4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Does he agree with the statement of the Rt Hon Helen Clark that “The deficit funding of the public health sector has to stop”; and why?
Hon PETE HODGSONCan the Minister explain why it is, when Annette King announced that extra funding given in 2002 would mean that district health boards would be able to eliminate their deficits by the end of 2003-04, that the latest information from the Ministry of Health shows that hospitals have recorded a record deficit of $161 million for this past financial year; and what action does the Government intend—
Hon Annette KingLet us just leave aside the fact that there is no record about $161 million—it was well over $200 million in the late 1990s, year after year. Actually, the really interesting thing is that it is not $160 million this year either. The net deficit for the district health boards—all 21 of them—as at 30 June this year is about $40 million. If the member wants to know how that fits into the perspective of the total budget, I can assure him that it is a little less than half of one percent.
Louisa WallKia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Has the Minister seen any reports to indicate whether public-private partnerships provide an efficient funding model for the health sector?
I certainly have. I can recall a situation where there was insufficient money put into Napier’s health services, which saw that administration forced into taking up a private sector lease over 13 years that cost them more than $15 million when the building itself cost $11 million.
In light of that last answer, why is Wellington Hospital planning to send 50 heart patients to Australia for their operations because those patients can wait no longer, without a serious risk of dying?
I am not aware of the plans of the Capital and Coast District Health Board, but I will make this comment: if it so happens that there is insufficient capacity in New Zealand in the public and private sectors for cardiovascular surgery—for example, because there is an outbreak of norovirus at Dunedin Hospital, which is a big provider of cardiothoracic services—and if those New Zealanders need treatment and need it in a timely manner, then going to Australia is a good idea.
Is it not a terrible confession of failure that after 9 years the cardiac waiting lists in this country are so bad that the only way these New Zealanders’ lives can be saved is to send those heart patients to Australia?
I think what the National Party spokesperson on health is advising this House is that if he were the Minister and there was, for example, a norovirus outbreak at Dunedin Hospital, he would have New Zealanders die rather than send them to Australia for their surgery. That might be the difference between his approach to health and the approach on this side of the House.
Would it not have been better for these patients for the public health sector to have entered into longer-term contracts with the private sector to deliver additional cardiac services in New Zealand, instead of rushing to them when there is an absolute emergency and they are unable to fulfil those services, and as after 9 long years of a Labour Government cardiac patients are now having to be sent to Australia to have their lives saved?
I said earlier that I was unaware of the details of cardiac patients going to Australia, but I can say that if they are going to Australia it is because the private and public capacity has been taken up. The public capacity has been taken up. The private capacity has been taken up. There remains a need. There are some hospitals that cannot provide because, for example, of norovirus, and if that means New Zealanders go to Australia to get timely intervention that is a good idea.