4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Does he agree with the Ministry of Health’s annual report for the year ended June 2010 that states primary health care has failed to reduce admissions to hospitals compared with the base period ending September 2008?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) Link to this
I can advise that the annual report details that the number of ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations increased by 3.2 percent in the year ended March 2010. But that number needs to be seen in the context of the total change in the New Zealand population of 119,000 in the same period. I am advised that when this change is factored in, the rate of ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations has increased by only 0.03 percent. Ambulatory sensitive admissions are not determined solely by primary care; they are just one indicator of the effectiveness of primary care.
How many of the extra 2,000 avoidable and costly hospital admissions over the past year arose out of cuts to home care for the elderly, who suffered falls, accidents, and illness because help with things such as hanging out their washing and cleaning their toilets was taken away from them?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
There could be a long debate about funding for home care, but the fact is that all district health boards have received more money under this Government, and they have to prioritise funding to meet the needs of the communities they serve.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the 2,000 avoidable hospital admissions and how many of them related to cuts to home care for elderly people.
Mr SPEAKERIf the member recollects her question, she will see that she went on to describe all sorts of things about people hanging out washing. The Minister is at liberty to pick up on that part of the question and dispute it, which he did.
Has he seen the information recently released by Capital and Coast District Health Board informing older people in the Mana electorate that after 1 December they will no longer be eligible for home help if their net income is over $399 a week; if so, what is the expected rise in the number of avoidable hospital admissions from this decision and what is the expected cost to the taxpayer?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I would have to check the assertions that that member is making, but I can tell her that in this annual report the Ministry of Health states: “Overall, the state of public health results show continuing improvements in New Zealanders’ health and independence as well as ongoing improvements across a range of health and disability services and interventions.” Basically, the state of the country’s health is getting better under this Government.
Does he believe that the 88-year-old woman living alone with osteoporosis in the Mana electorate, who is living on $124 a week after she has paid for the basics like rent and food, is able to pay the $30 a week for home care, or is he unconcerned that if she cannot cope, the taxpayer will be paying about $42,000 a year to keep her in a rest home? How can that be the best use of taxpayers’ dollars, let alone be humane for this elderly woman?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
Once again, that member has brought a set of facts that may be open to some debate, but it sounds like an individual case. If she would like to bring that case before the Minister, then we would be happy to discuss it.
Has he seen the Capital and Coast District Health Board report on children from July of this year that cites children in Porirua disproportionately suffering from dental caries, asthma, gastroenteritis, skin infections, and pneumonia, and that the solution proposed is to take even more funding from the elderly; and why should one vulnerable group in society be played off against another in order to meet his demands for efficiencies?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I can tell that member that Capital and Coast District Health Board has had an extra $57 million under this Government over 2 years, and it is putting that money into the front line, where it is needed most.
Hon Pete HodgsonI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A pattern has emerged in health questions over the last year or two. The essence is that the Opposition says—
A point of order is being heard, and members must not interject. That was very disorderly, I say to whoever did that.
The essence is that no matter what the Opposition raises about this or that aspect of health delivery—I exaggerate a little for effect—the answer from the Government is that more money is going in than ever was. Because in the history of New Zealand there is always more money going in than there ever was, that seems to me to not—
I invite the member to reflect on the questions asked. The primary question referred to the annual report of the Ministry of Health, and then supplementary questions brought up specific cases and claims about specific individuals that have not been validated, because there is no way to validate a supplementary question. Ministers cannot be expected to have information in their hands, in the House, to answer directly that sort of question. It seems not unreasonable, when the question relates to the amount of money being spent, for the Minister to answer by saying: “I do not have the information, but I would be happy to look into that situation. But with respect to that district health board, X number of dollars more have been spent in that district health board.” That seems a perfectly reasonable answer. If members want to hear different answers, they need to think about the questions being asked.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This will be my last go at this matter. The last question that was asked by the Hon Annette King was not about an individual; it asked whether the Minister had seen a report. The Minister’s answer was that more money is going into the district health board than ever was. I do not think that is good enough.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Mr Speaker, you are increasingly being put into the position of having to rule from the Chair about the content both of answers and of questions—but more often, it would seem, in respect of answers. That is a completely debatable matter. It is nothing to do with order in the House, other than the fact that if we get into too bad a state we get disorder. But merely calling for your ruling on the content of an answer is incredibly disrespectful to your role.
I will not hear any more on this issue. It is not an issue, as far as I am concerned. I heard a question asked and I heard an answer given, and I was perfectly satisfied with the answer given.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
What other recent reports from the Ministry of Health has he seen about access to hospital services?
I apologise to the Minister. I have been pretty tough on Government Ministers today when answering questions, and I expect a little more respect from the Labour front bench. The Minister had not started his answer and there was a barrage of interjections.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I have seen a report released today about neurosurgical services for the South Island, and I note that the outcome is quite different from all the speculation that has been aired during years and years of uncertainty. The acting director-general of the Ministry of Health has announced that the South Island service will have seven or eight neurosurgeons, with at least three based in Dunedin, and it will include an academic focus. The decision on how South Island neurosurgical services will be configured shows the value of finally having clinicians involved in the planning of services.
Before I call Dr Russel Norman to ask question No. 5, I say that if members want a little more order in the House, then applauding answers to patsy questions is not a great look.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say that nor is it a good look for the Speaker to have a go at the Government over the types of questions it poses to its Ministers.
Forgive me, but it is a tradition in this House that questions from the governing party have often been referred to as patsy questions. All I am pointing out is that it is not a great look to be applauding the answers to them. When Ministers give great answers to tough questions, there is nothing wrong with applauding. But it is not a great look, because it adds to disorder in this House. [ Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I have dealt with that matter and I am not inclined to take it any further.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It causes disorder in the House if questions asked by members about matters that are of great concern to them are dismissed by the Speaker as being of less relevance than some other questions asked. This is a members’ question time. Members on this side of the House have as much right to ask questions of Ministers as any other. The Speaker referring to them as patsy questions is no less offensive than the use of the terms “Tory” or “screaming lefty”.