Private firms: NHS services made £1.6bn profit in two years, MPs warn

Research by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest (CHPI) shows private companies providing services to the NHS in England generated an estimated £1.6bn in profit across 2023-24 and 2024-25. The analysis covers roughly £12bn of expenditure by NHS England and local Integrated Care Boards and has sparked demands from MPs for limits on profits derived from public contracts.

CHPI’s NHS Profit Map study examined about 760 suppliers delivering diagnostics, elective procedures and consultancy. The report finds that £2bn of the examined contracts went to firms whose ultimate owners are registered outside the UK, and £533m of that amount went to companies owned by people in tax havens such as Jersey and the Cayman Islands. The analysis also flags that firms—particularly those backed by private equity—used around £353m of NHS income to service debt interest.

From a public finance perspective the sums are material: CHPI estimates the £1.6bn could have paid for the equivalent of 19,428 nurses or 9,178 doctors over the two-year period. Opposition MPs described the findings as evidence that taxpayer funds are leaking out of frontline care and urged ministers to introduce rules limiting excessive returns on contracts funded by the state. The debate underlines tensions between rapid capacity provision and value-for-money oversight.

Industry bodies representing independent healthcare providers cautioned that headline figures risk oversimplifying a complex picture, arguing that company-wide profits do not necessarily map neatly onto NHS-specific work and that surpluses can be reinvested into services. The Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged the role of the independent sector in reducing waiting lists but said it would not tolerate gaming of national tariffs or poor care standards. Meanwhile, calls for greater transparency of ownership and tax registration of providers have intensified.

Analysts expect political pressure to translate into policy options such as profit caps, tighter contract terms on allowable leverage and improved disclosure rules. If government pursues an approach similar to the proposed 8% cap for children’s social care, private providers may need to adjust capital structures and pricing, with potential implications for investment flows into the sector. For markets and investors, the story raises regulatory risk around public contracts and underscores the importance of governance and balance-sheet transparency in healthcare providers.