Category Archives: Hospitals

Cuts to outpatient rehab costly — Stroke report

Cuts to outpatient rehab services are short sighted says Dr. Mark Bayley, author of a report on stroke services released this week by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and theOntarioand Canadian Stroke Networks.

The lack of outpatient and CCAC rehab services mean many patients who would normally be able to go home end up in more expensive long term care facilities Bayley recently told the Toronto Star.

According to the 2011 Ontario Stroke Evaluation Report, patients are receiving far less visits than recommended from physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech language pathologists.

Best practices suggest two visits per week from each of these professions. Instead over a two month period patients are averaging between three and four visits in total from each.

The report also notices considerable differences between the LHINs, calling for a more standardized approach for access to, and outcomes for, the rehabilitation sector.

InOntario only one in three stroke victims arrive at hospital in time to be considered for therapy that would dramatically improve outcomes.

While there was a reduction in overall wait times to stroke services, the report says there was also a reduction in access to inpatient rehabilitation among severly disable stroke patients.

The report also recommends the Ministry of Health Promotion continue to fund the warning signs of stroke television campaign.

The report did note that those taken to specialized stroke centers were more likely to receive care based on stroke best practices.

Between 2003/04 and 2009/10 there was also a reduced rate of emergency department visits and hospital stays for stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). TIAs are usually involve short term stroke-like symptoms and are considered to be a warning sign of a stroke.

New Ontario hotline for complaints about extra billing

Have you been illegally charged for a public health service that should have been insured under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP)?

Yesterday the Ontario government launched a phone line and e-mail address for complaints about extra billing.

In its release, the government says there were 189 new investigations into illegal billing in 2010/11. Since 2007, about $1.3 million in illegal billing has been recovered either through reimbursements or cancellation of charges. This is on a $47 billion a year public health system.

For the average patient, figuring out whether their service should be covered or not will be a challenge, with health care providers deciding what is medically necessary and what is theoretically voluntary.

In the examples the government gives on its web site, it suggests that block fees are acceptable if payment is voluntary, does not cover insured services, and must be for a specific period of time. Users must also be given the option to pay for services that are not insured on a per-use basis.

The Ontario Health Coalition issued a release yesterday applauding the crackdown on extra billing.

“We are asking each of the provincial political party leaders to make a clear commitment to roll back the expansion of for-profit clinics and institutions, the majority of which charge patients illegal fees and undermine public Medicare in Canada,” says Natalie Mehra, Director of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Recently OPSEU raised the question of Rouge Valley Health System charging a block fee of $500 for patients in their cardiac rehab program who wish to continue past six months. The fee is not broken out by type of service, such as access to the indoor track and exercise equipment, stress tests or ongoing counselling.

Under the Canada Health Act, hospital services are insured health services. The Act defines hospital insured services as services provided to in-patients or out-patients at a hospital, if the services are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability. It would be difficult for a hospital to maintain that cardiac rehab is not medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health.

It is particularly difficult for Rouge to maintain these are not covered services when its new partner in the program is Lakeridge Health, which provides a year-long cardiac rehab program.

Will the government order Rouge Valley to reimburse the $500? We can only wait and see.

To access the phone line: Call 1-888-662-6613

Or e-mail complaints to: protectpublichealthcare@ontario.ca

Contract award issued for Hospital Professionals

TORONTO – Arbitrator William Kaplan has issued an arbitration award for a new collective agreement covering 9,000 hospital professionals employed in 46 hospitals across Ontario.

Under the provisions of the award, which will be in effect from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014, these employees will receive lump sum payments for the first two years, and an across-the-board wage increase of 2.75 per cent in the third year of the contract. The new contract also provides for early retirement benefits for employees aged 57-65, enhanced discrimination and harassment language, and a minor improvement to bereavement leave. The Hospitals’ proposed rollback of early retirement and voluntary exit incentives was rejected by the Arbitrator.

OPSEU Hospital Professionals Bargaining Team Chair Sandi Blancher said that this award does not meet the expectations of the bargaining team or the members.

“We knew this round would be difficult ever since the government’s announcement in March 2010 that no funding would be provided for compensation increases to hospital workers,” Blancher said. “This interference in our bargaining made it impossible to achieve a satisfactory outcome. What makes this even harder to accept is that other public sector workers, as well as hospital executives, have achieved better results. Despite this, we are happy to have some stability for the next three years and the gains we have made will benefit our members for many years to come.”

OPSEU President Warren (Smokey) Thomas said that he is proud of the work the bargaining team did both at the table and in preparing for the arbitration.

“Ontario’s Hospital Professionals perform vital services and are an integral part of the Province’s health care system,” Thomas said. “Without the work of these members, our doctors are only guessing. We hope that after this contract expires, the hospitals will come back to the bargaining table with a renewed vision that fully recognizes the importance of these members, and how essential they are to a safe and healthy Ontario.”

The 9,000 members affected by this award include classifications such as Audiologists, Speech Language Pathologists, Dietitians, Occupational Therapists, Respiratory Therapists, Physiotherapists, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Technicians, Medical Radiation Technologists, Biomedical Technologists, Psychologists, Lab Technologists and Lab Technicians.

High cost of parking a barrier to hospital services?

Does the high cost of hospital parking deter the public from accessing health services?

In 2006 we sought the answer to this question through a Vector Poll.

Over half of those surveyed in Ontario – 55 per cent – said the high cost of parking would deter low-income people from getting the health services they need. Another four per cent said it would depend on circumstances.

When the survey was broken out by income, that response climbed to 74 per cent among those earning less than $30,000 per year.

For those accessing regular services at their local hospital, this can add up to a significant amount, particularly for those on fixed incomes. We recently calculated that a rise in parking charges at Rouge Valley Health System would cost weekly users a total of $800 per year. For cancer patients attending three times per week, that would mean $2,400 per year.

One local community approached their local hospital and the Local Health Integration Network to complain about this access barrier in the wake of increased charges. Both the LHIN and the hospital pointed fingers at each other, the LHIN saying such charges were up to the hospital, the hospital charging the LHIN forced the hospital to increase its “own-source” revenues. Doing their own research, they told OPSEU that only four hospitals are left in the province that offer free parking.

Pushing hospitals to raise the rate of parking and other own-source revenues is not new. The province’s annual hospital planning submission guide always suggested raising revenues in the event of a funding shortfall. Parking was always on the list.

With hospitals continuing to see less funding for their core budgets, it is no surprise to see them picking away at more user-pay options allowed them under the Canada Health Act.

The question is, where do you draw the line? It appears hospitals are indifferent to market rates in their communities. In many small towns the only pay parking is at the hospital.

It is clear that these charges are no longer restricted to the costs of maintaining the parking facilities.

One municipality thinking aloud suggested making parking charges tax deductible, a cumbersome method that would only benefit those who pay taxes. If it is going to be tax supported, why not filter out all the steps in between?

Ironically, hospitals have used their own high-parking charges to justify cuts to services. At one hospital they suggested the closure of their outpatient lab would be welcomed by users who would no longer have to pay the hefty hospital parking fees by attending private lab collection facilities in the community.

So what is the solution? If Toronto’s University Avenue hospitals made parking free, everybody would park there, from Blue Jays fans to those ducking out of the cost of parking underneath City Hall.

In some local communities citizens have learned how to game the parking lot, taking a new tag before they return to the vehicle, often in lots where the first half hour is free.

Some hospitals have offered discount rates for patients or those who have family in their care. This appears to make some sense in high traffic areas, although there is some concern hospitals desperate for revenue may be moving away from this.

Perhaps it’s time the LHINs, the Ministry and the hospitals stop pointing fingers at each other and start to address this question in a constructive manner.

Five years ago Ontarians said this was a legitimate barrier to health care we all pay for. When Rouge Valley raises the parking fees from $8 to $16 for patients in their cardiac and cancer programs, it is clearly only getting worse.

Rouge Valley doubles parking costs for cardiac rehab patients

Where do you draw the line when it comes to user fees at hospitals?

At Rouge Valley Health Centre participants in the cardiac rehab program are upset that the hospital is changing the rules on parking. Whereas it used to cost $8 per day for cardiac rehab patients, it will now double to $16 per day.

This is on top of $500 per year they pay to continue in the program past six months. That $500 does cover access to the hospitals indoor track and exercise machines, but it also covers access to a dietician, stress tests, and other health-related activities. The hospital will likely argue that the $500 covers the exercise portion, but given it charges for the entire program, this would appear to be a direct violation of the Canada Health Act.

Recently Rouge Valley’s cardiac rehab program merged with Lakeridge Health’s program. At Rouge they charge beyond the six month period. At Lakeridge it is covered. The question is, are they also going to merge policies, forcing patients in Durham to now pay for what was once covered?

Under the Canada Health Act, hospitals are not allowed to charge for health services.

The cardiac rehab program is a successful model that dramatically reduces the mortality rate for patients who are coping with heart disease. By placing a fee for these services and doubling parking fees, this discourages patients of limited means from continuing on with the program. With parking, continuing past six months means a cost of $1300 per year. Given many of these individuals are elderly and on a fixed income, this is a hefty price to pay.

For those who come three times a week for cancer treatments, this change in parking fees also means a jump to $52 per week.

The government talks a good line when it comes to preventative care. But if hospitals are going to place considerable obstacles to participating in preventative programs like this, then it will cost us all much more in the long term.

Rouge Valley should not be trying to balance its budget on individuals battling heart disease and cancer.

Minister asks for review of Niagara Health System plan

Niagara Health System (NHS) will get a fresh look at its controversial Hospital Improvement Plan (HIP) that closed down two ERs in Fort Erie and Port Colborne.

The Minister of Health has ordered what is called a “third party” review although members of the NHS board will be part of that review along with representatives of the municipalities and the Local Health Integration Network.

The review will only look at phases of the hospital improvement plan that have already been implemented. It will not look at phases that have yet to be implemented, including changes to pediatrics and birthing.

According to Niagara This Week, the Minister stated in her letter to Niagara Regiojnal Chair Gary Burroughs “after thoughtful deliberation and consideration, I have come to the conclusion that an independent, third-party evaluation of the implemented phases of the HIP would be valuable.”

The review is certainly welcome, although two of the three parties engaged in the review were responsible for the initial HIP that has upset residents of the Niagara Region.

While deficits at NHS have been again climbing, Matthews insists the original HIP moved the hospital in the right direction.

Further terms of the review have yet to be determined and will be left up to the LHIN.

On the eve of an election, the news opens the door a crack after years of active lobbying by the local community, including Sue Hotte and the Yellow Shirt Brigade.

The HIP was ordered by the LHIN in May 2008 and was conducted largely by executives from the Ottawa Hospital, including Dr. Jack Kitts. The report was submitted in October 2008 and approved by the LHIN in January 2009.

Peterborough’s ALC solution may be within its walls

When Stephen Kylie sat on the board of the Central East LHIN, he recognized that alternate level of care patients were unable to exit the Peterborough hospital for lack of services in the community, particularly long term care beds.

Alternate level of care patients are individuals who have completed their acute care but are unable to go home without other forms of care in place. That usually means either a nursing home bed or home care, two options that have been in very short supply in the Peterborough-area.

The LHIN reported that among the 260 “clients” awaiting placement in the region, including a substantial number at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre, less than 10 per cent had homes to return to.

Kylie likely thought, as his term expired on the board, that the LHIN would come back with a recommendation for more beds in his area.

Instead the LHIN is looking at a more broad-based solution aimed at keeping frail seniors in their homes. For most of the 260, this is coming too late.

There is no question that frail seniors would prefer to stay in their homes, but the infrastructure to allow them to do so has been largely absent. While the government has been focused on moving patients out of the hospital, funding for home-based solutions has been woefully inadequate.

During the meeting the LHIN stated that it was going to return to both Peterborough and Lakeridge Health to try the Home First program again.

Home First insists hospitals send patients home for as long as possible with community supports. These supports are often in place until a nursing home bed can be found. Under Home First, transferring patients from hospital directly to a long term care home is to be considered only after all other community options are considered. In the Central East, you don’t have to consider for very long.

In some regions, those waiting at home for a nursing home bed have been frustrated by the priority hospital patients are receiving in long term care placements. This has been particularly hard on spouses who want to be reunited in the same nursing home.

Given the LHIN had just received a presentation describing how inadequate local resources were, board member Samantha Singh was surprised to see the LHIN was again leaning on hospitals to send their alternate level of care patients home first.

“Is this happening before supports are in place?” she asked at the May 25th LHIN board meeting.

The truth is, the Ministry and LHIN often approve changes to service, ending one method of delivery before another is ready to accommodate the patients.

The classic case is mental health services. For years the government divested services from the psychiatric hospitals under the promise that these services would be re-established in the community. The hospitals were eventually cut to the targets established under the Health Restructuring Commission, but the community-based services never received the funding they were supposed to get. The split was supposed to be 60 per cent community-based funding, 40 per cent institutional-based funding. Today those numbers are reversed.

When Northumberland Hills Hospital closed its diabetes clinic, local residents were promised that these services would be re-established in the community. While the government did improve funding for the nearby Port Hope diabetes clinic, it has never been able to replicate the services that were once provided in the hospital.

So what happens when these services fail patients? They end up back in hospital. And then the hospital gets a visit from the LHIN telling them to get those patients home again. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the circular nature of this.

The LHIN heard an excellent presentation on how to provide supports for frail seniors in their homes. However, from presentation to reality is a long way to go – especially if there is not sufficient funding to make it happen. You can’t just turn on or turn off a community-based service. Samantha Singh appeared to understand this.

The Health Restructuring Commission made its recommendations in the late 1990s. At least half of the promised mental health community supports are still absent, and for adults, it will be for at least the next three years as the government has decided to focus on children’s mental health.

Paul Barker, one of the CE LHIN’s Senior Directors, said that community agencies can be ramped up and down much more easily than establishing long term care beds. And once you establish those beds, you can’t back out of that “expense.”

Given the new Peterborough Hospital has more space than it is using, it may be time to look at whether the hospital can temporarily use some of that space to establish a long term care facility — at least until those community supports do arrive – or should we say if they arrive. This is exactly what happened at Northumberland Hills Hospital in Cobourg. It ended its “ALC problem” by creating 11 interim long term care beds. A stroke of a pen and the problem was gone.

Having a long term care facility inside a hospital is not new. The Camp Hill Hospital, part of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, has a long term care facility that can accommodate up to 175 veterans. It even has its own garden. Veterans interviewed there say they are very satisfied with care provided. Camp Hill also helps veterans stay in their homes as long as possible, including providing respite care and outpatient geriatric services. Many of the professional supports are available within the building. Nobody argues this is inefficient or that a long term care home has no place within the walls of an acute care hospital.

The Health Restructuring Commission accepted the principle that no mental health bed should close until alternate services were put in place. It’s a pity that governments since have never followed through on that principle, whether it’s the transfer of mental health services or any other community-based health care.

Ontario needs to regulate cost of accessing personal health records — Cavoukian

Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner has called upon the province to regulate the amount doctors and other health care providers can charge to provide patients with copies of their health records.

Cavoukian writes that “access to one’s own records of personal information is a cornerstone of fair information practices and privacy legislation. In the context of health care, the right of access enables individuals to determine what shall or shall not be done with their own bodies, to exercise control over the collection, use or disclosure of their own personal health information, and to require the correction or amendment of that information.”

While the McGuinty government did draft a regulation around such fees in 2006, it was never passed.

A patient complained to the Commission about a $125 fee charged by her physician for access to 34 pages of her records. They found $125 to exceed “reasonable cost recovery” and ordered the physician to reduce the fee to $33.50. The Commission arrived at the fee by suggesting $30 be charged for the first 20 pages to cover time for the doctor to review the information, and 25 cents per page be charged beyond that.

Health Minister Deb Matthews said she didn’t believe the problem to be widespread, but said she would talk to the Ontario Medical Association about it.

Creeping charges related to access to health care is becoming a growing issue.

A few years ago Vector conducted a poll in which the majority agreed that the high cost of parking at hospitals constituted a health care user fee.

If you want to find the most expensive place to park in any town or city, it’s usually the hospital. We have seen ridiculous attempts by hospitals to protect that revenue such as erecting fences to prevent people from walking from nearby free parking lots. Municipalities have been forced to limit parking in nearby neighborhoods as patients and their families try and avoid the high fees.

The high parking fees have also been used as an argument by some hospitals for divesting services elsewhere in the community.

Ontario looks at hospital report cards — Citizen

How many stars does your hospital have? According to the Ottawa Citizen, the Ontario government is contemplating a public ranking system for hospitals.

Ironically, as government MPPs bought the OHA argument that access to quality information from hospital committees would amount to naming and shaming, the ranking system appears to do just that.

The system was tried briefly in the United Kingdom, but ran into numerous problems. The naming and blaming turned back on government as hospitals with low ratings complained of lack of funding. Low rated hospitals also tried to spend their way out of the low ratings, resulting in escalating deficits.

The Citizen reports considerable gaming of data took place in the UK, including making patients linger outside hospitals in ambulances to meet the target of a four hour wait for treatment.

In 2005 the UK government ended the star system in favour of a two-part report card on quality and resource utilization. Hospitals were given a rating on a continuum from excellent to weak.

Some claim that shining the light on hospital performance spurs them on to improvement.

At present Ontario hospitals are posting performance information on their web sites as part of the Excellent Care For All Act. However, this information is not always easy to find. For the average Ontarians, it may also be difficult to decipher what the score card actually means.

In the case of emergency department wait times, hospital funding is connected to performance, as is CEO remuneration.

By attaching hospital funding to the report card it does pose the risk of penalizing not just the hospital, but the community accessing that hospital. Given few communities have any opportunity to elect members of their hospital board, it seems incumbent on government to fix poor performing hospitals rather than create a gap in quality access between communities. We can probably guess which well-heeled communities would have high-performing hospitals, and which would lose funding under such a scenario.

A quality agenda is always welcome, but it should focus on improving the whole system, not on creating winners and losers.

Windsor hospital CEO uses OPS deal to attack hospital workers

What does a one per cent increase for the Ontario Public Service have to do with Windsor Regional Hospital? Answer: very little.

Yet this morning the hospital’s CEO made the front page of the Windsor Star attacking the agreement, which does not directly impact staff at the hospital.

It’s true that all wage settlements are subject to comparison at the bargaining table, and it is likely WRH CEO David Musyj will try and introduce the lowest comparators he can find. If the two sides cannot agree, an arbitrator will look at all the submitted comparators. That’s the nature of the process.

OPSEU does not shy away from negotiating the best contracts for its members. During a recession it’s not unusual to have the final years of a multi-year contract make up for lower increases in the early years.

Musyj says both the arbitration and negotiation process is broken. How so? This is the same CEO who claimed he couldn’t afford $3.6 million in salary increases while the hospital was receiving more than $10 million in new money and audited statements revealed he was actually sitting on a surplus. Better still, the spring budget revealed status quo for the hospitals, forestalling reductions in the rate of increase that had been forecast in the 2010 budget. That means Musyj will likely see that surplus increase.

Musyj says his office is expected to reduce expenses by 10 per cent, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he will be taking another cut in pay (the latest Sunshine list showed Musyj took a cut in pay to $254,847 in 2010 from $265,000 in 2009). The government has made it clear that it will not penalize hospitals that fail to do so. With a surplus, what is Musyj’s motivation for doing so?

The question comes down to this: we are now emerging out of the recession, why is it would-be politicians like Musyj still trying to reduce the standard of living of working people? As we have noted repeatedly, the same thing was never asked of profitable corporations who are seeing their taxes cut to record lows.

It’s already party time on Bay Street and Wall Street.

This morning the economy posted stronger than expected job numbers, suggesting Ontario is bouncing back from the recession. That means more revenue for the government, and by extension, its hospitals. Where’s the panic?

Musyj is playing politics at the expense of the morale of his staff. This is far from good leadership.