The NZ Herald has an article today about elective surgery problems in city hospitals. Despite significant additional spending on hospitals, the elective surgery numbers have gone down.
Of course some of that funding went to pay rises for staff (some of which are definately deserved), and some to non-elective surgery, but even so, it seems a bit ridiculous that the elective surgery numbers are going down. And it is definately not because they have exhausted the waiting lists.
While it is definately difficult to see exactly where the money is going, this situation seems to be typical in any government agency (regardless of the type of government in power at the time). Government departments and agencies do not need to make a profit, and do not need to have very good customer satisifaction (because they are generally a monopoly provider).
Private industry of course is a different matter (if they are not also a monopoly). If a private company does not adequately manage their costs and keep customers happy, they go out of business.
I like the idea of state-funded medical care. It means that we do not get the insurance difficulties like in the US, but everyone has emergency medical care available, and elective surgery is at least possible for free (although not too likely these days).
But while the state should fund medical care, I do not see why they should be the only provider of such care. Why can't the state fund private hospitals to perform operations? A patient definately has no ideological problem with being treated in a private hospital (and from my experience in them, I would definately prefer private).
So why should our public hospitals continue as a monopoly business (or nearly monopoly) when the figures just continue to get worse. If a private company performed this badly they would lose the contract. It seems that being a government agency excempts you from performance criteria.advertising agency in phoenix
Of course some of that funding went to pay rises for staff (some of which are definately deserved), and some to non-elective surgery, but even so, it seems a bit ridiculous that the elective surgery numbers are going down. And it is definately not because they have exhausted the waiting lists.
While it is definately difficult to see exactly where the money is going, this situation seems to be typical in any government agency (regardless of the type of government in power at the time). Government departments and agencies do not need to make a profit, and do not need to have very good customer satisifaction (because they are generally a monopoly provider).
Private industry of course is a different matter (if they are not also a monopoly). If a private company does not adequately manage their costs and keep customers happy, they go out of business.
I like the idea of state-funded medical care. It means that we do not get the insurance difficulties like in the US, but everyone has emergency medical care available, and elective surgery is at least possible for free (although not too likely these days).
But while the state should fund medical care, I do not see why they should be the only provider of such care. Why can't the state fund private hospitals to perform operations? A patient definately has no ideological problem with being treated in a private hospital (and from my experience in them, I would definately prefer private).
So why should our public hospitals continue as a monopoly business (or nearly monopoly) when the figures just continue to get worse. If a private company performed this badly they would lose the contract. It seems that being a government agency excempts you from performance criteria.advertising agency in phoenix
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
advertising agency in phoenix