Muskoka politicians may have a bargaining chip in hospital debate, says Aitchison
Huntsville mayor Scott Aitchison has urged community members to make their voices heard in the debate around future hospital infrastructure in Muskoka. – Metroland file photo
HUNTSVILLE — The mayor’s words were blunt.
“It is important for everyone to get out and be heard — and to make sure the capital plan development task force, and the board, in particular, hears you loud and clear that a single site is not acceptable,” said Huntsville mayor Scott Aitchison, during a town council meeting on Feb. 26.
He was encouraging council members and residents alike to attend a Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare capital plan development task force public meeting on future hospital planning at the District of Muskoka offices, 70 Pine St., Bracebridge, on Thursday, March 1, at 5 p.m.
“It’s important that the community be there and be heard,” said Aitchison.
He said district representatives “had some pretty frank discussions” with MAHC hospital board chair Evelyn Brown and vice-chair Philip Matthews after the pair approached the regional government in January for roughly $84 million to $114 million over time toward future hospital infrastructure.
“We pointed out that the only way they would get our support is if hospital development happens in a way the community will support,” he said.
The 25-member capital development plan task force, which includes hospital, municipal, health-care provider and community member representatives, would continue to debate future hospital infrastructure models that included either one or two hospitals.
But Muskoka had two hospitals — one in Bracebridge and one in Huntsville.
The mayor, as a member of the task force, noted the task force members would consider community support as one of the criteria for choosing a preferred model this spring.
“Obviously, they have to rank all the various different criteria. But I’ve argued many times that I think community support isn’t just one of the tools you use to rank (the possible hospital models) — it’s actually the deal breaker because without support in the community nothing happens,” he said. “The ministry won’t proceed without the backing of the local community.”
“I’ve read on some social media that the decision had been made and it doesn’t matter,” he said. “The decision has not been made and we’re fighting against the concept of a single-site hospital.”
But he argued Brown and Matthews’ request to the district “wasn’t a request made based on having made up their mind.”
He noted the range of the request represented the local share amounts needed for a variety of future model options — not just the single-site model.
“What they were pointing out was that, when it comes to pass that this redevelopment really starts, probably 15 to 20 years from now, it would be wise, if we are committed to contributing (a sum of money), to start saving sooner rather than later,” he said. “I don’t disagree with that.”
But he commented that a local share, regardless of the sum, was needed for any redevelopment project to move forward, which gave the politicians leverage.
Aitchison added that area municipal representatives had continued to meet with provincial cabinet ministers and politicians, despite health-care minister and PC party leadership changes, to advocate for the region’s two hospitals and improved provincial funding for small- and medium-sized hospitals.
The provincial funding formula rewards hospitals in larger urban centres with higher patient and procedure volumes.
“Medium-sized hospitals all across this province, meaning small-town Ontario, are struggling to keep the lights on in their hospitals. We’re not the only ones,” said Aitchison. “We’ve done our bit by merging administrations, single-siting certain services and finding efficiencies that way. The next efficiency is to literally lose emergency care services — and that is something that we are not prepared to accept.