Health Minister Tony Ryall says a proposal to introduce a two-tier system allowing private medical care in public hospitals is “worth a look.”
He should rule this insanity out right now. The idea that our hospitals have the capacity to deliver private health care on top of their current workload is so far removed from reality it’s staggering that Ryall would even countenance the idea.
Just this morning in my own electorate, Mid-Central DHB informed staff that it would be closing surgical beds due to a drop in acute surgery needs. I understand that when asked why the beds couldn’t be used to boost elective surgery numbers, management replied that surgeons were unavailable due to their private sector commitments.
If there isn’t the capacity to meet current needs, where will it come from to meet the additional requirements of fee-paying patients?
That aside, the point of having public hospitals is that everyone gets access to medical care based on need, not wealth. The kind of queue-jumping this would encourage is totally unacceptable.
Just where is Tony Ryall taking our health system?
The kind of queue-jumping this would encourage is totally unacceptable.
Just where is Tony Ryall taking our health system?
If you didn’t get to the bottom of the article, Ryall said:
“If it can be done without queue-jumping or preferential treatment, is not costing the public health system and makes things easier for the patients, then it’s worth looking at.”
Yes I did read to the bottom and I know what he SAID. But how could it be done without resulting in queue jumping? How could it be done without drawing resources away from publicly funded care?
It’s just not realistic.
But how could it be done without resulting in queue jumping?
I’m with you on that one, actually. It’s bit unclear to me what stage the proposal is at, if any. Is it a formal proposal or just something that the doctor from Dunedin mentioned at a meeting from down the back of room… If it hasn’t been formally made I would think they’d have to try to take Ryall’s concerns into account, which would be interesting. Seems like by ruling it out like this you’re most concerned it’s just a waste of time to examine it(?) – a valid concern, of course.
Just where is Tony Ryall taking our health system by considering new proposals?
Getting sufficient well qualified and experienced surgeons in New Zealand is a problem. If it wasn’t possible for them to do both public and private work a significant number would either opt for private practice totally, or leave and go to somewhere where they could earn a private dollar.
So like it or not we’re going to have spare capacity in public hospitals. Expensive facilities sitting empty whilst surgeons operate on private patients in private hospitals.
What on earth is wrong with the public sector recooping some of the considerable investment they’d put into facilities by hiring it out for private operations. Those operations will go ahead in any case. It’s just whether the public system gets some benefit (in addition to not having to pay for the patient’s surgery in the first place) or not.
Schools hire out their facilities for private gain. Should we be looking at perhaps stopping that practice also?
So much for medical ethics that Doctors used to adhere to.
Now it’s all about money.
The next step of course is introducing the so-called benefits of private insurance for those who can afford it and the removal of all but the rudimentary free public medical care that the impoverished can access with lots of forelock tugging.
Expect the inevitable question at the counter – do you have medical insurance? Cash? Oh dear, no, then we can’t help you. Sorry.
Arise, mini America imitator initiate, John Key.
The Americanisation of New Zealand will soon be complete. Just hope you have enough money and no mortgage to survive it.
One must be aware in this debate that while our hospitals have become more like factories people are not machines and we can’t always get all the things we want.
This is nuts!
The public health system (despite all its faults)
is miles (oops! my age is showing, I shd hav sd kms)
As far as surgery is concerned the private sector cannot match the public sector.
They may be on a par IF there no complications, and if all appropriate protocols have been followed.
I would back the public system every time.
I would have to be very desperate (and a lot richer) to go private.
The thought of private practitioners siphoning off publicly funded (strained)resources is abominable.
If this idea goes ahead it will be private surgery feeding off public resources.
Subsidised private companies is part of the national party’s agenda?
They are closet socialists of the command economy that they so deride.
I am sure Rodney and Turia would love it.
No perks in it for anyone,eh Rodney?
It would wonders for affluent Maori, eh Turia?
@peterlepaysan – if the private practitioners were paying for the use of facilities that would otherwise be idle why does that amount to ’syphoning off public resources’?
If they’re paying an economic cost to use them rather than paying a non-public institution for the same facilities surely that’s a win for the public sector, not a cost?
It seems that the only problem here is that some totally disagree with the idea of people spending some of their own money on medical care (on top, rather than instead, of what they contribute towards the communal pot, remember) and are approaching the issue from a purely ideological rather than a practical point of view.
A couple of years ago I had a minor operation on my hand for which I went private. The cost of the op was less than $2,000, and it allowed me to get the treatment much quicker than if I’d waited for the public sector to provide it. The cost of freeing up my fingers to work properly was less than the cost of a large flat screen TV. Why should anyone get holier than thou about me choosing to spend my own cash on making my life better in this way when they’d keep their mouths shut if I wasted it on imported and unnecessary technology?
Sure not everyone could have afforded to make the choice I made, but then not everyone can afford a large LCD TV either but few seem to take an ideological stand against their sale! (Is that, perhaps, a campaign further down the track?)
@Jum – “So much for medical ethics that Doctors used to adhere to.”
So, to confirm, are you suggesting that doctors who choose to engage in private practice are lacking in ethics?
The thing is public hospital resources are stretched enough now. Sometimes there are spare theatres / beds but there is not the staff required to carry out the surgery or the post-operative care.
Case-in-point: One of my constituents came to me last year becasue her planned surgery had been cancelled four times due to emergency and acute cases taking priority.
There is nothing wrong with having a private option for elective medical / surgical care and that option is available now. But taking up resources within the public system for private work is bound to interfere with the delivery of public services to the detriment of those who cannot afford to pay.
Even if it was possible to do this without disrupting public services (and, at risk of repitition, I don’t think it is) it would not increase the amount of surgery being completed and would do nothing to reduce waiting lists. All that would happen is the private sector would lose work to the public sector. And that’s assuming the public sector could compete on price.
Frankly I don’t want hospital administrators worrying about competition and market share. I want them focussed on delivering public health services for all New Zealanders – that’s their job.
Iain Lees-Galloway : “But taking up resources within the public system for private work is bound to interfere with the delivery of public services to the detriment of those who cannot afford to pay.”
Why so? We’re talking about underused resources. Why is it better to allow them to sit idle? The sort of situation being suggested already works ok in the NHS in the UK.
“Even if it was possible to do this without disrupting public services (and, at risk of repitition, I don’t think it is) it would not increase the amount of surgery being completed and would do nothing to reduce waiting lists. All that would happen is the private sector would lose work to the public sector.”
And as a result bring some money into the public sector. Why would this be a bad idea? And if the initiative brought in money to the DHBs surely that cash wouldn’t just be pocketed by the management but would be available for use in providing public medical care. Which might well reduce public waiting lists. Whatever one’s ideological point of view on this one, allowing underused facilities to lie idle won’t reduce waiting lists, will it?
“And that’s assuming the public sector could compete on price.”
And if they can’t all we get is the status quo, as if the initiative had never been suggested in the first place. So what’s the problem with that?