Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: AKL to lose Diagnostic Medlab

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West Auckland
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    looks like it's going to court:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectid=10395357

    A multi-million dollar row over medical laboratory services is headed for court.

    Diagnostic Medlab confirmed today it is asking the High Court for a judicial review of the decision by three Auckland district health boards to dump Medlab as the area's main medical laboratory.

    The three boards gave a $560 million, eight-year contract to a consortium led by Healthscope Ltd, Australia's second-largest private hospital operator.

    The boards said the move could save $15 million a year.

    However, Diagnostic Medlab chief executive Dr Arthur Morris said they had asked the courts to "examine some very serious matters of probity and process in respect of the decision".

    "We believe a wrong decision was based on a flawed process. That is what we are asking the court to look at," he said in a statement.

    "We intend to pursue every avenue available to us to have this wrong decision reviewed, because it has serious implications for our company, our staff, and, we believe, the people of Auckland.

    "We are not going to stand by and let the DHBs destroy a world-class pathology practice that has served the Auckland region for 70 years."

    He said 52,000 people had signed a petition calling for the DHBs to review the decision.

    Those people, the people of Auckland, doctors, specialists and community health professionals were appalled at the decision and the lack of consultation, he said.

    The eight-year contract was due to begin next July.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ (formerly U.S.A)
    Posts
    285

    Default


    Patients may suffer, College of GPs warns
    Thursday, 10 August 2006, 5:26 pm
    Press Release: Royal NZ College of General Practitioners

    The College of GPs today criticised the three Auckland DHBs who have made major changes to the region’s laboratory service specifications without giving proper consideration to the impact the change would have on primary care.

    “Accountants have focused on the dollars, and ignored the primary medical ethic of ‘First, do no harm,’ College president and Auckland GP Dr Jonathan Fox said. This follows the joint decision of Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waitemata to go to tender on a specification that reduced the current service.

    The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners issued the statement following a meeting of the full College Council in Auckland. The College’s annual conference, ironically with a theme of Practical Solutions, officially starts tonight at 6.30pm, and continues until Sunday. “Our major concern is with the quality of care we can give our patients,” Dr Fox said.

    “If we cannot get a continuation of the comprehensive, timely and precise reporting back from the labs, it is our patients who will suffer.” Auckland Faculty members were surveyed by the College in late July.

    “GPs who responded cannot see the sense in changing something that was not broken. The general feeling among respondents is one of disbelief, shock, sadness, and apprehension.” Respondents were concerned that other services currently provided, such as expert advice and CME, will not play as big a part in the new service specification. The College is particularly critical of the lack of prior consultation for those most affected. “The DHBs must learn that the ‘H’ stands for ‘health’ and not ‘hospital’.

    Currently they appear to be much more aware of secondary care (hospital) processes and are yet to learn that comprehensive consultation is imperative with the community. Both patients and general practice teams have been denied the opportunity to stress how fundamental such a quality service is to the success of effective primary care.” Dr Fox said Council members from outside Auckland had confirmed that where other DHBs has also changed the services in a bid to save money, the end result had been a degradation in the quality of service. “For those of us in Auckland, it confirmed our worst fears,” he said.

    The College has also questioned whether DHBs followed change requirements set out in the Operational Policy Framework, specifically to consider impacts on the DHB provider arm, community and clinical views. Dr Fox said it was bizarre that, at a time when patient waiting lists are being slashed, with general practice exhorted to care for patients outside hospitals, that a world class primary care service should be put at risk.

    Dr Fox said GPs would work with whoever provides the service, but were very uneasy with the potential risk to public safety from the change to service specifications. In particular the Council was concerned that these changes could result in a increase in hospital admissions. “You can’t just say ‘Sorry, we got it wrong’ when the quality of patient care is at stake.”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0608/S00039.htm/

    Last edited by jo-and-jeff; 15th August 2006 at 06:01 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ (formerly U.S.A)
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Just an update:

    DML has filed papers with the High Court to look into matters of process and probity with respect to the ADHBs' decision. Our court date is scheduled for 20 November.

    In the meantime, have a look at this letter to the Health Minister from the Chairman of the New Zealand Medical Association:


    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0610/S00018.htm

    And, just in case you thought Wellington might be a better destination because of the situation in Auckland, have a look at this from a few days ago...

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominio...0a6479,00.html

    Disturbing stuff. And, this is just the laboratory component. Junior doctors and radiologists have also been picketing the DHBs, but for other reasons.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ (formerly U.S.A)
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Just another update.

    DML's day in court has been postponed until 12 February. Apparently DML identified some significant material during the discovery process and revised their statement of claim. Depending upon whom you believe, at that point either the court decided that it needed more time to consider the case or the ADHB asked for more time to prepare their defence. Whichever is true, the result is that we will be unlikely to learn anything about the outcome of the case until the end of February.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ (formerly U.S.A)
    Posts
    285

    Default


    Update

    Since the announcement of the ADHB's decision awarding the Auckland area lab contract to the non-existent company Labtests Auckland, we at Diagnostic Medlab have been literally inundated with letters of support from local GPs, specialists and members of the public.

    All of this support was very encouraging and heartening, but what did it mean? What about all of the GPs that we didn't hear from? How did they feel about DML? How did they feel about the decision? Were any of them consulted?

    What about the public? Sure, over 123,000 of them had signed our petition (the population of Auckland is around 1.5 million), but media coverage has been spotty at best. How many knew what was going on? How did they feel about it?

    DML wanted objective answers to these questions, so they hired an independent research firm, Colmar Brunton (CB), to survey Auckland GPs and the public. I won't bore you with too much about the methodology of the survey except to say that of the 1300 GPs in the Auckland region, 839 were contacted to generate a sample size of 300. This represents a response rate of 45% (very good for any survey, but unheard of in surveys of doctors). No incentives were offered to the doctors in exchange for responding. The results, with an error rate of plus-or-minus 5.7% at a 95% confidence level, were as follows:
    • Only 4% felt that there was any consultation about the decision to change provider. Of this 4%, only 40% felt that the level of consultation was adequate.
    • 95% felt that maintenance of current turnaround times for routine blood tests was very important.
    • 81% felt that 43 collection rooms would be too few.
    • 79% said they were unable or unwilling to collect blood in their offices.
    • 61% expressed dissatisfaction with the idea of using commercial couriers for sample pickup.
    • 36% expressed concern that the change would result in a downgrade in service (This was a volunteered response to the open-ended question: "Do you have any other comments you'd like to make about the change in community laboratory services provider? If yes - What are these comments?")
    • 92% would prefer DML to continue providing community lab services (Labtests got 1%; the rest were not sure or had no preference)

    A simpler survey was presented to members of the public. These people were drawn from a pool of individuals already signed up with CB to participate in their surveys via the internet. In return for completing a certain number of surveys, these people get a small voucher to a local shop (so they had some small incentive). The sample size was 600, all from Auckland, all aged over 18 years. The margin of error was plus-or-minus 4.0% at a 95% confidence level. The results are as follows:
    • 74% could name DML as the current provider (unprompted responses)
    • 72% were aware of the decision to change providers
    • 12% were aware that Labtests Auckland is the new provider
    • 70% would prefer DML to have the contract
    • 1% would prefer Labtests Auckland


    Of course, even we acknowledge that a certain amount of this is the "better the devil you know" phenomenon. Nonetheless, the numbers do suggest a high level of satisfaction with the job that we are doing, and that is something of which everyone at DML can be proud.

    At this time, we can only wait for the court case to proceed in February, and hope that the judge will see fit to reverse this decision which would turn over the healthcare of Aucklanders to a brand-new company created by Auckland DHB member Tony Bierre, with no existing facilities, equipment, staff or lab Accreditation.

    Jeff


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ (formerly U.S.A)
    Posts
    285

    Default Update on the Auckland laboratories court case



    Blood on the lab floors
    by Carroll du Chateau, NZ Herald
    20 January 2007


    Kumeu GP William Ferguson says Labtests Auckland's assertion that it can undercut the current service by $15 million a year, subtract 12 pathologists and around half the region's community laboratory staff without lowering standards, "is blatantly dishonest".

    Read more


    Health boards acted outside their powers, court hears
    no author credited, NZ Herald
    12 February 2007


    DML lawyer Jack Hodder told the court "the decision by Auckland District Health Board and others would do serious and irreversible harm to diagnostic services in Auckland. It would reduce collection rooms from 80 to 43, cut staff by 161 and reduce pathology services by 36 per cent."

    Read more


    $560m health fight in court
    by Wayne Thompson, NZ Herald
    13 February 2007


    [Labtests Auckland's] number of pathologists would be cut by 36 per cent to 16. The present 12-hour turnaround time for non-urgent tests would be extended to 48 hours, and GPs would be encouraged to collect samples to compensate for loss of collection rooms and staff. [something which the vast majority of Auckland-area GPs have since said they have neither the space, the staff, or the finances to do]

    Read more


    Cash before patients, says ousted lab service
    by David Eames, NZ Herald
    14 February 2007


    Labtests Auckland plans to reduce the number of sample collection rooms from 80 to 43, and the number of collection staff from 293 to 161, which DML claim will result in:
    • Patients having to travel further to have samples taken.
    • Longer waits for service at peak times.
    • More patients not bothering to have samples taken for testing.
    • GPs being pressured, or feeling pressured, into taking samples without being compensated for the extra work.

    Read more


    Ex-board member accused of conflict of interest in lab
    by David Eames, NZ Herald
    16 February 2007


    A former Auckland District Health Board member has been accused of a conflict of interest after failing to disclose a financial stake in the company [Labtests Auckland] awarded a medical testing contract worth hundreds of millions... His investment could have returned Dr Bierre an after-tax figure of "close to $1 million a year", the papers claim... in a June, 2005 board meeting, Dr Bierre spoke "forcefully" against a recommendation the board renew Medlab's contract.

    Read more


    Health board checked member's interest "too late"
    by David Eames, NZ Herald
    16 February 2007


    The Auckland District Health Board did not investigate until it was too late a board member's interests in the company that won a $560 million medical testing contract, High Court documents allege ...the DHBs did not consider the conflict/insider information problem until they were almost committed to signing the contract with Labtests Auckland. By then it was too late.

    Read more


    GPs yet to learn of lab tests setup, court told
    by David Eames, NZ Herald
    17 February 2007


    Doctors [who would have to rely on patient testing from Labtests Auckland] are in the dark about the workload and pay conditions involved with the new medical testing contract, the High Court at Auckland heard yesterday.

    Read more


    You can also see updates of NZ Doctor's daily coverage of the court case here:
    http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/HOTP/Labs-...bs-archive.htm



    Last edited by jo-and-jeff; 17th February 2007 at 01:06 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Wellington (from Beds, UK)
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    i'm thinking jo-and-jeff might be happy....

    "Medlab decision thrown out by High Court"

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/3999453a10.html

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West Auckland
    Posts
    1,029

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wellington (via Maine, USA)
    Posts
    56

    Default

    North & South did an in depth article in its latest issue. You may want to give that a read. Of course, it was published prior to this weeks events.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ (formerly U.S.A)
    Posts
    285

    Default


    We'd like to believe that there is reason for celebration. However, it now appears that the ADHBs are going to try to do an end-run around the judge's verdict and give Labtests an interim contract for part of the Auckland laboratory service in an attempt to give them time to get up and running, since right now Labtests appear to be in extreme difficulties in terms of staffing.

    If you have concerns about the damage being done to NZ health care by the ADHBs (who are setting a precedent for the DHBs in the rest of the country), I encourage you to contact your MPs and Health Minister Pete Hodgson to call for the resignations of the ringleaders in awarding big-money government contracts to non-existent companies like Labtests which are owned by their buddies: ADHB chair Wayne Brown, ADHB Deputy chair Ross Keenan, ADHB CEO Garry Smith, and Director-General of Health, Stephen McKernan.

    You can keep up with the breaking news regarding the Auckland laboratory contract situation with Labtests here.

    Jo




Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •