Category Archives: Uncategorized

Libertarian believes in survival of the fittest

Libertarians don’t believe in public health care. Now at least one candidate says he believes in a survival of the fittest policy for government.

“For us human species to survive, not every member has to live,” Libertarian candidate Darcy Neal Donnelly said September 28th at a Cornwall all-candidate forum.

According to the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, Donnelly went on to call people waiting in hospitals for long term care “dead weight” amid boos from the audience. Donnelly is a candidate in the riding of Stormont Dundas South Glengarry.

Donnelly later apologized after making a comment about Liberal candidate Mark MacDonald’s 84-year old mother.

Parties promise more home care, but will that be what we get?

Ontario presently provides more than 29 million hours of home care per year. Another 20 million hours are paid for out of pocket or through private insurance.

The NDP are promising another million hours, the Liberals are offering three million.

According to the Ontario Home Care Association, while the hours of care are up, the number of patients served in 2009/10 was about 45,000 fewer than in 2005/06.

When the Liberals increased the cap on how many hours of care an individual could receive, they did not put sufficient resources into the system to deal with the actual draw on services. With more patients discharged in worse condition from hospitals, the “clients” home care agencies and CCACs see are also much more labour-intensive.

Further, as a percentage of overall health care spending, home care has been in a slow but steady decline. In 1999 it made up 5.47 per cent of public health care spending. By 2009/10 it took up 4.13 per cent.

This is at a time when hospitals have been pushed to clear their beds of so-called “alternate level of care” patients, putting more pressure on the CCACs and long term care homes.

It presently cost $1.9 billion to provide Ontarians with public home care visits.

Where will the money from these new commitments come from?

The auditor looked at the government spending projections prior to the beginning of the election and concluded that base home care increases would be two-thirds less than the existing pattern. That means their base assumptions for funding are far less that the status quo. So, would Ontario need to cut home care before it adds the million, or three million hours? This doesn’t make much sense.

This is what the Ontario auditor had to say: “We were advised that a key strategy for containing growth in hospital expenditures is increasing community home care support and long-term care availability to enable more acute or alternative levels of care for patients discharged from hospitals. Because this will increase demand and therefore expenses for both long term care homes and CCACs, which currently already have wait lists, we concluded that the government’s assumption that both programs will be able to significantly reduce their annual expenditure growth rate is optimistic rather than cautious.”

The NDP have stated that they would take on the competitive bidding system, which they assume would free up $25 million by 2013/14 and $100 million by 2015/16. They plan to begin by conducting a review of the present system with the goal of moving towards a more publicly-delivered home care.

The Ontario Home Care Association insists that administration only counts for 10 per cent of budgets, but that calculation leaves out the administrative work conducted by CCAC case managers. While not all of the case managers’ work is administrative, case managers account for 23 per cent of CCAC costs. The association’s calculation is likely to leave out the cost of preparing bids, evaluating bids, severing employees, hiring replacement workers, and other consequences tied to the present bidding process. The Ontario Health Coalition estimates the current system has led to administrative costs at least at the 30 per cent level.

The Tories are much vaguer about their home care projections, likely a result of having a platform with the highest level of spending restraint. According to the Toronto Star, they plan to spend $175 million more on home care. They are also promising 5,000 new long term care beds.

Submit your questions for televised election debate

The three major provincial party leaders will engage in a televised debate Tuesday September 27 from 6:30 pm to 8 pm.
 
Dalton McGuinty of the Liberal Party of Ontario, Andrea Horwath of the Ontario New Democrats and Tim Hudak of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will participate in the debate which will be moderated by TVO’s Steve Paikin.
 
Please submit your questions for the leaders to: question@electiondebate2011.ca
 
Viewer questions will begin each of six rounds of debate. In each round, two of the leaders will debate for six minutes; the third leader will join the other two for a three-person debate for the subsequent eight minutes.
 
The Consortium that is putting on the debate is comprised of Ontario’s major television networks (CBC, CTV, Global TV, Sun TV News, TVO).  

Most Ontarians do not use on-line hospital resources

Hospitals are required to post quality information on-line, but most Ontarians are not looking.

In a July Vector Poll, only 25 per cent of respondents said they were aware of quality information posted on-line. Slightly fewer, 24 per cent, said they looked for hospital information on-line.

Among older users, those more inclined to be using the system, fewer are using these resources. Only 16 per cent of respondents over the age of 55 said they ever looked for information on the website of a hospital in the province.

Among those who have gone on-line, 25 per cent said they found the information hard to understand.

Only 27 per cent of Ontarians said they were aware of Ontario’s wait times website and only 16 per cent said they have visited it to take a look.

While there is support for making information public, more than two of three (68 per cent) Ontarians said it was more important for government to monitor hospitals to make sure they met minimum standards for quality care.  

British epidemiologist Richard Lilford warns that on-line comparisons can be dangerous: Lilford says if the public uses online comparisons as report cards on good and bad hospitals it could encourage hospital administrators to turn away patients with the poorest health or the worst chance of recovering. This “may lead to overly aggressive care, which is inhumane and drives up costs.”

The findings are based on interviews conducted July 12-21, 2011 of 1,106 adults across Canada, 502 in Ontario. The Ontario sample error is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

Peterborough hospital workers to picket Jeff Leal Sept 6

MPP Jeff Leal finishes his term of office September 6th with a visit from health care workers upset about the stress Peterborough Regional Health Centre is under.

The workers have been denied vacation, are frequently working short staffed, and say the stress is affecting quality patient care.

With 250-300 fewer staff the hospital is struggling to maintain services. The workers are asking Leal to address funding issues at the PRHC.

September 7 the Ontario election officially begins.

Everyone is encouraged to attend the picket:

September 6  / 4 pm
Jeff Leal’s Constituency Office
236 King St.,Peterborough

Download a poster for the event here.

Brits call for jury on ‘feral elite’

On the heels of a succession of scandals involving UK bankers, media-barons and politicians, a broad-based coalition is calling for a citizen-jury to study how to put ‘public interest first’ into British political and corporate life.

“Left to their own devices, politicians, bankers and media moguls could not regulate themselves,” states the letter signed by more than 50 individuals representing labour, media, academia and other groups.

Published in the UK Guardian, the letter pulls few punches: “They share a common culture in which greed is good, everyone takes their turn at the trough, and private interest takes precedence over the public good. They have protected each other and left the British people with a financial and political crisis.”

The group believes that with the right checks and balances, the feral elite can be tamed and public interest can be put back into the heart of the system.

They are calling on a 1,000-member citizen jury instead of a public inquiry – “we do not need another inquiry in which one elite asks another elite to tell them what cannot be done.”

Reporting within a year, they ask that the citizen jury study and report on:

  • Media ownership and the public interest
  • The role of the financial sector in the crash
  • MP selections and accountability
  • Policing and public interest
  • How to apply a ‘public interest first’ test more generally to British political and corporate life.

P3s deserve to be an election issue even if nobody wants to talk about it

“We have a responsibility to taxpayers … to build schools at a reasonable cost. That absolutely rules out P3s.” – Jane Purves, Nova Scotia Education Minister (PC) 2001 

As the coming Ontario election unfolds, it is unlikely the opposition parties will go after the dozens of public-private partnership (P3) deals signed by the McGuinty government.

The darling of governments of all stripes who want to move debt off-book, P3s have been a costly boondoggle across Canada. At a time when the public is bracing for cuts to public services, the lack of debate over the squandering of billions on such enterprises is sadly missing.

The Maritime Provinces were early adopters of so-called “public-private partnerships” to build and operate public infrastructure.

The Confederation Bridge betweenPrince Edward Island and New Brunswick was one of the first mega projects developed under the model, while Nova Scotia embarked on an ambitious program to privately build and operate public schools.

The Nova Scotia government of Russell McLellan lost an election over the P3 issue after the news media jumped all over scandals involving costly public schools built and operated under such contracts.

Secrecy, or what the corporations like to call “proprietary information,” has kept watch dogs and even government itself from prying too closely into these deals.

Remarkably, Rosalind Penfound, Nova Scotia’s deputy minister of education said of the deals in 2010: “The P3 contracts don’t allow us the ability to audit some of the provisions of the contract, so that significantly hampers some of the monitoring that we can do.”

In PEI the Federal government put strict conditions on the privatization of the Confederation Bridge project. The Federal subsidy was not to exceed the cost of its support to the former ferry service, and that tolls to the public must not exceed charges from the former ferry crossing. These rules did allow for toll adjustments based on 75 per cent of the consumer price index, and the Federal subsidy was also indexed.

In 1988 the auditor estimated the ferry subsidy amounted to between $26.7 million and $36.9 million. The subsidy to the P3 consortium was set at the high end of that scale — $35.3 million annually. In addition the Federal government also incurred direct costs: $41 million for highway improvements leading to and from the bridge, $46 million for project development, and $15 million for regional development in PEI and New Brunswick.

While P3 promoters boast they bring projects in on time and on budget, it took 10 years to discover there was a $330 million cost overrun on the $1 billion bridge.

That overrun, combined with higher than expected maintenance costs, may mean that the rules may change, a bailout may have to take place, or the Federal government may have to assume ownership – and related financial obligations — of the bridge.

The bond ratings agencies lowered Strait Crossing Ltd – the P3 operator – to a BBB (lower medium grade) in 2010.

This is what the Dominion Bond Rating Agency had to say a year ago: “Limited operating flexibility is left to weather potential future shocks or a protracted period of soft economic conditions, which prevents DBRS from restoring the stable trend on the rating prior to its discontinuation.”

Discontinuation? Yes, the company actually asked to be taken off the bond rating service.

Two major projects, two major failures.

Ontarians deserve to know what’s in all the McGuinty P3 deals for hospitals, court houses and other infrastructure development. The Ontario Health Coalition and a consortium of  unions  – including OPSEU – spent more than two years in court to get most of the details of the William Osler Hospital deal– the first privatized general hospital to open in Canada.

What we found was a terrible deal for the public. The Ontario auditor later confirmed what we already knew – the Osler cost nearly $500 million more than had the project been undertaken as a traditional public procurement.

With impending delays and high costs associated with the Osler, the government decided to make a showcase of the Royal Ottawa Hospital when it opened as a P3 in October 2006.

The project was touted as on time and on budget, but neither was true.

The hospital was originally scheduled to open in July, not October. Even in October the Royal Ottawa wasn’t ready. Fire alarms didn’t work. The wireless environment was so dysfunctional the hospital later spent $1 million hard wiring the building. Magnetic doors failed. Personal alarms were absent, putting staff at risk. To make a point about the efficiency of P3s, the hospital was occupied anyway.

The Royal Ottawa was originally planned in 2004 as a 284-bed facility at a cost of $95 million. Instead it opened as a 188 bed facility that cost $146 million.

This election, politicians of all stripes should be asked about these privatization deals.

The auditor has already warned us that health care is facing considerable austerity under the Liberal plan. The Tories are offering even less in funding.

Can we really afford to squander billions more on these boondoggles while our hospitals and community-based health providers struggle? The William Osler and Royal Ottawa are only two out of more than 150 hospital corporations in Ontario. There are more than 30 hospital P3 projects in various stages of development. And that’s just health care.

This needs to be an election issue, even if all three parties are reluctant to talk about it.

Corporate tax cuts quiz

What is the value of corporate tax cuts? How many jobs were created for that money? Operation Maple takes its corporate tax quiz to the streets.

Don’t forget to pick up your Hospital Professional Division “Tax Cuts or Health Care?” bumper magnets. You do have a choice on October 6.

Operation Maple is an on-line video site that takes an alternate look at the news. Check it out at:

www.operationmaple.com

 

“By the fourth day I was drinking out of the toilet”

Operation Maple interviews a mental health patient about her experience in prison. It is estimated that as many as 90 per cent of women inmates locked up in our corrections system suffer from some form of mental illness.

Departing Closson raises questions as OHA leader through fall election

Ontario Hospital President and CEO Tom Closson is stepping down from his post in January 2012. He is still planning to lead the OHA through the October provincial election and the immediate post-election period.

The election may be an interesting dynamic given Closson is on record as advocating for more money to be taken out of the system at a time when politicians of all stripes are advocating staying the course and maintaining modest funding increases.

Hospital CEOs must have been shaking their heads when their leader told the Empire Club last October “we have to find ways to take money out of the system, so I think we need the leadership from government.”

Closson praised former Premier Mike Harris and his restraint on the system, never taking into account its longer term effect on his own membership or its impact on present-day costs.

At a time when his hospitals were struggling to balance budgets and find ways to push more patients with higher levels of acuity out into community care, Closson instead spoke about eliminating waste.

The Empire Club speech was certain a surprise. Months earlier Closson told the provincial finance committee that progress on wait times and public confidence in the system would be eroded with less than a two per cent increase in funding.

Despite promising to open up hospitals to greater public scrutiny, Closson wrote bizarre and insulting letters to labour and community organizations who argued against Schedule 15 of Bill 173 — the so-called “hospital secrecy act.”

Closson fought publicly with the Ontario Medical Association in 2009 over Bill 179 which expands the scope of practice for pharmacists and nurse practitioners. Confrontational, Closson publicly derided the OMA’s “retrograde ‘policy’ paper” and accused them of protecting their own turf.

Arguing physician costs were higher in Ontario than any other province, Closson’s wrote “this disparity, coupled with OMA’s adamant defence of physicians’ status, has prompted reasonable people to question whether taxpayers are getting the system leadership they deserve from the OMA.” Ouch.

Closson was never shy about pressing the alarm bells on rising health care costs, nor was he shy about extolling the results of such increased expenditures, particularly around reduced wait times.

Under his watch targeted funding became a greater feature of hospital budgets while global funding was in decline. With Queen’s Park determining how the money would be spent, it left hospitals with fewer opportunities to make decisions locally.

While hospitals were forced to come and explain themselves before the LHINs, bringing in so-called “hospital improvement plans” that included major layoffs and cuts to services, Closson remained a staunch defender of the planning agencies and their role.

Closson was never shy about advocating that more of the work performed by hospitals be conducted elsewhere.

“The answer is in the community,” he has said, often repeating the story of his father who was unable to leave hospital for five months due to an inability to place him in community-based care.

Following the ombudsman’s damning June report, the McGuinty government promised to regulate private hospital transfer companies. Closson was warned about the dangers of this unregulated business in 2009 including unclean vehicles, poorly-trained staff and risk of infection — but was indifferent to concerns when confronted by investigative journalist Tina Pittaway.

He told Pittaway the hospitals were satisfied with the arrangement and that the OHA had bigger issues to deal with in the health system. This is despite the OHA calling for regulation back in 2004.

The OHA has been obsessed in recent years with the idea of moving so called “alternate level of care” patients out of hospitals. ALC patients are those who have completed their acute care treatment but are unfit to go home without ongoing care. Under pressure, several hospitals threatened these patients with steep daily fees if they did not take the first long term care bed available even if it meant travelling outside their home region. The threats backfired, resulting in the province having to step in to ban the practice.

Hospital crowding has likely been a determining factor in the latest crisis. C-Difficile has spread through about 10 per cent of Ontario hospitals contributing to at least 26 deaths.  At least two hospitals — the Etobicoke General site of the William Osler Hospital and the St. Mary’s Hospital in Kitchener — have also reported bed bug infestations.

Closson was appointed CEO and President of the OHA in 2008. An engineer with an MBA, he has served as CEO of the University Health Network, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and CEO of the Capital Health Region in Victoria, BC.

Closson obtained previous experience in health care consulting as an owner of Medicus Canada and as a Partner with KPMG.