HEALTHWATCHDOG
INTRODUCTION
Mission Statement
To raise issues of concern right across the health sector; to communicate positive ideas and possible solutions to problems; and to support health campaigners throughout New Zealand.
About Us
We are a very diverse New Zealand-wide group including health campaigners, health practitionesrs, current patiencts and families of patients, and others taking an active interest in health issues.
HEALTH WATCHDOG
Contact details: David Tranter, Omoto Valley nr Greymouth -tel/fax 03 7686112
email - davidtranter@hotmail.com
website - healthwatchdog.cjb.net
----------
EDITORIAL
In a recent National Radio interview health minister, Annette King, referred to the importance of the public knowing "what was going on". Many of us following health issues might be excused for wondering if Mrs King understands what is "going on" in the brave new "open and accountable" world of the district health boards! Those of us who have dutifully attended the West Coast DHB public meetings so far have learned very little other than that the topics of most interest are held in committee. At one meeting we were required to leave after just 45 minutes so the juicy subjects could be discussed in secret! One new board member who spoke out frequently at the first meeting has become progressively less vocal at subsequent meetings - and was absent from the May meeting. (Hopeful sign - she has asked questions again at the June meeting.)
I recently requested under the Official Information Act, details of how Coast Health Care administration (as the region's dominant provider) is distinguished from District Health Board administration (as the purchaser) since the two appear to be one and the same. This is now confirmed by c.e.o, Sue Belsham, in a letter dated 22.06.01 "Coast Health Care is part of the West Coast D.H.B. and the role of Chief Executive Officer of the Board also encompasses the role of Chief Executive Officer of Coast Health Care". So how can they possibly distance the two roles as claimed earlier this year? The D.H.B. is already confirmed as giving the c.e.o. s $60,000 pay rise and the same c.e.o. is refusing to say whether, as is believed, other management got similar (40%) pay rises on the change of board name from Coast Health Care to D.H.B.
STAGGERING BLOWOUT IN WEST COAST HEALTH BUREAUCRACY COSTS SINCE 1993
Figures obtained by the West Coast Health Coalition indicate a 12-fold increase in West Coast health bureaucracy costs since 1993.
According to local sources the West Coast Area Health Board ran the Coast's services in 1993 with a total of 11 administrative staff. While the current board recently claimed 26 positions in the corporate office, when other managerial posts in Grey Hospital are included the present total is believed to be around 43.
The 1993 equivalent of the present c.e.o. received about $60,000 salary - the same as Sue Belsham's recent rise to her present $190,00 - $200,000 pay, and although the D.H.B. are refusing to reveal the extent of other recent managerial pay increases it is believed that administrative pay rates generally have increased in similar proportions to that of the c.e.o. since 1993 i.e. around 300%.
Combining a four-fold increase in management positions with a three-fold jump in pay rates gives a 12-fold increase in total bureaucracy costs, added to which are such expenses as employing outside consultants, purchase of corporate vehicles, a $190,000 house for management use and costs of holding management meetings in hotels and restaurants. (Figures obtained under the Official Information Act show all these costs.)
Further evidence of the changed ethos is local people's recollection of when area health board members gave their services free or for very small payment compared to the present chairman's $30,000 and board members' $15,000 - the same board which has delayed replacing a $10,000 item of surgical equipment until it failed during an operation.
The alleged $2M/year under-funding for the Coast is an extremely conservative estimate of the cost of maintaining a corporate gravy train which is not merely unnecessary but has directly caused the demoralisation of professional health staff throughout the Coast. The last straw for health professionals here must be D.H.B. chair, Marion van der Goes' recent comment on using surgical equipment past the manufacturer's use-by date, "It is no different than when a family buys a fridge. The manufacturers' warranty runs out after two years but they continue to use the fridge for 10 or 20 years". (Greymouth Evening Star 04.07.01.) That statement utterly condemns the corporate mindset which puts management salaries ahead of patient safety. This failure of urology equipment has lead to the disclosure that the Coast Health Care Board approved the equipment for replacement in 1996 and that the board was told over a year ago by Christchurch urologist, Dr. Stuart Gowland, that the equipment was "archaic". The board's failure to act - and even then with further delay - until it broke during an operation proves once and for all the absolute necessity for government to get rid of the incompetent, unethical administrators who have no rightful place in the public health system.
How does one go about linking world-wide agendas on the privatisation of public services with the doings of local health boards? (The easy question first!) It all seems far-fetched when you live somewhere like the West Coast. Anyone who has read such articles as that by Maude Barlow (head of the Council of Canadians and Women's Affairs Adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister) on current World Trade Organisation agendas (The Ecologist, Feb 2001) will appreciate why I pose that opening question. GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services - Son of GATT?) is set to privatise everything in sight and aims to be in force in 137 countries - New Zealand included - within two years. This will give the multi-national corporations open slather in health, education, social services, postal services, museums and libraries, public transport, water supplies, parks, river systems, forests - you name it they want it - and without any obligations concerning social responsibility.
So, back to health - and these so-called democratic district health boards. Is the West Coast the odd one out - or are all the district health boards going the same way? Let me explain. The c.e.o. of Coast Health Care Ltd. (the local CHE/HHS) has a four year contract as c.e.o. of the "new" West Coast District Health Board. The chair and deputy chair of the old Coast Health Care Board have been re-appointed to the same positions on the "new" Board. The Coast Health Care corporate bureaucracy (which has mushroomed enormously compared to the administration which ran our health services prior to 1993) is the "new" Board bureaucracy. The secret board committee of fifteen which was consulted over plans to set up the new board comprised Coast Health Care's appointed "by invitations" choices - and the public never knew about them. If I wasn't extracting information out of the bureaucracy under the Official Information Act no-one would know they ever existed as a planning body.
The first public meeting of the "new" Board was an eye-opener. After a two hour session containing little of public interest the significant topics were dealt with in committee. Most revealing of what we could hear was the chair's comments questioning the usefulness of consulting the public because, she said, 'you might get "the wrong person". This sentiment was endorsed by another board member. The only new board member who asked questions of public interest was finally cut off from further questioning by the chair. The obvious definition of the "wrong person" is clearly anyone who disagrees with the set-in-concrete agenda.
So where does privatisation come in?
(1) Local people have already been told they will have to go private - if they can afford it - for surgery without having a possibly harmful waiting time. Several Coasters known to me have already done so because they couldn't see any other way out.
(2) National set up corporate hospital management as part of privatising the health system - and this government are NOT making the changes really needed to tackle the corporate culture entrenched since 1993.
(3) In the view of many observers Parliament's outstanding advocate for the public health system, Phillida Bunkle, incurred the wrath of her recent attackers not for alleged infringement of rules but because she stands out against privatisation of health. Anyone who thinks it's all about infringing some residential or allowance rules is either remarkably naive or in favour of privatising health - and there are plenty of those in Parliament.
(4) Take mental health as an example; the Coast's pyschiatric hospital is closing and a private concern runs the large number of community houses taking the former Seaview patients - and they have been "monitored" by another little-known agency. So, piece by piece, the accountability trail becomes ever harder to follow - I know, I've tried! - and an ever-increasing proportion of our health funding moves out of the public sector into other hands. In 1984 approximately 10% of health funding went into the private sector; by the mid-90s this was over 50% and still rising. How long can that trend continue without the inevitability of the public system creaking at the joints - and on top of that is the proliferation of bureaucrats who not only siphon off vast sums of money that should be funding health services but who have a disastrously demoralising effect on the health workers, especially nurses. One nurse rang me recently, poured out her despair and that of many of her colleagues, and ended telling me "you are our only voice".
The local bureaucrats keep bleating about how hard it is to get staff to stay here including the turnover of 30 doctors in a year in the Buller district. (They have no difficulty in finding eager applicants for the paper-shuffling posts!) Of course it's hard to keep health professionals because of the clash of cultures - corporatism v. the traditional caring ethic of nursing, still the most trusted and respected profession of all. As a former N.Z. Nursing Organisation director Brenda Wilson said in 1995, "our communities, and the staff who are trying to provide quality care in increasingly difficult conditions, are feeling alienated from a system where money matters most". She also referred to "a conspiracy of silence". No wonder this government sidelined Phillida Bunkle from health as the only M.P. with the knowledge and the commitment to try to turn around the corporate juggernaut which Labour appear entirely comfortable with. ( next)
|