Reality of unmet medical need undeniable
It’s not every week that I’m accosted in the supermarket, exhorted to sing the praises of a lifesaver. But that’s what Margaret implored me to do, collaring me in the fresh produce section, positively beaming about her successful knee replacement. After waiting three years for elective surgery – and going nowhere fast, Margaret’s ‘‘lifesaver’’ was Dr Phil Bagshaw and the Canterbury Charity Hospital.
At 77, Margaret’s knackered knee didn’t pass muster on the agony index, part of the rather perverse rationing apparatus that crowd controls access to elective surgery.
Her story was all too familiar. Nine years ago, she gave up trying to pay for private health insurance, as the annual premiums went stratospheric. But the Charity Hospital was her white knight, delivering life-changing knee replacement surgery.
She considers herself one of the lucky ones. As has been well documented in
The Press, public health’s surgical services are groaning under the weight of the inexorably growing demand. Record numbers of elective surgeries in our public hospitals are being performed, record amounts of taxpayer dollars are hurled at our health system, but the gaping reality of unmet need is undeniable.
We should start to get a clearer steer on just how profound the crisis is in the coming weeks, particularly in Canterbury, home to the largest proportion of elderly in the country.
An independent study initiated by Bagshaw and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists is currently determining the best method for measuring unmet need. Their results will be unveiled next month.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health’s National Patient Flow project aims to standardise data from across all district health boards, to get a grip on just how many patients are being denied specialist assessments and surgery, after GP referrals. The project’s first report should be released mid-year.
But in addition to shuffling paper and collating better quality data, maximising the full capacity of our public and private operating theatres must surely be the guiding objective.
It is a tragedy that so many Kiwis have to abruptly jettison private health cover, due to the savage price hikes in annual premiums, when their clock hits the sixties.
Just before Christmas, there was a major missed opportunity by Parliament to substantially loosen the financial pressure valve. The Affordable Healthcare Bill proposed reducing the burden on public hospitals, with a triplepronged strategy.
The bill would have provided the over65s with a 25 per cent health insurance premium tax rebate, up to the value of $500 a year – a pragmatic measure that would assist people to continue taking personal responsibility by renewing their insurance cover, duly freeing up more public health capacity for those without private cover.
The bill also proposed removing fringe benefit tax from health insurance to incentivise employers to include it in salary packages – once again reducing pressure on public health. And the third plank would have required migrants under the parent reunion category to have health insurance for 10 years upon arrival in New Zealand.
Over 5000 parent category migrants arrive annually, and unlike many Western nations, we don’t require them to self-insure. Analysis by Business and Economic Research Limited estimated the measure would save the taxpayer $100 million annually.
Meanwhile, the Government claimed that providing older New Zealanders with the 25 per cent insurance rebate was ‘‘too costly’’ at $150m a year. But it was petty, spiteful personality politics that killed the bill, given its architect was Winston Peters.
The Government blithely opposed it, even though all three prongs make a world of sense and would make a world of difference. National needs to give it a second look.
It is a tragedy that so many Kiwis have to abruptly jettison private health cover, due to the savage price hikes in annual premiums, when their clock hits the sixties.