Mid-Central DHB is cutting chemotherapy treatment for certain types of cancer.
It’s clear that one of the over-riding reasons behind the decision to refuse some cancer patients treatment and the failure to even place them on the waiting list is to ensure that Tony Ryall can manipulate cancer waiting times to present to the media.
Cutting cancer waiting times is one of Tony Ryall’s narrow-focused targets for the health system. A laudable aim at first glance, but did anyone really expect that this would be the method used to achieve it?
National criticised Labour for sending patients needing cancer treatment to Australia when there was a shortage of specialists. We know now that instead of sending patients to Australia when there is a shortage, National’s answer is they just won’t treat patients who have some cancers.
Ryall has been virtually silent since this issue came to light. Guess there’s no photo-op in it for him.
No, Iain, it’s clear that mid-central DHB is unable to fully staff it’s cancer treatment unit. It is Mid-Central DHB that is not providing chemotherapy to some cancer patients where chemotherapy is of very limited use. Of course, this problem could be resolved if cancer treatments were provided on a nation-wide, instead of DHB basis, but then you would probably squeal about “local solutions” instead, wouldn’t you?
Which kinds of cancer? At what stages? And why was it considered clinically indicated in those cases previously, for those same kinds of patients?
And is the reason that its not considered clinically indicated any more because of Ryall’s decisions around money.
Please explain how you think that centralising cancer treatment will help patients and their families.
And are there any other areas of medical treatment you would want centralised as well.
You’ll not get any squealing from me. Cancer treatment is already provided on a regional, not DHB, basis. This cut will effect people across the lower North Island.
I’m not sure how centralisation solves the problem here. The issue is a lack of oncologists in New Zealand. That won’t be solved by moving where the treatment occurs.
The real point here is that faced with the current shortage, Mid-Central had options. One option would be to continue with chemo where appropriate even if that meant people had to wait for that chemo to happen. However, becasue the KPI is the time spent on the waiting list, that option was put aside in favour of not providing chemo to some patients.
Becasue Tony Ryall set the target, the blame for Mid-Central making the decision they did lies at his feet.
Do I get parole today Trev?
Spud you will get banned again if you keep carrying on. Clare
I understand that not having enough oncologists is a part of this problem – but my question is what do these families do for treatment – even a waiting list is not ok – people die in these kinds of circumstances. So, what do these families do? Simply wait and die?
ps and @Iain – whats would Lab do?
Macdoctor has his stethoscope in a twist, being wrong in general and in this specific instance.
If it was just a temporary shortage of specialists then an increase in the waiting time for the least urgent cases would have applied. This has all the signs of rigged outcome. The DHB has a reduction of service affecting the wider region all announced during the holiday lull .
And as for those patients who are ‘least likely to benefit’, treatment options will still be available elsewhere ( so much for the clinical indications) but of course they wont be accepted as their ‘funding’ wont go with them as MCDHB has wiped that option out.
Somewhere there’s a really riled Ryall.
“Cancer patients sent back to GPs” is precisely the bullet-point he fears most.
And in case Labour hasn’t picked it up yet, bullet-points for this year are the sole discernible NACT aim. The success of “Tax cuts (N of 50)”, “Anti-smacking” and “Death of Democracy” et al should’ve given the clue long ago.
Ryall’s two-year quest has been to produce nothing more than:
“X weeks less wait for cancer treatment (than Labour)”
“X thousand less smokers (than Labour)”
“X hours less wait in ED (than Labour)”
“X less bureaucrats (than Labour)”
“X more cataracts (than Labour)”
“X more hip operations (than Labour)”
etc
etc
Already rolled out: “400 more elective surgeries per week (than Labour)”
All in the full knowledge that explaining is losing. Caseweights? Cut treatments? Re-allocated job descriptions? – lost in the fine print, the bullet-point rules.
Come up with your own bullet points and fire first – or lose. This post is a good start, keep digging and make lots of noise.
The link above “cutting to chemo treatment” won’t work for me, but it is a borrowed PC till I can get home to my Mac.
It has always seemed to me that if the Health system needs to be improved it needs to take from some services in order to fund the (political) improvements. It is just where that cut is made. After all you probably don’t fix a heart murmur by amputating a leg. At least not in my opinion.
Um, is this realy happening in NZ, the money for NZ’s economy does not come from the main centres people, it comes from tourism and farming and other primary production in the rural parts of nz, how is the fact that you have to live in a main centre going to help nz’s economy, if everyone moves to dorkland to receive health care, nz is stuffed.
how about making university qualifications free for trainiee doctors etc?, oh hang on, didnt Nact help put the fees up for those guys?
This is what happens when an incompetent government contracts the economy by making cuts and making good public servants redundant or restricting the money they earn. We are working in ever decreasing circles at the moment and we need a good Labour government to start creating jobs, encouraging research and enterprise so that we can spend more and get back on our feet again.
The Mid – Central DHB Regional Cancer Treatment Service should deliver all cancer services to New Plymouth, Whanganui, Gisborne and the Hawkes Bay. Apart from some rare cancers which occur, access to treatment is required else where for rare cancers.
It is my understanding that twenty GPs in the Manawatu are contracted to remove moles. In the past year I know of two GPs who no longer remove moles. One left the area and another has pulled out due to there not being enough money in it. I have used this programme and I have found it to require reviewing from all involved in it. What is the turn over of GPs performing the mole removal and reasons given for the turn over?
GP one did not refer me a year earlier in December 2008 and this resulted in me raising my mole concern a year later in December 2009. Next GP one wrote away to the DHB and for five weeks the go ahead sat in the GPs surgery as they were one of the twenty contractors.
Had three incisions in March 2009 and one of them came back as melanoma insitu. Had a deep reincision in April 2009 and came back non invasive.
Went to my new GP in July 2009 as I had concerns near the now treated site, they wrote to the DHB. Went to a contracted GP to have the mole removed and I raised concern with another one and contractor said looks suspect. Had two removed and one came back as a premelanoma, (suspect one, not the one I was sent for). Due to the premelanoma being incised on the margin I had to have this reincised.
Currently I have stiches and I am awaiting the report for the reincision premelanoma.
Why did it take four months for the premelanoma reincision to be done? The DHB did not write to the contracting GP to go ahead with the procedure after they wrote to the DHB. I was written to in September 2010 by the DHB. The DHB said that they were unable to contact me the day after I went to the contracting GP with the DHB letter in December 2010. I was contacted in November regarding another specialist and I have lived at the same address for a decade. As well with the August 2010 incision I had to go to my GP to get the stitches out and my GP did not get sent a copy of the incision report. Now the contracted GP who no longer does it gets you to go back to them to have the stiches removed and for the histology report.
Ian are you able to inquire as to how many GPs are now contracted to the mole incision programme? Surely if the programme is run well the need for an oncologist would be decreased. I would also like to know why contracting GPs are not paid enough for their service as they are more likely to be more experienced at spotting suspect melanomas and other skin cancers compared to other GPs.
The aim of the mole removal programme is to shorten waiting times. Melanoma is a cancer which once it takes hold the prognosis is poor compared to other cancers. It is a cutting cancer.
I forgot to include Palmerston North area in the Mid – Central DHB Regional Cancer Treatment Service.
Silly me paragraph 4 should say March 2010 and April 2010 and paragraph 5 should say July 2010.