Skip to main content

Cut back and hope no one gets hurt?

Money and Ontario chemotherapy scandal

In May, as the chemotherapy drug mixture scandal swirled, the Ontario Hospital Association tried to distance the contracting out of chemo mixtures from the cost cutting that is so widespread in hospitals at the moment: 

"Contrary to the assertions of some commentators and unions, the outsourcing of compounding by hospitals was not driven primarily, or even secondarily, by cost considerations in most cases."  

Hmm... OCHU's release on this issue did not suggest the contracting out was done to cut costs -- there was no evidence on this point at the time.  Instead, among many other points, OCHU noted examples of contracting out costing more.

The OHA claims hospitals were motivated by the health and safety of their employees (god bless 'em), patient safety, best practices, etc, etc., etc.  

But not money.  

Despite the OHA claims, however, hospitals are mixing their own drugs, without reports of duff chemo mixtures -- unlike the contracting out situation.

Cash Money: As it turns out, unions probably should have raised questions about the role of cost cutting in the scandal.

In the last few days it has been revealed that the private company  that won the chemotherapy mixing contract quoted a rate of $5.60 to $6.60 per bag of chemotherapy medication.  The previous private contractor charged $21 to $34.

It takes some believing to swallow the idea that the extreme cost cutting seen here (73% to 84%) was of no account in the bidding process.  

It also takes some believing to think that such cuts would not result in some corners being cut. 

Apparently, that is a thought that did not occur to the hospitals. Pressed by government austerity, that is perhaps not so surprising.

For the record, the private contractor states that there is “no rational connection between pricing and this incident.”

More contracting out claims: The contractor that lost out on the last mixing contract claims it was told that the new contractor won because it had "superior labeling".   

If this is true, it raises other questions about the contracting out process.  

It was the lack of detail on the labels that first raised concern among hospital staff about the chemotherapy mixtures.  Indeed, the labels did not report the exact concentration of the drugs as required, according to (yet another) contractor hired by the hospitals to purchase the drug mixture.

What's going on?
From this vantage point, it looks like the government is experimenting: squeeze hospital budgets and hope things work out.

The good news (so to speak) is that we can get them to respond if the disasters that result are publicly exposed.  This week's announcement that they will more than double the number of long term care inspectors is a case in point.

There's a lesson for opponents of austerity in that. 

But, unfortunately, public exposure isn't a guarantee of better outcomes, at least on the first go-round.  On chemo contracting out, they are signaling that they won't change much.

The investigator brought in by the Ministry of Health and LTC to examine the chemo muck up, Dr. Jake Thiessen, appeared before a legislative committee in late May. He doesn’t like describing the confusion over the provision of chemo drug mixtures by a private corporation as a “grey area”:

"I've never felt this is particularly grey ... I've felt this is part of the customary evolution of service that professionals provide," Thiessen told the committee.

Privatization as a “customary evolution”. That doesn’t sound good. 

The multiple levels of contracting out (from the hospital, to, possibly, a group of hospitals, to a purchasing corporation, to the mixing corporation, and then back to the hospitals) almost ensures that there will be misunderstandings and contractual confusions. The secrecy required by commercial confidentiality wouldn't help either.

Nevertheless, it looks like the government will simply promise to privatize better next time.  

Photo: Tax Credits

Popular posts from this blog

Deficit? Public spending ain't the cause. Revenue, however...

With the election over, pressure to cut public programs has become quite intense. In almost all of the corporate owned media someone is barking on about it.

Another option -- increasing revenue from corporations and the wealthy is not mentioned.  However, data clearly indicates that Ontario does not have an overspending problem compared to the other provinces.

Instead, it indicates Ontario has very low revenue. 
Ontario has the lowest public spending of all the provinces on a per capita basis (see the chart from the 2014 Ontario Budget below).  So there is little reason to suspect that we have an over-spending problem.  If anything, this suggests we have an under-spending problem.

The Ontario government has also now reported in the 2014 Budget that Ontario has the lowest revenue per capita of any province.  This is particularly notable as other provinces are quite a bit poorer than Ontario and therefore have a much more limited ability to pay for public spending.  (Also notable in this…

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…

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 …