Times Advocate, 1996-12-18, Page 5St. Marys hospital needed
"Look at the Alberta situation -
study it and learn from it."
Dear Editor:
To Dr. Duncan Sinclair, Fraser Bell, Janet Hook
(for discussion with Task Force)
Fraser Bell mentioned in his December 5 presen-
tation in St. Marys 'appropriate planning'.
I believe planning should be done in stages and I
would urge that nothing whatsoever be tampered
with; changed or eliminated in Health Services in
Huron -Perth until London hospitals are restructured,
stabilized and operating effectively and efficiently.
This is of vital importance.
Hold off on final decisions in this area for two or
three, even five years to be certain the London set-
ting is functioning adequately. Act responsibly and
you may be greatly respected.
Quick decisions are often not good decisions.
Look at the Alberta situation - study it and learn
from it.
Costing is also a very important issue; however
you admit nothing has been done to date in this re-
gard. Any successful business would not think of
change unless costing is in place. You may be sim-
ply transferring costs from one centre to another;
but in the meantime, leaving rural hospitals in jeop-
ardy.
Please consider my concerns.
Your plan seems quite flawed. Personally I would
be embarrassed to be in your position; having to ad-
dress residents of Huron -Perth as well as all resi-
dents who use St. Marys Memorial Hospital.
Marg Glover
Reasons to keep our hospital
"Can we afford to allow the
erosion of our community unity by
closing a vital entity in Exeter?"
Dear Editor:
To whom it may concern:
Exeter United Church embodies some 700 fami-
lies. As you might imagine, this large and diverse
community encompasses a wide geographic area. In
a real effort to serve the approximate 1800 individu-
als under our umbrella of spiritual and emotional
care, it is essential for us to provide 'equity of ac-
cess' for all concerned. Likewise, we contend, in
evaluating the hospital restructuring options for the
Counties of Huron and Perth.
This letter is written in support of South Huron
Hospital. We strongly believe that Exeter must have
a hospital facility. The facts speak for themselves.
South Huron Hospital
• has the highest number of emergency visits in
Huron County
• is the most used home hospital in Huron County
• serves a town with 4,400 people and is located
on the busiest highway in the County
• serves 10,000+ people in the greater Grand
Bend, North Middlesex and Lambton area
• serves some 30,000 tourists in the Grand Bend
area on holiday weekends.
Given these overwhelming facts, by removing
South Huron Hospital from your list of preferred
options, are you, in fact, providing `equity of ac-
cess' for all concerned? Should South Huron Hospi-
tal close, Exeter would fall outside the parameters
of your outlined `equity of access'. In the end, Exet-
er and the surrounding communities would be de-
prived communities - depriving the young and eld-
erly, alike.
Furthermore
• at 15.1 per cent, Exeter's five-year growth rate is
the highest in Huron County, more than two times
the rate of the next fastest growing town
• Exeter has more planned growth capacity in wa-
ter and sewage treatment systems than any other
town in Huron County, and
• Exeter, Hensall and Huron Park area is the larg-
est industrial area in Huron County. Our widespread
farm families depend on the immediate access to
our South Huron facility. The need is real!
Again, the facts are self-evident. And they sup-
port, beyond measure, the clear and definitive an-
swer that South Huron Hospital should be a hospital
facility. The questions remain: What kind of hospi-
tal? And what kind of services should the hospital
provide? Emergency? Palliative? Chronic? Conva-
lescent? Home Care?...
Although we recognize that restructuring the
health care system in our province is much needed,
involving many tough and painful decisions by all
concerned, we also firmly believe that the options,
as outlined by the Task Force, fail to address 'equity
of access'. Without a doubt, Exeter needs a hospi-
tal.To decide otherwise would be a travesty against
the real and legitimate interests of God's people, not
only in Exeter but in every other community affect-
ed. Justice must prevail!
In the 1950s there was a realbvision to build a last-
ing and viable community with the establishment of
South Huron Hospital. Can we afford to allow the
erosion of our community unity by closing a vital
entity in Exeter? The answer, of course, is a definite
no! ,
In conclusion, we commend the District Health
Council for providing the much needed leadership
in thismost difficult transition period in the delivery
of health care services in our province. Your efforts,
in combination with the loud and articulate voices
of God's people in the counties of Huron and Perth,
will hopefully realize the much needed consensus
for everyone.
As always, together in Christ,
Bill Carson, Chairperson
Exeter United Church Official Board
Breakdown of hospital department costs
Included in all the departments
assigned to Administration costs
are salaries, fringe benefit costs
and supplies....
Dear Editor:
At the hospital sponsored open house, November
27, MPP Helen Johns spoke about hospital cost re:
Administration and lack of cooperation by hospi-
tals in supplying information to the Ministry of
Health. From the questions that have been asked of
Board members, staff and myself, it becomes clear
that her comments were confusing and misleading.
The two areas most commonly asked about were
administration cost of 31 per cent and withholding
information regarding salaries and "perks" of ad-
ministration.
First, until about seven years ago, every salary
range was part of the budget package submitted to
the Ministry of Health. It was the Ministry who de-
cided they did not need that information and
dropped the requirement from their budget forms.
Secondly, the Government passed an Act this year
that required public disclosure of anyone making
over $100,000 including salary and perks. If the
'government had wanted to know everyone's salary
and perks why did they only request those over
$100,000? - P.S. Stratford Hospital was the only
hospital in Huron/Perth who was affected by this
legislation.
Regarding the administration cost of 31 per cent,
the Ministry of Health dictates where all costs are
distributed within the reporting system. The follow-
ing costs comprise the 31 per cent Mrs. Johns was
talking about in her presentation; you can decide for
yourself if these are all truly administrative costs. If
you are concerned about the efficiencies of South
Huron Hospital the Ministry of Health and the Dis-
trict Health Council have both stated that we are un-
derfunded by between $700,000 and $1 M.
Included in all the departments assigned to Ad-
ministration costs are salaries, fringe benefit costs
and supplies.
General Administration Department: cost included
in department: Accounting, payroll, administration,
telephone, audit fees, insurance, professional fees,
computer costs, copying supplies.
Communication, Materials Management Depart-
ment includes: Reception and phone operators, cen-
tral supply sterilization of equipment and dressings.
Housekeeping, Laundry and Linen, Department in-
cludes: Cleaning, toilet supplies. Plant Operations
and Maintenance includes: Heat, water, hydro,
maintenance contracts, replacement parts, snow re-
moval, equipment and building.
Nursing Administration costs include: Working
supervisors and Director of Nursing.
Registration Department costs include: Admitting
and Billings. Health Records Department includes:
Patient chart archiving, dictatyping. Patient Food
Services Department includes: All cafeteria and
kitchen food costs.
The total cost of all the above is $1,665,000, ap-
proximately 36 per cent of the cost of operation of
the hospital. As can be seen, many of these costs are
required for patient care and tend to distort our im-
age of true "administration cost".
If anyone would like a further explanation I would
be happy to accommodate.
Respectfully,
Donald S. Currell
Administrator, South Huron Hospital.
No hospital costs seen so far
I understood that the Task Force
had so far, not considered cost in
their study...
Dear Editor:
At the hospital situation meeting in the Rec Cen-
tre on the 11th, I understood that the Task Force had
so far, not considered cost in their study. Indeed, I
have not seen any mention of hospital costs in any
of the information handed out so far. This seems
rather strange, since the whole object of the exercise
is to reduce cost. How can meaningful decisions be
made without this information? Is it possible that
the number of beds be reduced on the basis of past
usage, a bit of re -organizing is done and perhaps a
nominal charge for ER usage, could thereby keep all
hospitals open?
Yours sincerely
John R. Sandeman
•
Times -Advocate, December 18,1996
Pages
What are the options based on?
"I was disturbed that no
documentation was presented to
the concerned citizens present."
Dear Editor:
Attention: Chair Deb Campbell and Board Mem-
bers, Huron -Perth District Health Council
Dear Chair and Members:
Duncan Sinclair, Chair of the Ontario Health Ser-
vices Restructuring Commission, in an address to a
Small Hospital Session at the Ontario Hospital As-
sociation convention November 6, 1996, stated
"Given that our decisions, once made, are final and
will have lasting effect on the affected institutions
and the hospital sector as a whole, the Commission
is very concerned to have at hand the most complete
data and information and the most penetrating anal-
ysis possible to ensure that those decisions are, in
every sense of the word, sensible. Our decisions
must be sensitive, sensitive to culture, traditions and
preferences of the affected communities."
On December 11, 1996, I attended the Huron -
Perth Hospital Restructuring Study Exeter "Open
House" seeking the logic and statistical information
that supported the Task Force's rationale of the
three options being promoted. I was disturbed that
no documentation was presented to the concerned
citizens present. What are the reasons for selecting
the three options? To date, nothing of substance has
been provided.
The presenters indicated that the Task Force and
the District Health Council (DHC) were still open to
other options for their consideration. How can we
genuinely accept that statement when it was stated;
The consultants will be only costing the three op-
tions offered. One would assume that the saving im-
pacts would be available when choosing a "pre-
ferred option," December 17. Opportunity to
present new scenarios or to make sure that good in-
formation is available will be presented to the Task
Force December 16. This date leaves no time to ef-
fectively provide documentation to change the di-
rection of the Task Force.
During the question period, many good sugges-
tions were put forth, good questions were raised and
yet it appeared no one from the Task Force or the
DHC was recording these statements. If this obser-
vation is correct, a question arises as to the credibili-
ty of your commitment to openness in selecting a
"Preferred Option."
Further, residents from the Grand Bend .arca
raised valid concerns regarding their needs. Re-
sponses indicated that the citizens in that area and in
the catchment area of South Huron Hospital outside
of the Huron County boundaries were taken into
consideration. However, the maps supporting the
three options show that the Task Force's decision
did not include this significant part of the South Hu-
ron Hospital catchment area.
Duncan Sinclair also stated in his November ad-
dress; "The overarching consideration, however, is
that of sensibility. The basic test of whether our de-
cisions are good ones or not will be answered by the
well-informed person on the street who, when asked
'does that make sense' will answer 'yes." That sen-
sibility should come from the Task Force through
their data and penetrating analysis.
The Task Force has not provided that data and
analysis to allow people to become informed: The
public is entitled to that information. Unfortunately,
I believe the die has been cast and only minor ad-
justments will be made. If I am wrong, I would be
most happy to see a change in direction.
One way to show that a change in direction is
forthcoming is to halt the present thrust. There is no
consensus, there are no assurances and there are no
clearly-defined supportable decisions. I believe the
DHC has an obligation to tell the Ministry of Health
that more time is required.
I recognize that savings must be found, but what
level of reductions can be sustained without jeopard-
izing the delivery of health services in a rural set-
ting.
Until open dialogue is completed, the DHC could
instruct the eight hospitals to reduce their budgets
and stay in the black, called for by the Province as
stated in the first year of cuts outlined by the Minl✓s-
try of Health. This should allow time to complete a
sensible study.
The DHC's recommendation to the Minister of
Health is an important statement reflecting needs for
proper health care in Huron and Perth and therefore
requires the broadest support. That support will only
be forthcoming when citizens' health needs now and
in the future are met through a sensible, thoughtful,
understandable and acceptable plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Mickle,
Reeve - Town of Exeter
Constituent wants MPP's help
"It is time for you to call a halt to
the DHC study as it stands..."
Dear Editor:
Shame on you Helen Johns and the Conservative
Pavy for pitting community against community,
neighbour against neighbour, doctor akainst doctor,
etc. etc.! Do you (Johns) take some sort of perverse
satisfaction in sitting back and watching the good
people of Huron and Perth Counties wage a war
against themselves? Do you (Johns) have any idea
of the stress and anguish,you are inflicting on sen-
iors (many in poor health), 'families and heath care
workers in your riding? It is time for you to call a
halt to the D.H.C. study as it stands, and show the
people who elected you to power that you are work-
ing for them, not just following the party line!
Shame on you D.H.C. Task Force and Fraser Bell
for plodding on with a flawed plan that does not
meet the criteria initially stated at the outset. Have
you given all the information to people in communi-
ties chosen in all three options? i.e. have you made
it abundantly clear that in hospitals chosen under
the present options, that after redistribution of man-
power a great many of these employees could be
displaced by employees from other hospitals? Have
you left them with the impression that all their jobs
are safe? Given winter road conditions would it be
feasible or safe for an R.P.N. from St. Marys to
drive to work in Goderich, a technician from Wing -
ham to drive to work in Seaforth, an R.N. from Clin-
ton to drive to work•in Stratford. In the event of a
snowstorm with roads closed for three or four days
would staffing of hospitals under this redistribution
of manpower not be a logistical nightmare or even
impossible? Has the D.H.C. even thought of this
scenario? In fairness to the D.H.C., given that you
were indoctrinated with a plan from the outset,
throw in a little politics, influence and turf protec-
tion, then put an impossible deadline on the study, it
is no wonder you arrived at some bad decisions for
the residents of Huron and Perth! The worst deci-
sion and the biggest mistake you could make, is to
close your thinking to better plans and options for
all of usl
The most sensible, efficient plan to date was out-
lined by Ralph Smith in a letter to local newspapers
December 11. Local hospitals don't dispute the fact
some beds need to be cut, one administration for ru-
ral hospitals would work, services can be shared. I
am mailing a clipping of the letter (Ralph Smith's)
to Fraser Bell at the D.H.C.
I implore Helen Johns to show some initiative,
stand up for your constituents, or pass the torch to
someone who will.
Yours truly,
George Kruse,
Bayfield
DHC options unfair to South Huron
Bureaucratic arrogance is bad
enough; but the attempt to dis-
guise it as listening to the people
is far worse...
Dear Editor:
At the initial information meeting on the future of
South Huron Hospital on November 27, and even
more so at the "Open House" meeting of December
11, it was difficult not to feel that the residents of
Exeter and area were being confronted with a fait
accompli.
The three so-called "options" presented by the
District Health Council are, on the face of it, so ob-
viously distorted and unfair to South Huron that one
would think the first obligation of those in authority
would be to explain whatever principles the DHC
was applying when It arrived at its strange reoom-
mendations. So far, I have not heard a word of ex-
planation - which makes one suspect there isn't any.
The "Open House" was ostensibly to allow South
Huron residents an opportunity to question the pro-
posals and offer alternative suggestions. But all the
"experts" I heard did not want to listen. They were
there to defend the options as originally proposed.
The suspicion is that these sessions are being repre-
sented as "consultations", when in fact the issue has
already been decided. Then, when the final proposal
is announced, DHC will be able to misrepresent it as
the product of democratic process, which it palpably
is not.
If DHC were genuinely interested in consultation
and the democratic process these "input sessions"
would have been held before making any proposals
at all. Bureaucratic arrogance is bad enough; but the
attempt to disguise it as listening to the people is far
W01110. Yam truly
Douglas Prams