Already in the early stages it is becoming a classic case of how not to do it.”
He said if necessary it would be better to cancel the national programme at this stage, and lose £234 million, than to carry on and potentially waste £6.2bn.
Future Uncertain
Paul Goss, director at specialist health IT research firm Silicon Bridge told Computer Weekly that the future for the programme was uncertain. Political pressure was increasing for it to be reviewed and the Treasury could claw back the unspent funding and redistribute it via alternative NHS channels.
However, a constructive relationship with suppliers would be difficult to maintain, he said. “The national programme is going to carry on in some form or other, but there is a question: how does it keep faith with the suppliers? That is the only way it can deliver results.”
Can’t Compare
An NHS Connecting for Health spokesperson said, “Expenditure to date as set out in the Parliamentary answer, relates to invoices paid, not to financial commitments and it is not appropriate to compare the two.
“Payments are made for completed and fully accepted products and services in line with the procurement strategy and financial provision is made for work in progress with suppliers and accounts for the difference.
“Suppliers are delivering systems that meet clinical requirements and which perform properly and we now have 180,000 registered users.”
--------
DA: Looks like you screwed up again!
This would never had happened if you'd done your job ethically and properly.
The LOW PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS, DISCLOSED in a parliamentary written answer, highlights THE EXTENT OF delays in the delivery of the world’s largest civil IT programme and concerns about whether suppliers are being paid enough to maintain the economic feasibility of the contracts.
Vital
The programme is vital to New Labour’s plans for the NHS which includes projects to create 50 million electronic health records for people in England. This will introduce the ability to electronically transfer prescriptions and medical images and allow patients to choose their hospital appointments with an electronic booking system. It also aims to build a new broadband network for the NHS.
In 2003 when the project was launched, the Department of Health said the central funding for the National Programme would be £400m in financial year 2003/04, £700m in 2004/05 and £1.2bn in 2005/06.
A source told Computer Weekly that around £120m had been spent on CfH administration. This leaves £2.18bn available to suppliers with only £234m spent to date; roughly 11% of the total available.
Late Delivery
Sinead Quinn, healthcare programme manager with Intellect, a body representing IT suppliers in the UK, confirmed the shortfall was due to late delivery in the programme. “The programme is not exactly running to plan. That is the main reason for the discrepancy in what has been paid to the suppliers,” she said.
Richard Bacon, Conservative MP and member of the Common’s Public Accounts Committee, said, “I think the management of the programme from the outset illustrates the worst facets of IT project management. Already in the early stages it is becoming a classic case of how not to do it.”
He said if necessary it would be better to cancel the national programme at this stage, and lose £234 million, than to carry on and potentially waste £6.2bn.
Future Uncertain
Paul Goss, director at specialist health IT research firm Silicon Bridge told Computer Weekly that the future for the programme was uncertain. Political pressure was increasing for it to be reviewed and the Treasury could claw back the unspent funding and redistribute it via alternative NHS channels.
However, a constructive relationship with suppliers would be difficult to maintain, he said. “The national programme is going to carry on in some form or other, but there is a question: how does it keep faith with the suppliers? That is the only way it can deliver results.”
Can’t Compare
An NHS Connecting for Health spokesperson said, “Expenditure to date as set out in the Parliamentary answer, relates to invoices paid, not to financial commitments and it is not appropriate to compare the two.
“Payments are made for completed and fully accepted products and services in line with the procurement strategy and financial provision is made for work in progress with suppliers and accounts for the difference.
“Suppliers are delivering systems that meet clinical requirements and which perform properly and we now have 180,000 registered users.”
--------
DA: Looks like you screwed up again!
This would never had happened if you'd done your job ethically and properly.
Comment