NHS IT programme budget cut
The UK’s health secretary has announced the government’s plan to reduce the budget of the troubled NHS ‘supercomputer’ project by £600m
Andy Burnham told the House of Commons that the NHS could not function without the £12bn programme but that the government was in discussion with suppliers to reduce its costs by £600m.
He said: ‘In the current climate it is right to look again at efficiencies and value for money in all large projects. We are looking at potential reductions to the scope of the systems and the cost savings that could be generated.
‘In addition we are looking seriously at the internal savings that can be made from the costs of running the programme. This means that we will now pare back to the core elements that have been identified as critical by clinicians.’
His announcement came after the chancellor of the exchequer, Alistair Darling, told the BBC that parts of the project were to be cut as they were not crucial to the frontline. In his pre-budget report to be announced tomorrow (9 December), the chancellor said he would ‘set out areas where we are going to cut spending or not spend as much as we were.’
The Conservative party hit back at the government saying that the project was an ‘abject example of the government’s incompetence’. Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, in response to Andy Burnham’s announcement, said: ‘Seven years on they are over-budget and under-delivered. The electronic patient record system is four years late at the very best, if ever. Everyone told them that big IT projects should be user led and this one wasn’t. The government got it wrong and the treasury is now belatedly putting a stop to this continuing disaster.’
The shadow minister went on to criticise the cost of the project and the confusion it was causing. He added: ‘Worst of all is the resulting lack of IT innovation in our hospitals, which has the potential to be of such benefit to patients in managing their care better and minimising errors in their treatment.’
Andy Burnham refuted the claim of a lack of innovation and argued that the programme was working well and had the support of clinicians.