Skip to main content

Centralizing control over hospitals. Ontario brings the market to hospital funding and turns it into a PR opportunity

Well, we found out a little bit more about where the government's hospital funding is going with the announcement of $100 million for 'payment for results' funding yesterday. 

And it pretty much summed up what's wrong with this approach.

First: unlike global funding (set at a mighty 1.5% or less) this funding is centrally controlled.  Local hospitals have to spend it as directed by the central government, whatever local needs actually are.  

Second: the government (and local Liberal MPPs) primarily see these announcements as a media opportunity, parading it to the media as their latest accomplishment.  If you keep everybody guessing where the money is going and when it is coming, you can always manufacture a media story.  Think of a manipulative and stingy Santa Claus. 

Moreover, this model favours whatever item is politically expedient at the moment.  How can the government get headlines?  So much for a rational process focused on human needs.

Third: The model moves us further from a cooperative, collaborative system, and towards a market-based, competitive, non-system.  Although the government's preferred name is 'payment for results' a more accurate name might be 'price based funding' or 'fee for service'.  More and more, the hospitals will have to compete for this sort of  funding as more and more funding goes this way.

It's hard to create an integrated system when hospitals have to compete with each other, or with other providers. It's hard to even have a real 'system'.  This takes us closer to the US model. With all of its glorious success and efficiency (JK, man, JK!). 

It is good to see that the government's PR plans didn't always work out so smoothly yesterday.   A news story Roy Brady of the Peterborough Health Coalition sent me this morning led with this:   "Even with almost $1 million in hand to reduce emergency room wait times at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough MPP Jeff Leal faced heckling and criticism Thursday over layoffs and bed cuts taking place to balance the hospital's budget....Leal faced sarcastic laughter from the crowd when he began the announcement by defending the government's support of health care in Peterborough."

So how much more money is still to come?  Good question.  Here's my estimate.  Hospital funding is supposed to go up 4.9% this year (some say 4.7%).  Global funding increases are supposed to be 1.5%.  The $100 million announced yesterday is worth about 0.7%.  So, apparently, we are still awaiting word on how the government plans to spend another 2.5% to 2.7%.

That's about $360 to $390 million.  Definitely not chicken feed.  (And that is assuming local communities do not force the government to revise their hospital spending estimate upward this fall as the hospitals face rack and ruin.)
 
The Niagara Health System (a hospital) got $49 million extra last year.  So my advice to local communities: get your dibs in.


Thoughts? I'd love to hear them -- dallan@cupe.ca

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…