Letters

PFI is here to stay

BMJ 2002; 324 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7353.1584/a (Published 29 June 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1584

Select committee's report should have been given greater attention

  1. Brian McCloskey (B.McCloskey@worc.ac.uk), professor of public health
  1. University College Worcester, Worcester WR2 6AJ
  2. (City University)
  3. (City University)
  4. (University of Leeds)
  5. (University of Bristol)
  6. (University of Bristol)
  7. (University of Ulster)
  8. (City University)
  9. (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)
  10. (University of Oxford)
  11. (University of Lancaster)
  12. (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)
  13. (University of East Anglia)
  14. (London School of Economics and Political Science)
  15. (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)
  16. (University of York)
  17. (City University)
  18. (University of Edinburgh)
  19. (University of York)

    EDITOR—Pollock's arguments against the private finance initiative (PFI), a news item on PFI, and a report on the House of Commons Select Committee on Health's inquiry into the role of the private sector in the NHS should have been linked together and more made of the select committee's report.13

    The select committee said that it was “unimpressed with much of the University College London's Health Policy and Health Services Research Unit's (HPHSRU) research and its arguments against PFI.” Yet the BMJ has based its debate on PFI almost exclusively around articles by this unit. The committee added: “This has raised serious questions about the HPHSRU's ability to analyse rationally the finances of the NHS.” Most significantly it said: “We found the lack of sound analysis from the HPHSRU additionally worrying because it has been the source of …

    Sign in

    Subscribe