8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Why did New Zealand drop from No. 1 in the Commonwealth Fund survey of New Zealand, UK, Australia, Canada, and the United States health systems published in 2004 to No. 4 in this year’s survey, and when will New Zealand again make the top half of this survey?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
We did not. The 2004 survey had dozens of rankings, not one, and in the latest survey the Commonwealth Fund has just last week corrected an error, using a big red box in which to do so. However, the more important point is that each of these surveys measures different things and uses different populations. New Zealand has a range of achievements in the survey, depending on the dozens of questions asked. Overall we do very well and are often in first or second place.
Does the Minister stand by his answers to written questions that show there was less elective surgery performed last year than there was in Labour’s first year in office, despite a $4 billion a year spending increase and a population growth of 7 percent?
I stand by my press release of only yesterday, which shows that the provisional results for the year to February show an increase of 6 percent. The member should stop saying it is a decrease; it is an increase. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.
Ann HartleyI will try to give members just a sense of it. New Zealand ranks very highly in many important domains: we are second for access, second for efficiency, first for primary health care information technology, and second-equal with Germany for quality. On the indicators of patient-centred care, the report states that New Zealand clearly outperforms all others with respect to engagement, patient preference, communication, continuity, and feedback. We did come fourth in one case, in an area known as “healthy lives” in the 2004 survey, but the report notes the important caveat that data that showed us coming fourth is from 1998 and that substantial changes may have occurred since that time. Substantial changes certainly have occurred since that time.
Does the Minister stand by his answers to written questions that show that between 2005 and 2006 there was a 7 percent drop in elective surgery case weights?
The member has financial year, calendar year, case weights, numbers of discharges, and numbers of people, and he mixes them up—[ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER—and mixes them up until he gets two data points that give him an attack position. The problem is that the latest data, from February to February, for the amount of surgery going on in this country shows a 6 percent increase. The member needs to work out that that means there is more surgery being done now, not less.
Why is the number of people who got elective surgery last year less than the number in Labour’s first year of running the Treasury benches, despite an extra $4 billion a year and population growth of 7 percent?
The member gets that number because he refuses to use the latest data. He does not like good news when it is looking him in the face.
Will the Minister admit that even though he is claiming there was a 6 percent increase last year, compared with his first year in office it will, in fact, be less, and how can it be that after 6 years and $4 billion a year extra on health, fewer people got elective surgery last year compared with Labour’s first full year controlling the public purse strings?
We seem to have a battle to the death going on here. The long and short of it is that the member’s primary question said that we dropped from first to fourth in the Commonwealth series. He was wrong on both counts. He is now asserting a decrease in surgery, and he is wrong on that count as well. He declines to use the latest data, because it does not suit his purposes.
Dr Jonathan Coleman Link to this
Would the Minister explain how it is that fewer people received elective surgery in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch last year compared with Labour’s first year in Government, despite the populations of the main centres increasing significantly over the same period?
The truth of the matter is that the amount of elective surgery going on in New Zealand, using the latest data, is greater, not less—
Yes, that is right. It is to the end of February, because that is the latest data we have. I thought that using the latest data would be better than using stale data, but the member does not like it because it really does disturb his prejudices. The health system is getting better each year.
I seek leave to table, to the year ended December 2006, information showing that Labour is doing less elective surgery now than in its first year in office.