Sorry, don't follow, perhaps there's a "not" missing?

Hospitals say they are hesitant about using extra services on systems run by companies that might succumb to financial difficulties.
The companies claim that their financial difficulties are due to an extent to hospitals not using extra services.

There are reasons for banning mobile phones that are not related to Patient Power concession agreements. Whether these reasons outweigh the disadvantages to patients and relatives is open to question. The Select Committee says that mobile phones would inconvenience no-one if used sensibly and sensitively. This suggests that the committee members are not in the habit of visiting hospital wards. Perhaps only sensible and sensitive patients could be admitted (that would cut down on the cost of the NHS!) as sensible and sensitive use of mobiles does not seem to be a widely understood concept. Their recommendation that the use of mobiles should be allowed 'in certain areas' infers that these would not include wards, so patients confined to wards by their conditions would not benefit.

The connection is therefore purely economic. If the revenue does not exceed the costs, and the DH or NHS will not subsidise them, the companies will cease trading leaving no phone, TV or radio facilities in the wards. This would be a worse situation than pertained before the systems were introduced - though in some cases not much worse. If Patientline is to continue to operate its systems either its costs must be reduced or the revenue increased - perhaps by income from hospitals for the use of the extra services. Patientline would say that if costs could be reduced further they already would have been. Indeed, my impression is that its on-site staffing levels have already been reduced too much and the service to users has been compromised to an extent that could seriously impact revenues. But the wages bill is probably the only cost that the company has much control over.