a) Politicians need to check out the facts about CDHB:
Over this last week I was surprised to again have it reported to me that a local politician had stated to somebody (it’s a small-town people, it came straight back) that the previous CDHB Executive had not done what the Ministry Commissioned Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) review of CDHB had recommended.
Actually, this review contained NO recommendations. I can share this document with anybody who wishes to read it.
The rhetoric from both the Ministry and politicians in Wellington is that CDHB did NOT implement the recommendations from the PWC review, that the DHB was non-compliant, and that this is the reason why CDHB has continued to viewed in a poor light.
Few people have actually read the report and advice to Ministers has been based on official’s interpretation.
Sir Mark Solomon, when he was Chair of CDHB, challenged the Ministry when they started to misquote the report and eventually received an apology from the Secretary of Treasury, who delivered it personally. Why? Because it was wrong. That hasn’t stopped the MOH continuing to misquote it.
The PWC review contained a number of suggestions in the report. Unfortunately, most of the suggestions could NOT be implemented as they were actually unviable in the NZ context, and this was responded to by the Executive. It also contained some errors in assumptions (such as the treatment of Capital Charge) but the MOH refused to let PWC correct the report.
The Executive reported to the Board showing a few examples why the suggestions in the PWC report were somewhat problematic:
- Restricting the price growth for ARC (Aged Residential Care) – this would require a policy change from the Government. (no DHB can make this change independently)
- Increasing the client contribution rate – this would require a policy change from the Government. (no DHB can make this change independently)
- Reducing depreciation rates from 2.6% to 2.0%. (The level of depreciation / rates applied by the DHB are externally reviewed. Based on the PWC report the DHB changed its depreciation levels as recommended. Audit NZ then require the DHB to change them back. CDHB has a higher level of depreciation compared to other DHBs’ due to several issues related to the demolition of 44 buildings that the DHB used to operate in prior to the earthquakes.)
- Leasing. (CDHB was already leasing a significant number of facilities to house those that had been displaced as a result of the earthquakes. Further increasing the number of leased facilities increased the operational expenditure and created further fiscal pressures. The impact of the three-year delay in the delivery of the new Christchurch Hospital resulting in the DHB having to use up to 10 operating theatres every day, has created a significant increase in expenditure, effectively equivalent to leasing, – this is the “real” impact of significantly limited space. An analysis undertaken by Sapere (another consultant company) confirmed that the DHB is 30% more efficient than the private sector in relation to cost of delivery).
PWC couldn’t identify any place where Canterbury’s expenditure was out of line with national expenditure. In fact, CDHB was generally more efficient according to PWC. However, the recommended reduction of operating costs by 0.8% by PWC was built into the DHB fiscals, despite none of their recommendations as to how that could be achieved were actually achievable.
Reading the PWC report in detail did make me wonder why certain officials have continued to repeat the fiction that the CDHB didn’t implement the recommendations contained in the PWC review unless they were deliberately trying to undermine the credibility of the DHB. They didn’t because there weren’t any recommendations and the suggestions in the review could NOT be implemented by the DHB.
What was even more fascinating was that the DHB requested that PWC undertake a review of the CDHB 10-year financial forecast (following their previous work). PWC validated all of the planning assumptions. This is the type of review and validation that I would be looking for if I was a Board member of the DHB. This is exactly what the previous Board did – which incidentally is called good governance.
As I said last week – “Just because you keep repeating the same bullshit, doesn’t make it right”.
b) OIA’s seem to be a bit getting past their use-by date:
I have a number of Official Information Act enquiries sitting somewhere in the MOH waiting room. Here are two and, unless I am mistaken, it’s now December 6, 2020. You will note that one was supposed to get to me 5 November, and the other 1 December 2020.
Neither have materialised yet. Here are the emails which were sent to me:
Kia ora Garry Moore
Thank you for your request for official information, received on 5 October 2020 requesting:
“1. All the correspondence between Dr Lester Levy and Michelle Arrowsmith regarding CDHB.
2. All the correspondence between Michelle Arrowsmith and Jess Howat regarding Health Report number 20201195.”
The Ministry of Health has decided to extend the period of time available to respond to your request under section 15A of the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) as further as further consultation is required.
You can now expect a response to your request on, or before, 1 December 2020.
You have the right, under section 28 of the Act, to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision to extend the time available to respond to your request.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: oiagr@health.govt.nz
And then:
From: Catherine Pearson <Catherine.Pearson@parliament.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 15 October 2020 4:18 PM
To: ‘Garry Moore’ <garry@garrymoore.nz>
Subject: Extension of your request for official information (CHOIA721)
Kia ora
Thank you for your request for official information.
This office has decided to extend the period of time available to respond to your request under section 15A of the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) as further consultation is required.
You can now expect a response to your request on, or before, 5 November 2020.
You have the right, under section 28 of the Act, to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision to extend the time available to respond to your request.
Ngā mihi Catherine
| Catherine Pearson | Private Secretary, Health Office of Hon Chris Hipkins Minister of Health E: Catherine.Pearson@parliament.govt.nz |
Maybe the public servants in Wellington operate to a different calendar to the rest of us….
Leave a Reply