Health/Hospital changes/cuts

Forums › Health and fitness › Health/Hospital changes/cuts

1 | 2 | 3

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1496301 20-Feb-2016 15:41

"savings" not "budget cut" - i think it is possible that many are running huge deficits.

so the govt telling them to save money

perhaps

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1496329 20-Feb-2016 16:02

joker97:

"savings" not "budget cut" - i think it is possible that many are running huge deficits.

so the govt telling them to save money

perhaps

Perhaps. Or perhaps telling them to achieve unreachable targets.

Regarding the earlier comment about increasing budgets... DHBs are also being expected to provide more services.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1496331 20-Feb-2016 16:03

frankv:

joker97:

"savings" not "budget cut" - i think it is possible that many are running huge deficits.

so the govt telling them to save money

perhaps

Perhaps. Or perhaps telling them to achieve unreachable targets.

Regarding the earlier comment about increasing budgets... DHBs are also being expected to provide more services.

Target is never reachable.

This is your target: "Do more with less"

Paradox of NZ healthcare!

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1496333 20-Feb-2016 16:10

dejadeadnz:

As medical technologies advance and people's perception of what is necessary for a good quality of life changes, along with things like people simply living longer, we are just going to spend an increasing percentage of government money on health care for two groups of people. To be frank, this is unsustainable. I fully support full, free, and high quality public health care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. However (by way of a concrete example), I am uncomfortable with asset rich people believing that they should have a permanently enshrined entitlement to full, free public health care.

The solution is to RAISE taxes on the wealthy and kill off all the corporate tax loopholes.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1496334 20-Feb-2016 16:10

dejadeadnz:

It also does not help that the babyboomers and grey power types want more and more care and ever more expensive elective procedures.

I find your post offensive and don't see what it has to do with anything.

Yes I am what people label a "baby boomer" so what, I have nothing that needs elective procedures so don't lump us all under one banner.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1496336 20-Feb-2016 16:13

frankv:

joker97:

"savings" not "budget cut" - i think it is possible that many are running huge deficits.

so the govt telling them to save money

perhaps

Perhaps. Or perhaps telling them to achieve unreachable targets.

Regarding the earlier comment about increasing budgets... DHBs are also being expected to provide more services.

AND, with the fall in the NZ dollar, medications, equipment, etc etc etc has all gone up in price.

The PPTA will see further price increases, I wonder if these "savings" are there to offset the expected rise in prescription costs that the government will pay for , not the patient.

And yes I know the patient is also the tax payer and will be paying for it anyhow.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

Trusted

#1496360 20-Feb-2016 17:01

As I see it. it's quite simple. The amount of money required to be spent to bring the standard of health care up to the levels it should be is not being spent where it should be. The government can crow as much as they like about how much money is being plowed into the health service, but how does the increase correlate to population increase?

Being in a position whereby the already understaffed DHB's are having to choose not to fill vacancies as a way of making savings is lunacy.

As an aside, is it just me, or are our government reading the same play book as their counterparts currently running the UK.....?

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#1496365 20-Feb-2016 17:10

joker97: Target is never reachable.

This is your target: "Do more with less"

Paradox of NZ healthcare!

Isn't this called continuous improvement? Anyone can do more with more.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1496366 20-Feb-2016 17:15

MikeSkyrme:

As I see it. it's quite simple. The amount of money required to be spent to bring the standard of health care up to the levels it should be is not being spent where it should be. The government can crow as much as they like about how much money is being plowed into the health service, but how does the increase correlate to population increase?

Being in a position whereby the already understaffed DHB's are having to choose not to fill vacancies as a way of making savings is lunacy.

As an aside, is it just me, or are our government reading the same play book as their counterparts currently running the UK.....?

ANY time you hear the government quote an increase in Dollars, then you know that its population/inflation adjusted.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/health

"The most recent figure for core Crown health spending in New Zealand is $15.1 billion for the 2014/15 financial year."

So a 2% increase comes to $300 Million.

300 Million sounds a MUCH bigger increase than 2%, or 0% inflation adjusted.

The problem lies in that because the NZ dollar is dropping, healthcare costs (meds etc) are rising much faster than inflation, so cost cutting has to come from somewhere else to meet government targets .

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1496370 20-Feb-2016 17:28

The public system will, in reality, always be "underfunded". If more money goes in to "vote health", it will be used up in more elective surgery etc.

The potential cost to the economy of not providing those "free" health services isn't factored in to show a net cost. I have to laugh at some of the comments above from young folks implying that they're "hard done by" by subsidising the healthcare costs of the aging population. Also one comment above about how clever it is to be earning such a high income with an expectation that life will continue to be as good into their old age. Some facts - death (and poor health) are not optional as you age - not even in America. The mighty can also fall. You'll still need luck.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 625
Inactive user

#1496371 20-Feb-2016 17:30

To start with get rid of the DHB system and centrally control the health budget, why do we have this massively repeated bureaucracy in each DHB? Each DHB buys IT and supplies individually meaning missing out on bulk savings and disparate systems across the sector.

You also have repeated administration services across the sector that could all be centrally managed - payroll and HR for instance.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1496373 20-Feb-2016 17:40

geekiegeek:

To start with get rid of the DHB system and centrally control the health budget, why do we have this massively repeated bureaucracy in each DHB? Each DHB buys IT and supplies individually meaning missing out on bulk savings and disparate systems across the sector.

You also have repeated administration services across the sector that could all be centrally managed - payroll and HR for instance.

The DHBs are most likely part of "All of Government" which bulk buys for all government departments.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 625
Inactive user

#1496376 20-Feb-2016 18:06

sir1963:

geekiegeek:

To start with get rid of the DHB system and centrally control the health budget, why do we have this massively repeated bureaucracy in each DHB? Each DHB buys IT and supplies individually meaning missing out on bulk savings and disparate systems across the sector.

You also have repeated administration services across the sector that could all be centrally managed - payroll and HR for instance.

The DHBs are most likely part of "All of Government" which bulk buys for all government departments.

Nope, they can work through the ministry to use AoG pricing but many choose not to so that they can have more choice and also AoG doesn't cover specialist healthcare IT services like patient admin systems and the like.

Some DHB's have been forced to join IT services but this is a nightmare to implement as there are lots of little kingdoms of influence being protected and no one likes to make hard decisions in case it comes back to bite them. DHB boards are elected so like politicians they bow to the voters.

I have worked in health IT and was blown away by the inefficiencies.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1496377 20-Feb-2016 18:23

The thing is that NZ has a major housing shortage, especially in Auckland , yet we are allowing in a big flow of migrants. These will likely be living in overcrowded houses, which can be unhealthy, and will put an extra drain on our health system. Sure, health spending has increased slightly over the years, but I wonder if it has increased per capita, as NZs population is increasing significantly.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1496425 20-Feb-2016 21:46

bazzer:

joker97: Target is never reachable.

This is your target: "Do more with less"

Paradox of NZ healthcare!

Isn't this called continuous improvement? Anyone can do more with more.

No it's called inflation

1 | 2 | 3