Trust Board Febuary 2010 - Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals
Trust Board Febuary 2010 - Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals
Trust Board Febuary 2010 - Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
SWBTB (2/10) 045 (a)<br />
• Additional Midwives, 2 WTEs<br />
• Additional support to maternity theatres at City by introducing a 24/7 “theatre runner” resulting in<br />
5.5 additional WTEs<br />
• To partially compensate for these additional costs an assumption has been made that projected<br />
activity growth in births and associated activities will be undertaken at a 70% marginal cost, thus<br />
generating a 30% contribution to affording this option. This assumption is common to all options.<br />
In headline terms the option worsens the SLR trading position by circa £570k by the end of 2013/14<br />
resulting in a forecast deficit of £5.213 million.<br />
Options 1 & 2: The financial consideration of these options has been taken together as, although they<br />
are slightly different in content, they are the same in overall financial and economic terms.<br />
There are a number of important assumptions which underpin these options, in particular,<br />
• Future birth activity forecasts have been amended from 2011/12 to assume a catchment loss of<br />
22% of Obstetric related activity (circa 600 births). This is consistent with the catchment change<br />
principles embedded within RCRH modelling. This assumes circa £1.6 million worth of income is<br />
lost in 2011/12. No specific offsetting reductions to direct costs have been applied because,<br />
• Growth of circa 200 births per annum (£550k) has been included for non <strong>Sandwell</strong><br />
commissioners for births which may be repatriated to City Hospital post full implementation of the<br />
option to a maximum of 600 births. No additional costs have been included for these births as no<br />
cost have been removed for the <strong>Sandwell</strong> catchment loss; however, phasing of the birth<br />
repatriation assumes a three year trajectory as opposed to catchment loss occurring all in one<br />
year.<br />
• The assumption of only 70% of new growth (“non repatriation”) related income requiring new<br />
costs is included within both options.<br />
• These options also include a forecast reduction in capital charges (£766k) associated with<br />
closing and revaluing the current <strong>Sandwell</strong> maternity block from 2011/12 onwards. The resultant<br />
need for an economic impairment of circa £1.7 million has not been included within this analysis,<br />
thus delivery of the depreciation saving will be dependant upon the <strong>Trust</strong>’s ability to afford the<br />
technical impairment. The <strong>Trust</strong> would envisage submitting an application to the StHA “Strategic<br />
Change Fund” for 2011/12 to gain financial assistance in dealing with the economic impairment.<br />
• Additional costs are included to cover the “theatre runner” as indicated earlier but a saving of a<br />
theatre team has been including reducing costs by £550k by the end of 2011/12.<br />
The impact on overall affordability depends upon whether one includes the capital charge savings and<br />
sets aside the impairment, or whether one assumes this will not be possible within the scope of the<br />
business case. In either case both options deliver an improved overall SLR trading position by the end of<br />
2013/14. The magnitude of the improvement is dependant upon the capital charge/impairment issue but<br />
is within the range of circa £500k to £1.3 million. Consideration of how the <strong>Trust</strong> may handle the<br />
economic impairment has not been factored into the long-term financial forecasts which are presented<br />
assuming the impairment becomes affordable. The Overall Financial appraisal ranking table (Table 11<br />
below) demonstrates the headline changes on financial viability over the four year period assuming the<br />
capital charge savings are realised. The table also reflects the overall affordability impact should the<br />
targeted capital charge saving not be achievable in this timeline. In this scenario Options 1& 2 still<br />
improve affordability but not as significantly as might be possible through generating the capital charge<br />
saving.<br />
Option 3: The assumptions, outcomes and risks within Option 3 are largely consistent with Options 1&2.<br />
Where they differ is with regard to the introduction in 2012/13 of a stand alone Birth Centre in <strong>Sandwell</strong>.<br />
Modelling assumes a part year effect of 160 births in 2012/13 leading to 400 births in 2013/14. An I&E<br />
summary for the stand alone Birth Centre is attached at Appendix 6.<br />
24