How can CDHB best serve its population…
This week we are privileged to have Ian Powell, who for 30 years was the Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists. Ian has a unique view of Health having been there before most of the current players and having worked with many long gone who could give very sound advice to many of the current players.
Meeting ID: 857 4585 3316 Passcode: 811015
Ian feels that the adversarial attitude from some of the Board needs to change. It is obvious that this will only happen if key players leave. The $90m deficit target will have to go and the Minister will have to step up.
In the past week Ian Powell has written some wonderful background documents on CDHB which are well worth reading before he speaks.
In the first paper he concludes with these comments:
The Canterbury experience where, under the Labour-led Government, the objective that had been unsuccessfully sought under its National led predecessor was achieved, suggests that the Simpson report should be looked at through an ominous rather than just sceptical eye.
The Simpson report is written by liberal technocrats for a government led by liberal technocrats. The upside of liberal technocrats is that they respect science and empiricism (invaluable for responding to pandemics). The downside is that they lack peripheral vision and have a form of elitism that can inadvertently take a health system down a more centralist authoritarian path.
Here’s the article:
The second article focuses on the finances. He writes:
Anticipating the seriousness of the situation CDHB took the initiative and commissioned a report from Martin Jenkins consultants on an appropriate funding system to cope with the earthquake devastation. Martin Jenkins advised that the PPF was not suitable for this extraordinary situation. Instead they recommended that PPF should apply only to the other 19 DHBs who were in ‘steady state’. Instead, given its exceptional circumstances, Canterbury should be funded through a special arrangement designed to address its special circumstances
CDHB agreed with this recommendation but it was rejected by Tony Ryall.
The term “PBF” is “population-based funding”. The interesting observation is that this is what advice Ryall would have received from the Ministry of Health. The same Ministry which advised the next Minister, who appears to have accepted their advice and gone back on his promises before the last election.
Here’s the article: Funding Health Systems after Natural Disasters https://otaihangasecondopinion.wordpress.com/2020/08/18/funding-health-systems-after-natural-disasters/
Before National climbs into this and attacks the Government just remember you started this problem.