News / FTN stresses importance of non-NHS income

In a briefing entitled How NHS providers use non-NHS income to improve patient services, the FTN said non-NHS income made up less than 1.6% of foundation trusts’ total operating income in 2013/14.

Over the past six years, private patient income was 0.9% of the sector’s total revenue. When income from overseas patients (where there were no reciprocal arrangements) is added in, the figure climbs to almost 1%.

The remaining 0.6% was from non-private patient income streams, such as contracts with other parts of the public sector, education and training, intellectual property and services such as car parking and cleaning.

The briefing shows the proportion of non-NHS income earned by a selection of six unnamed foundation trusts in 2013/14. The proportion varied from about 0.5% in a district general or mental health trust to between just under 4% and almost 16% at specialty trusts.

The FTN insisted non-NHS income is an important source of revenue and contributed not only to stabilising trust finances – the surplus income was reinvested in NHS patient services – but also improving quality. It offered NHS patients diagnostic and treatment services that might not otherwise be available under current NHS budgetary constraints.

FTN chief executive Chris Hopson (below) said: ‘There are dozens of instances up and down the country where leading edge medical equipment has been purchased thanks to non-NHS income and is now available for use by NHS patients that would otherwise not have been possible.’

Private patient income had not increased substantially. In 2006/07 it stood at around 1.5% of total income, but this fell over the next three financial years to around 0.5% in 2009/10. However, it began to rise again in 2012/13 and 2013/14.

‘The ability of providers to diversify their income streams has never been more important,’ Mr Hopson continued.

‘The safeguards provided in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 mean that foundation trusts are able to develop non-NHS income streams in a safe, proportionate and locally accountable way. We change these arrangements at our peril.’