[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Port Adelaide Fan]

Full financial details of the new RAH to be revealed

FULL financial details of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will finally be revealed tomorrow.

It comes after the ink has dried on the contract.

Health Minister John Hill is expected to unveil the details at a briefing before Thursday's State Budget. The contract with the consortium has already been signed.

Documents from consortium partner Macquarie Bank leaked to the Opposition and media last month revealed the capital cost was $2.7 billion, with a life-of-project cost estimated at $10 billion. Construction alone was projected to cost $1.7 billion.

more: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6069309609

[Will]

Finally, a video of the new RAH.

From: AdelaideNow

http://video.adelaidenow.com.au/1970926 ... he-new-RAH

[Nathan]

A higher quality version is available here: http://www.sahp.com.au/downloads/NRAH_v02.mov

[Will]

An excellent editorial piece from the Advertiser:

RAH heralds healthier times for state

From: The Advertiser June 07, 2011 12:00AM


THERE have been years of debate over whether or not Adelaide needs a new hospital.

Now, a significant chapter in the history of the state's health has been signed off on, with the State Government finally presenting the signed deal for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Within weeks, the first earthworks on the site of the old railyards are likely to commence under a timeframe predicted to deliver the state-of-the-art hospital by 2016.

The Government has been pushing for the development of this new hospital since the initial plans were unveiled three years ago this week, and then went to the last election on the issue.

There can be little doubt the Government has a mandate to build the new hospital even though the Opposition continues to push its alternative plan of rebuilding the RAH on the existing site.

While the Opposition has had every right to question the costings and location of the hospital, it would appear that now is the time for all the argument to end and for the work to begin.

There is no question about the potential role the building is going to play in this city in terms of better health care and by demonstrating the worth of public private partnerships - in this case one of the largest in the nation's history.

It will also be a welcome addition to the ongoing build up of infrastructure along North Tce and the Torrens River precinct.

As it begins to take shape at the western end of the city, the residents of Adelaide will see a bold new future in health care emerging.

The fact of the matter is that the old RAH, whatever sentimental feelings it might evoke among the thousands of people who visit it every day, was in dire need of significant upgrading.

Such an upgrade would have cost more than $1 billion and would have been hugely disruptive to a health system which is already straining to keep pace with demand.

The new hospital is a brand new design, with innovative features such as robot-assisted delivery of meals and medicine, and the question needs to be asked whether an upgraded hospital on the old site would have been up to these standards.

The answer to that has to be no.

While the financing might appear complex, it appears to be sound and affordable.

This new hospital, on the face of it, does appear to be a very good project for this state on both health and financial grounds.

The virtual go-ahead for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, the planned expansion of the Convention Centre, the upgrading of the Adelaide Casino complex and the release of the crucial environmental impact statement for the Olympic Dam expansion all contribute to creating a picture of an exciting future for this state.

Business leaders, especially those who make crucial investment decisions, are now taking a very hard look at the opportunities being presented in South Australia at a time when the economy is looking for stimulus.

When all is said and done, the events of the past few weeks, coupled with yesterday's significant announcement, show the state is entering very positive times.

Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by The Editor, Melvin Mansell, 31 Waymouth St, Adelaide SA 5000

[Vee]

An excellent editorial piece from the Advertiser:

RAH heralds healthier times for state

Agree!
The state of the art hospital, updated technology and use of private rooms, rather than old fashioned wards (up to 8 patients), will also assist in the reduction/control of deadly superbug bacteria and improved patient well being as well as attracting and retaining specialist medical staff.

Like the new video too.

[Waewick]

after visiting the RAH on many many occasions - I'm happy with what ever we do to upgrade or remove or rebuild the damn thing as it was a mess (no offence to staff members)

I actually hope as a result the Botanic Gardens get a the vacant space behind the existing carpark and any other land not needed from buildings being demolished as it is the only piece of the parklands that really value add to the city.

[stumpjumper]

I actually hope as a result the Botanic Gardens get a the vacant space behind the existing carpark and any other land not needed from buildings being demolished as it is the only piece of the parklands that really value add to the city.

I think you're being a bit harsh on the Park Lands, Waewick.

As to the final result of the RAH redevelopment, the only way to judge it is as a cost/benefit proposition. That's where opinions may differ.

[rhino]

As to the final result of the RAH redevelopment, the only way to judge it is as a cost/benefit proposition. That's where opinions may differ.

I would have thought patient well-being and better conditions for staff to work in were pretty important to a lot of people.

Well done to Melvin Mansell for printing such a positive article.

[stumpjumper]

What I meant was that the best way to compare the new versus old hospitals is to compare costs and benefits. The new hospital will cost more - but that would be worthwhile if there are advantages worth the cost.

[AG]

What I meant was that the best way to compare the new versus old hospitals is to compare costs and benefits. The new hospital will cost more - but that would be worthwhile if there are advantages worth the cost.

Cost-benefit analysis relies on numbers, numbers are a language and you can lie, mislead or miscommunicate in any language. It's far from perfect considering the number of factors that you'd have to input into both cases to come up with a figure. Plus you also have the issue of cash flow management which cost-benefit analysis doesn't demonstrate very well.

[stumpjumper]

I suppose the cost-benefit that really matters is whether the cost of the hospital and the cost of the oval really will buy Rann and co the 2014 election.

[dsriggs]

MEDIA MIKE & FIX IT PAT

[Will]

I suppose the cost-benefit that really matters is whether the cost of the hospital and the cost of the oval really will buy Rann and co the 2014 election.

Are you really that cynical?

[mattblack]

I suppose the cost-benefit that really matters is whether the cost of the hospital and the cost of the oval really will buy Rann and co the 2014 election.

You really do have some credible things to say sometimes and other times like this just make me wonder.

[stumpjumper]

I reckon there's a fair chance that in looking at priorities for spending money, Rann and his pals would have agreed that there were electoral advantages of going ahead with AO and NRAH, despite the timing and even necessity of those projects being arguable.

Meanwhile spending on less visible but essential work with less electoral advantage is cancelled or postponed.