By David Bicknell
What’s on the ‘must-tackle’ list of the next NHS CIO to replace Christine Connelly? Good piece from Kathleen Hall today in Computer Weekly discussing five key challenges that must be faced.
The Cabinet Office’s Katie Davis, who takes over next month, on an interim basis, from Health CIO Christine Connelly, is ex-Accenture.
But that shouldn’t be held against her. Accenture left the NPfIT in 2006 with its reputation untarnished.
A profile of Davis appeared in The Telegraph in 2007. The newspaper described her as a yank at the court of King Tony, set on excellence in IT.
Though it could be assumed that Davis has a “big company” approach, and so would welcome the continued dominance of the NPfIT, she told The Telegraph she found her time at Accenture highly satisfying but after a while she stopped having fun.
“The overheads of working for a huge corporation had slightly impaired my ability to deliver. By overheads, I mean travel and the demands of process. My needs and those of the corporation did not overlap so well.”
She also said she worked in the NHS.
“I had worked with the NHS before, and was seconded to work with some of the cleverest and most committed people I’d ever been in a working environment with. It opened my eyes to the challenges and the excitement of working in the public sector.”
Davis has the advantage of having started her career as an engineer (electrical). Which makes it sound as if she’s more practical and realistic than visionary and idealistic. She may make an excellent (permanent) Health CIO.
By Tony Collins
The departure of Christine Connelly as health CIO at the end of this month will leave the NPfIT’s main civil service supporter, Sir David Nicholson, Chief Executive of the NHS and Senior Responsible Owner of the NHS IT scheme, more isolated.
That Nicholson is a supporter of the continuance of the NPfIT is not in doubt. He spoke about the NHS IT scheme last month in terms of life and death. At a hearing of the public accounts committee on 23 May 2011, Nicholson said:
“We spent about 20% of that resource [the £11.4bn projected total spend on the NPfIT] on the acute sector. The other 80% is providing services that literally mean life and death to patients today, and have done for the last period.
“So the Spine, and all those things, provides really, really important services for our patients. If you are going to talk about the totality of the [NPfIT] system … you have to accept that 80% of that programme has been delivered.”
But without Christine Connelly, who put detailed arguments in favour of continuing with iSoft’s Lorenzo, and who was solidly behind the costly implementations of Cerner by BT, Nicholson may not have the civil service backup he needs to promote the continuance of the NPfIT.
The Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority, under the directorship of the independently-minded David Pitchford, is now reviewing CSC’s £2.9bn worth of NPfIT contracts. It is known that the Authority regards the new proposals worked out between CSC and the Department of Health as poor value for money, even with CSC’s willingness to reduce the value of its contracts by £764m, to about £2.1bn.
That promised reduction comes at a cost. A leaked Cabinet office memo said that the CSC’s proposals would double the cost of each Lorenzo deployment.
The easiest thing for Nicholson and the Department of Health would be for the Major Projects Authority to approve the deal worked out between CSC and the Department of Health, and simply sign a new Memorandum of Understanding which would be, in part, legally binding.
Strong grounds for ending CSC’s NPfIT contracts
The more difficult but more practical alternative is for the Cabinet Office to require the Department of Health to end CSC’s NPfIT contracts, which would leave the NHS more able to decide its own IT-based future.
Indeed the signs are in some trusts that officials are not unhappy about Connelly’s departure in that they perceive it may weaken the centre’s control over NHS IT.
Legally it appears that an end to CSC’s contract would be feasible. The Department of Health has accused CSC of a breach of contract because of its failure to achieve a key milestone; the Department has also notified CSC of “various alleged events of default under the contract” which are “related to delays and other alleged operational issues”. The Department is considering its position on termination of all or parts of the contract.
But the Department has not taken its claims to arbitration; its allegations are only a formal legal manoeuvre at the moment.
CSC accuses NHS of failures and breaches of contract
CSC has reacted by accusing the NHS of a breach of contract. The company’s formal legal position is that it has cured or is preparing to cure the faults that led to the alleged breach; it says that failures and breaches of contract on the part of NHS have caused delays and issues.
The DH could end CSC’s contract for reasons of convenience which could trigger a request from CSC for a large sum in compensation. But the Department could give strong legal reasons for not paying. Although CSC could pursue its claim for compensation, it may be on soft ground because of its failures. Also, CSC, if it pursues any legal action, could jeopardise its other work for government: some of its other major contracts with the UK government are with the Identity and Passport Service, which is part of the Home Office.
The Coalition is now supervising its major suppliers, including CSC, in the round, which is reason enough for CSC to do all it can to maintain a good relationship with the Cabinet Office.
CSC would support NHS trusts even if its contracts ended
The Department of Health is concerned that if it ends the NPfIT contracts with CSC, the supplier may leave unsupported many trusts that have CSC’s iSoft software installed. That is highly unlikely, however, because CSC has a $1.03bn investment in the NPfIT contracts according to the regulatory reports to US authorities.
In the NHS CSC has a large customer base. Through its acquisition of iSoft, CSC will want to capitalise on its investment in iSoft’s Lorenzo software by selling it across the globe. That’s its stated plan. So CSC’s continued support for NHS trusts that have installed iSoft software is not in doubt.
What NHS Trusts want
The best outcome of the negotiations with CSC, for NHS trusts that have installed iSoft software, is that they have the:
-choice to continue with CSC if the price is right
– buy support elsewhere, or
– choose a different product.
Will CSC’s NPfIT contracts end by mutual agreement? – it’s possible
The question is: does the Cabinet Office have the courage to end CSC’s contract, freeing up billions of pounds that would otherwise have been spent on the NPfIT without a commensurate return for taxpayers, the NHS or patients?
It seems so, even if it means paying a relatively painless sum to CSC as compensation for termination.
Leaked memo reveals CSC’s plans.
A sign that coalition reforms will change behaviour of major suppliers.
Health CIO resigns – Cabinet Office executive steps in.
Example of a trust that’s succeeding without the NPfIT – Trafford General Hospital.
Posted in NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized
Tagged BT Health, Cabinet Office, Cerner, CSC, Efficiency and Reform Group, Francis Maude, Lorenzo, NHS Connecting for Health, npfit, outsourcing, procurement, public sector, public services, SME government contracts
The Health CIO Christine Connelly has resigned. I understand it’s for personal reasons and that she has no new job lined up.
She is being replaced on an interim basis by an executive at the Cabinet Office Katie Davis. It’s likely that Davis will remain Director, Operational Excellence at the Cabinet Office until she replaces Connelly on 1 July 2011.
Connelly says in her statement that the Department of Health faces a major reorganisation of its top structures that will result in fewer Director General posts. “I have been reflecting on whether I would wish to go for one of those roles and decided that I will not.”
The Cabinet Office has indicated in recent months that it wishes to have more control over negotiations of a £3bn contract with CSC under the National Programme for IT, NPfIT.
This was the Department’s statement this morning, in full:
“Christine Connelly, Chief Information Officer for Health, has announced that she will be leaving the Department of Health at the end of the month.
“Christine said: “The Department of Health faces a major reorganisation of its top structures that will result in fewer Director General posts. I have been reflecting on whether I would wish to go for one of those roles and decided that I will not.
“I have had a fascinating and challenging time in this role and I have decided that this is the right time to step back and think about what I might do next.
“I believe that information and technology have the potential to dramatically change the way health services are delivered to patients, and we are already seeing this happen in many parts of the service. I am confident that informatics will have a major role to play in delivering both the quality and efficiency challenge that the NHS faces.”
NHS Chief Executive, Sir David Nicholson, said:
“Christine has made a major contribution to the NHS, in promoting both the sharing and management of information, and as a professional with considerable experience of leading change.
“She has tackled a very difficult set of issues around the National Programme for IT, and moved them forward. I wish her well in her future career.”
By David Bicknell
The longer the waiting goes on for the open public services white paper to provide some clear direction on the Coalition’s up-to-date thinking, the more the mystique around mutuals grows.
Local Government Chronicle has just carried a blog by Chris Brophy, a partner at the Capsticks health and social care law firm, which discussed the potential of mutuals and social enterprises.
Brophy makes some good – and certainly descriptive – points, suggesting for now that “there is a certain ‘quiet before the storm feeling’. You can sense the sea being sucked back, the birds have gone quiet, the sky is red-stained, there is no breeze, as those interested in new business methodologies wait anxiously to hear whether there is a panacea for financial, staffing and service problems.
“Breathing becomes more steady as anxiety is anaesthetised by contemplating the difference between mutuals on the one hand and social enterprises on the other and then you can start settling down to really understanding what is going on, and settle down you must as you realise you really need to understand this beast before heading back to base and being enveloped by the day to day issues.”
He goes on to make some excellent points about the challenges facing local authorities:
‘One of the difficulties for local authorities developing social enterprises is the time, funding and resources needed to just to consider change, never mind working up business plans including engaging with staff and thinking about the identification and transfer of significant businesses. Despite the difficulties all Councils have, everyone knows this process needs to be commenced, and now, as deadlines start to loom more large and the need to stay in control of the process becomes the main line on the forehead.
‘In many ways Local Authorities have it more difficult than PCTs. At least PCTs knew essentially what services they were looking to transfer as part of the Department of Health’s “Transforming Community Services programme and pursuant to their Right to Request” to take their provider services. The scope of the businesses for the LAs to think about is potentially very extensive and there is also the question of how to package businesses together.
‘Should all the businesses in contemplation be transferred to one social enterprise or would those businesses not work together and need to be packaged in different ways. They might for example have very different kinds of beneficiaries or users of the service and the stakeholders may be very different and therefore it might be more difficult to align the governance of the organisation with the business objectives if they were all combined. However scale is important and of course funding and income is crucial. It serves no useful purpose to set up a business which has no viable business plan. Whatever happens you need to identify the services, the assets, the staff and the support that will be involved and at the same time you will looking to satisfy yourself about the potential management team, its capabilities and skill-sets and then developing the business plan to see if it can all work.
A useful and informative piece. You can read the whole post here
Posted in mutualisation, mutuals, NHS, Uncategorized
Tagged local authorities, mutuals, PCTs, social enterprises
Campaign4Change spent some time this week talking with Scott Haddow, chief executive of York-based value added reseller Trustmarque Solutions, which through its Enterprise Solutions Group (TESG) is helping its customers reduce their IT expenditure costs.
Trustmarque’s approach has been so successful, that in the last year it gained 395 new public and private sector clients.
Over the past eighteen months, Trustmarque has successfully transitioned from Large Account Reseller (LAR) to Value Added Reseller (VAR) status, moving away from a high volume, low margin business where there is no direct relationship with the customer.
Its success has had a significant impact on the bottom line. In the first nine months of its 2010/2011 financial year, Trustmarque increased its Gross Profit by 28 percent, with TESG doubling its associated turnover from consulting, managed services and software solutions. That continued growth also means Trustmarque currently has 20 open vacancies in Sales, IT, Finance and Operations which it needs to fill by the start of its next financial year in September.
The public sector may be wary of cloud computing, for now, but the private sector happily sees the potential in adopting it, which is perhaps why Trustmarque bought cloud infrastructure and hosted services provider Nimbus Technology Systems to provide it with more breadth and depth of expertise in cloud services delivery as well as an expanded portfolio of managed cloud services.
What we also learned from speaking with Haddow is that many of the company’s NHS Trust customers are very forward thinking in their approach to IT. In a sector that may not have been known for competition, it is clear that some want to be at the leading edge and are prepared to use whatever technology solutions they can to gain a competitive advantage. Just like the private sector, there are trusts that are happier being front-runners and who’ll actively seek to use technology to keep their edge.
We also learned how Trustmarque sits down with new customers for lengthy meetings to thrash out where they can make savings, through consolidation of IT assets, and especially by reducing their software licensing costs. For example, Durham Constabulary is saving £190,000 in licensing costs over three years; Derbyshire Fire and Rescue will save £88,000 in licensing costs over six years; Transport for Greater Manchester will also save £60,000 a year on licensing costs; and Plymouth City Council will see savings of £494,000 over a 3 year period and a 26% reduction in its previous licensing arrangement.
It’s clear that even though the Coalition has aspirations to open up more business for SMEs, success-stories like Trustmarque don’t need to rely on those plans to gain a healthy slice of government business: they’re doing it for themselves.
By Tony Collins
My thanks to the IM&T and medical teams at Manchester-based Trafford General Hospital who made my visit last week so useful.
A special thanks to IM&T manager Steve Parsons and his assistants Laura Slatcher and Karen Ambrose for their patient and clear explanations. I am also grateful to Peter Large, Director of Planning, Performance & Service Improvement; Simon Musgrave, Medical Director; Julie Treadgold, Matron, and their teams.
It was enlightening to see how IT at Trafford General Hospital is changing the working lives of doctors and nurses – and making a difference for patients.
The technology and business media, when reporting on IT in the NHS, often mention the National Programme for IT – NPfIT – and the tens of millions of patients who have GP-held electronic records, or who have received packs of marketing material on the Summary Care Records scheme. Thus the media coverage of NHS IT is often of the abstract and hazy world of contract negotiations and huge sums spent with major IT companies.
My visit to Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust was a reminder of how much some IM&T managers are achieving on small budgets, outside of central, politically-driven IT-led programmes.
At Trafford I saw what buy-in among doctors and nurses means in practice, such as the timely completion of electronic forms that make it easy to see, on large touch screens located in a room close to each ward, when a patient’s next medical check is due, when a VTE (Venous thromboembolism) check is overdue, when an A&E patient has been waiting too long to be seen or treated, and the reasons for the breaches.
So much essential information is available from the ward touch screens – such as graphs showing whether, say, medication is having the desired effect, over hours or days, on a patient’s neutrophil blood cells; and it’s easy to see whether a patient has yet to have an x-ray reviewed by a specialist. Indeed a doctor with the relevant smartcard authorisation can call up their patients’ x-rays on the ward’s touch-screen.
Behind all these screens is the patient’s electronic record that includes archived, scanned notes, diagrams and charts. If the local GP has authorised it – and so far about half in Trafford’s catchment area have – A&E department hospital doctors will soon be able to access the GP-held patient record also.
Trafford’s hospital-wide technology is designed to be integrated with departmental systems by the in-house team. It is delivered by suppliers whose contracts are firmly under the control of the local Trust. It’s technology outside of the NPfIT – and it works.
So while officials in Whitehall have spent years trying to make an overly ambitious NPfIT deliver, some trusts, Trafford among them, have been giving measurable and visible technological support to clinicians who have welcomed the changes because they have seen improvements in the safety monitoring and timely treatment of their patients.
We plan to report further on the improvements at Trafford and at other hospitals.
By Tony Collins
BT’s NPfIT business today is worth £4.1bn – nearly double the cost of the original NHS IT contracts, according to a calculation by Campaign4Change.
In December 2003 the Department of Health awarded BT three contracts under the NHS IT programme:
– a ten-year deal, worth £620m to design, deliver and manage the Spine, a national patient record database and transactional messaging service that was essential to the NHS Care Records Service.
– a ten-year deal, worth £996m to become the main IT supplier – local service provider – to all London trusts. The contract was to design, deliver and operate integrated local patient record applications and systems for the NHS in London.
– a seven-year “N3” broadband network deal, worth £530m, to replace the NHS communications network NHSnet.
The three contracts were worth a total of £2.15bn in 2003.
Now BT has confirmed that the total value of its NHS contracts is £4.1bn. This is after change control notices and further NPfIT work, including taking over from Fujitsu at seven NHS sites in the south. Of this £4.1bn, BT has so far received £2.8bn – about £700m more than the cost of its original contracts; and BT has confirmed it is bidding for further NPfIT work, under NHS Connecting for Health’s Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC).
On the basis of what they have said in the past, the NPfIT senior responsible owner Sir David Nicholson and officials at the Department of Health and NHS Connecting for Health, will defend all payments to BT as value for money.
Indeed, when Nicholson, the NHS Chief Executive, was asked last month by the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge whether he was claiming that money spent to date on the NPfIT had not been wasted and will potentially deliver value for money Nicholson confirmed that he did say this.
“Yes, yes,” replied Nicholson.
However the original NPfIT contracts set down plans for fully-integrated London-wide care Records systems by 2010, which has not happened.
The scale of the increases raises questions of whether officials at the Department of Health are too close to the NPfIT suppliers to be regarded as independent arbiters on contract negotiations and change control notices.
There’s a strong argument for the DH to transfer control of the NPfIT contracts to the Cabinet Office. Nicholson, the DH and CfH will not give up their hold on the NPfIT or the LSP contracts, or disputes. Perhaps David Cameron, who has taken a personal interest in the NPfIT, should order that the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude take control.
Improvements in the NHS in ways of working, such as the standardising of medical forms for data collection, and IT-based innovation, are much needed. But not at any cost.
Posted in NHS, npfit, Uncategorized
Tagged Cabinet Office, Efficiency and Reform Group, government IT, government procurement, npfit, outsourcing, public sector
By Tony Collins
We trust the Cabinet Office more than the Department of Health to terminate or re-negotiate CSC’s £3.1bn NPfIT contracts.
The share price of CSC, one of the biggest NHS IT suppliers, fell by 11% in New York trading this week, after its financial year-end forecast fell short of analysts’ estimates, according to Bloomberg.
Computer Sciences’ share price fell $4.76, or 11 percent, to $39.33 and although today [2 June 2011] the price is up slightly it is far below the 52-week high of $56.61. Bloomberg says that CSC has been hurt by delays in federal contract decisions and is also working to revise its NHS contract in the U.K. CSC has £3.1bn worth of NPfIT contracts.
CSC’s strong position in NHS IT
Despite the temporary knock in confidence for CSC over its share price, in part because of the NHS uncertainties, CSC remains in a strong negotiating position over the future of its work for the UK health service.
Could CSC claim hundreds of millions from DH?
Christine Connelly, the Department of Health’s CIO, told the Public Accounts Committee on 23 May 2011 that if the DH terminated its contract with CSC for convenience [rather than terminate for breach of contract] CSC could claim hundreds of millions in compensation.
Connelly also said there is the “potential that the supplier may then come to us and seek damages based on the work in progress that they have on their balance sheet today, with a view—not that I am saying at this point that we would share it—that we have impacted their ability to get return on that asset that we were holding.
“So they may come to us and seek damages as a proportion of that balance sheet value. Again, that may be several hundred million pounds”.
Further, by terminating CSC’s contract, the Department of Health would have to support NHS trusts that had bought CSC systems under the NPfIT.
Connelly said:
“I am not talking about what it costs in terms of running those other systems, but there would be a cost if we decided no longer to have Lorenzo or [iSoft’s] IPM or whatever. We would have to take the people who are currently using those systems and move them to something else; that would be a transition cost.
“There then is likely to be a period where we would still be running the systems that we had now terminated. If you look at what happened to us in the South with Fujitsu, Fujitsu increased the cost of supporting the systems. They almost doubled the cost compared to the contract that we had.
We’d be over a barrel, warns Connelly
“So for the period before we had transitioned the systems across, we would expect to pay some premium on that support and obviously we would seek not to do that, but given that we would then be over a barrel, because we are running systems that one supplier has provided and we have now terminated, if we do not manage that well that could be a very difficult position.
More expense to cancel CSC’s contract than complete it, says Connelly
“So potentially, if you ask me about the absolute maximum [the DH is exposed to on its CSC contracts] we could be exposed to a higher cost than the cost to complete the contract as it stands today.”
Are Connelly’s arguments flawed?
But Connelly’s comments appear to make several assumptions namely that:
a) the DH hasn’t a strong legal case against CSC for breach of contract. In fact the DH should be able to credibly contest any claim by CSC for hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.
b) CSC could withstand a long legal case against the UK government. In fact Fujitsu wants to settle its legal dispute with the Department because the row could damage its relationship with the coalition. The policies of the coalition mean that suppliers no longer have isolated relationships with departments. Damage to a relationship in one department could affect a supplier’s relationship with government as a whole.
CSC is one of the top 10 suppliers to the UK Government. It will wish to avoid any dispute with the DH that could affect its relationship with the Cabinet Office’s new Crown representatives.
c) it would cost a fortune supporting NHS trusts that had bought NPfIT systems from CSC. In fact there are several healthcare suppliers – other than CSC and BT – that have been supporting and enhancing NHS trust systems outside of, and within, the NPfIT. They could support former CSC trusts at a fraction of the cost of BT [or CSC].
What happened to the concept of cutting your losses?
Anthony Miller, managing partner at market analyst Techmarketview, says it is “utter rubbish” to suggest that cancelling CSC’s contract will cost more than seeing it through to the bitter end. “Has the Government no idea about the concept of ‘cutting your losses’?” asks Miller.
Remove life support for CSC’s contracts says Techmarketview
He adds:
“It should be clear to everyone involved that CSC’s NHS IT programme has deteriorated from ‘walking wounded’ to ‘do not resuscitate’. The sooner life support is removed, the better for all concerned.”
CSC sees NHS IT as global reference site
CSC, however, continues to see the NPfIT and its NHS IT work as a global reference site for healthcare IT.
Guy Hains, CSC’s President, Global Healthcare, told analysts last month that the NHS component of its business “is still the largest programme globally [and] is the reference point for most of our conversations with other national governments”.
He added: “It’s that experience, the learning points, the good and the bad, that carry forward into most of our development work we are doing elsewhere…”
CSC MoU is “ready to go”
Hains appeared confident that a new memorandum of understanding on its NPfIT work would be signed imminently. “We’ve got government reviews to complete. That’s imminent. We’ve done a lot of work regarding alignment with the NHS, and the MoU in that sense is ready to go”.
Coalition reviews of CSC contracts a “stamp in the passport”
He referred to the reviews of CSC’s NHS contracts as a “stamp in the passport before we go forward”. He said that creating Lorenzo code is “80% done”, adding: “We’ve got some important work to do and it relates to the clinician use and the very much frontline use of the system, and we’ve been learning with the NHS about the better way that we can deliver that”.
CSC will split Lorenzo into smaller chunks
CSC is to release Lorenzo in smaller chunks. “We’re doing it in ten smaller delivery units rather than two major releases. And we’ll be able to deploy those in a separable, incremented way. There’s no question that that will help digestion as it goes into the NHS”. As for working with early adopters, CSC is going through a “radical change in development”.
Hains said that rather than develop the software and then go through extended testing, “we are bringing the engagement of those lead clinicians and lead trusts upstream right into the requirements, refinement and capture stage, so that will allow us to shorten the time to market for the whole programme”.
No one NHS trust will dominate requirements
CSC is putting “governance into the programme” that means that one single trust doesn’t dominate in its requirements. “We’re getting a more common requirement through an expert user group.”
**
Comment:
The Department of Health gives the impression that it is over a barrel, that it cannot afford to fall out with CSC. But it’s clear to others that it is the Department’s commercial lawyers that are cringing before CSC, asking to be forgiven for being a nuisance. In essence the Department is saying to CSC’s lawyers: “Do with us what you will.”
Can public funds be entrusted to the Department of Health in such circumstances?
Richard Bacon, a Conservative MP on the Public Accounts Committee who has followed the NPfIT for many years, told ComputerworldUK that CSC’s contract should be abandoned. He said that the company “should not be rewarded for failure”. He reacted with disbelief to the suggestion that it would cost more to cancel the contract than complete it.
“I find that idea incredible, staggering,” he said. The Department’s comments could be a negotiating ploy to strengthen its arguments around the continuation of the programme, he added.
He said:
“If it’s actually true that it would cost more to cancel, then it’s a scandal. It would be an enormous indictment of [NHS chief executive] David Nicholson as the project’s Senior Responsible Owner, and of Connecting for Health, which allowed such a deal to be signed. “If it’s the truth, then those officials should be dismissed.”
It’s hard to argue with Bacon’s logic. Indeed we are not sure the Department should be taking a lead in any negotiations with CSC or BT. The NPfIT contracts should be in the hands of the Coalition government, via the Cabinet Office, not the Department of Health’s.
The Cabinet Office represents the taxpayer. The Department of Health’s informatics directorate represents a variety of interests including its own. Those interests seem tied to the continuance of the NPfIT.
*Thanks to David Moss for drawing my attention to the Bloomberg article on CSC’s share price.
Links:
Richard Bacon’s views on NHS IT.
NHS urged to turn off life support for £3bn CSC contract.
NPfIT – Our view on what should happen now.
Health CIO Christine Connelly hits back at National Audit Office.
By David Bicknell
I must admit I hadn’t heard of Policy Review TV until now. But this clip of Bob Ricketts, Director of Provider Policy at the Department of Health speaking to delegates at the Employee Mutuals conference makes for interesting viewing.
In his remarks, Ricketts suggested that, “Despite the economic situation and current politics, mutuals are here to stay and they are a serious part of the answer in terms of transforming public services and delivery, for example in the NHS on our £15-20 billion worth of savings”.
He added that, “Social enterprises have a very good, proven track record of providing quality services that are often much more responsive than statutory services and doing so cost effectively”, he said, citing some of the innovative work done by the Whizz-Kids charity.”
Posted in Campaign4Change, mutualisation, NHS
Tagged Bob Ricketts, Department of Health, mutuals, NHS, social enterprise, Wkizz-Kidz
Campaign4Change 