Hopes that the £36 million of extra money destined for the South
Staffordshire Health Authority from the Government might help to maintain
existing in- and out-patient hospital facilities in Lichfield and Burntwood
have been dashed. In replying to a letter from Michael Fabricant enquiring
whether the Government’s claimed extra funding will restore day surgery to
Lichfield, Melvyn Ellis (the Chief Executive of South Staffordshire Health
Authority), has starkly spelt out the financial position . Mr Ellis
states: "As regards our plans for Lichfield and Burntwood these figures
make no difference".

Indeed, Melvyn Ellis states in his letter that while the Department of
Health in London has used 2.5% as an inflation figure, "The generally
accepted view in the NHS is that NHS inflation is currently running at 5.6%
so that immediately eats away at the real terms growth. From the
additional money, just over £8,000,000 is earmarked for specific purposes
which whilst benefiting the NHS locally cannot be used for any other purpose
and therefore restricts our flexibility. Finally we have to deal with our
rolling deficit which now stands at about £4.5 million".

Michael Fabricant says "Melvyn Ellis is right to highlight the financial
pressure still being faced by the Health Authority. I had hoped before
Christmas that the ‘extra NHS money’ being trumpeted by the Government
might be real and might be available to ensure that hospital services in
Lichfield and Burntwood would not be reduced. But it is unfortunately now
clear that any rejoicing was premature. As ever, things are not as good
as they at first seemed.

"The Government has a clear duty to fund local health authorities
adequately. Their decision to abolish GP Fundholding in 1998 immediately
threatened the long term viability of our hospitals. Prior to then, local
doctors had a major financial input into hospital services in Lichfield and
Burntwood.

"Nevertheless, despite funding pressure, we have seen major movement in the
right direction from the Health Authority reversing many of their original
plans. They are now not going to close the dialysis unit and there is some
hope that there may be as many beds available in the proposed new Lichfield
hospital as was originally the case in Lichfield and Burntwood. But this
needs clarification as the plans are still not clear. Importantly, we have
won the case on the maternity unit. This was originally scheduled for
closure, but has won a stay of execution at least for the time being. The
two outstanding issues are: the provision of in-patient and respite beds in
Burntwood; and the retention of day surgery in Lichfield."

With regard to day surgery, Melvyn Ellis states in his letter: "The
planned move of day surgery from Lichfield to Tamworth was always based on
value for money and using existing facilities rather than on cost saving
grounds". But Michael Fabricant responds: "I am not clear what Melvyn
Ellis means by this. He was previously using the ‘value for money’ argument
against the dialysis and units saying that people could travel elsewhere.
Ultimately, one could use the ‘value for money’ argument against any smaller
hospital and this would clearly be wrong. I intend to continue to fight for
both day surgery to be retained in Lichfield and some in-patient facility to
be in Burntwood. At a time when the area’s population in increasing, we
should be looking at more hospital services, not fewer".

Michael Fabricant will be meeting with David Murray (Chairman) and Melvyn
Ellis on the 10th January when he will be pressing these issues. In the
meantime, he will also chase Lord Hunt – Minister at the Department of
Health – who had promised to write to Mr Fabricant with the Government’s
conclusions following Lord Hunt’s meeting with a delegation from Lichfield
and Burntwood on the 6th November last year. No such letter has yet been
received.