HOSPITALS like Worcester's new facility have been condemned for not being "value for money" by a leading expert.

In an article in the British Medical Journal, the Worcester PFI scheme has been revealed as more expensive to run than before the transfer.

The PFI hospital, along with other schemes across the country, has been hailed by the Government as being the best way to provide new hospitals without dipping into the public purse.

But the study, by Professor Allyson Pollock of University College, London, argues the schemes will cost more in the long run to finance.

Figures cited in the study show the PFI scheme will cost £9.3m a year to run, which includes a charge that has to be paid to Catalyst, the consortia which supervised the building of the hospital.

But if the scheme had been funded with public money, it is estimated the hospital would only have cost £6.8m to run.

Janet-Marie Clark, spokeswoman for Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, said without PFI the new hospital would not be built and patients would be receiving healthcare in hospitals built more than 250 years ago and during the Second World War.

"The article in the BMJ was written by a well-known opponent of PFI and it would appear without the sight of official documents, which means it was based on estimates only," she said.

"The Commons Health Committee has stated there is no evidence to suggest PFI hospitals cost the NHS more.

"For the people of Worcestershire, PFI has meant a 21st Century hospital with unprecedented standards of privacy and dignity, and access to the latest equipment."