Belt-Tightening Needed To Balance NH Budget

Monday, January 21, 2008 03:41 PM

Northern Health Board of Directors gathered this afternoon at Dornbierer Crescent

The good news was tempered by a warning for restraint for the remainder of the fiscal year, as Northern Health’s Board of Directors received the latest financial update.

NH Chief Financial Officer, Barry Cheal, says the health authority recorded an operating surplus of $1.7-million dollars for the period ending November 15th, 2007.

Cheal says revenue was up $4.8-million over what was budgeted, due to factors like higher funding from the Ministry of Health for compensation/services and higher miscellaneous revenues arising from charges to non-BC residents. But spending on acute care and support services was $3.1-million-dollars over-budget with higher hospital occupancy levels, emergency room visits, and surgical activities.

"We did have an increase in spending in supporting our whole acute care infrastructure in periods 8 and 9, so for that reason, for us to end the year in a balanced position, we need to be watching our spending very carefully for the remainder of the year," says Executive Director Cathy Ulrich.

Ulrich says, "So some of things that we are going to be monitoring very carefully are things like our travel, outside of travel that’s required for patient care, and also, staffing positions - making sure that we aren’t creating new positions without careful analysis of what we need."

The Northern Interior’s Chief Operations Officer, Mike McMillan, says, "At PGRH, we’re really focusing on trying to minimize overtime and in Quesnel, as well."

The fiscal year ends March 31st of this year.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 03:41 PM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: travism on January 21 2008 4:19 PM

The only way to reduce costs in the health care field is to teach people how to look after themselves, then charge them if they don't. There has to be some sort of financial incentive to get your butt off the couch or the average person won't do it.

We live in a society that you can do very well eating garbage and not exercising all day.

There should be some sort of premium for people who are making lifestyle choices that are known to contribute to heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc. These are largely preventable and it is time the activities that promote them are punished as heavily as drinking, smoking and speeding.

Let's face it currently you are financially punished for activites that will save the government money in the long term. You have to pay for your gym membership, organic food costs more, fruit and veggies are more expensive than McDonalds, alternative health care is paid out of your own pocket. In my family of three I pay at least $100 a month for supplements.

The only thing covered is the care to make you a drain on the health system for longer. It is a backwards system. And to be honest a hard run followed by cauliflower is not all that fulfilling for most people.

Why not supplement the long term benefit of good health with a short term benefit of less tax?

Posted by: Harbinger on January 21 2008 5:40 PM

How are chances of seeing receipts for all these funds being spent? Any one person deciding on what gets spent or is it just a tub full of dough where everyone just helps themselves and calls it the honour system? Also known as a lack of accountability by anyone for these moneys?

Posted by: Harbinger on January 21 2008 5:41 PM

But then again, when it comes to our medical system, free means free.

Posted by: metalman on January 21 2008 5:57 PM

If they want to cut costs, maybe they should look at consolidating some of their office space around town. The NHA is the most outrageous example of top heavy bureaucratic mismanagement, it would make for a good sitcom, if it were on television. There must be ten administrators for every doctor and nurse.
travism is right on too, the whole system does NOT encourage any one to do better. The waiting lists most of us have to endure are simply outrageous, there is no rhyme nor reason to the way the whole thing is run. My philosophy: look after everybody of course, but if there is any special treatment to go around, give it to the middle income taxpayers who keep the whole damn thing running and end up getting the poorest care. It makes sense, look after the ones who pay, get them back to health and work as soon as possible.
metalman.

Posted by: jonnypg on January 21 2008 6:18 PM

say goodbye to the northern health bus!!

Posted by: anniemartin on January 21 2008 6:47 PM

Agree with the top heavy management - pay the health board more than the hospital workers, rip up contracts for nurses and hospital workers then complain that we don't have enough staff for our hospitals! Making the common people accountable is ALWAYS how we answer bureaucratic mismanagement - don't ask industry to stop polluting instead tell the common person to stop burning, buy a more fuel efficient car, recyle more or tax them. Prevention is a good start, but with an aging population the demand will just get worse. Supplements are not the answer to children who don't have enough food and removing the taxes collected on liquor, smokes and gas would be a huge blow to the system. We just don't get the value for the dollars spent, maybe its time to hold health boards and management accountable instead of looking for cost savings through the sick and those who provide the care.

Posted by: vulcan on January 21 2008 7:50 PM

I have to agree with Metalman, the NH has more offices, and management then they do hospital beds. It is sad, and who suffers the patients.

Posted by: loungingntheloops on January 21 2008 9:33 PM

Couldn't agree more with the comments about being top heavy. I'm alarmed at how much money is being spent on new (non medical) staff, training and trips. I think there is a good story behind all of this. Our government has steadily increase health care funding but the money isn't getting past all the breaucrats to the practisioners where it's needed.

Posted by: metalman on January 22 2008 7:19 AM

Your comments, lounging one, remind me of a similar situation, Indian Affairs. In both the health and the indian issues, one heck of a lot of money is spent, but the net benefit to the 'end user' is, or appears to be, paltry. Commoners such as myself cannot help but wonder about the cost, and apparent lack of efficiency, of the mid level bureaucracy that purports to administer the spending of truly vast sums of taxpayers blood sweat and tears.
metalman.