Arguably the most important issue facing our communities is the future of our hospitals—both from a health as well as an economic development perspective.
As the provincial election draws near, we asked the candidates vying for your vote on June 7 to weigh in on the issue with responses to the following three questions:
- What model do you prefer? [See the models being explored by the Capital Plan Development Task Force at bottom.]
- Does your leader support your choice? If not, what will you do to change his or her mind?
- Recently the Town of Huntsville passed a motion expressing a loss of confidence in the hospital board and asked the Minister of Health to dismiss it. What are your thoughts on that? Do you agree with Huntsville Council’s approach?
Below are the candidates’ responses, in alphabetical order:
Erin Horvath – NDP candidate
Erin Horvath
In talking with many people about this issue I have heard nearly unanimous support for two acute sites. People have shared that their wellbeing, or that of their loved ones, could be compromised without access to a range of services in both locations. Additionally, people have been clear about the need for emergency services at both locations and shared examples of how they, or a loved one, would have died if emergency services were farther away. As a community development expert I believe community needs should drive major changes to hospital services, not funding insufficiencies or government policies. Finally if, during the planning process, the community decides to have different specialty services at the two hospitals I would also support that. The key factor for me is that the process be community driven.
[Regarding council’s resolution] I’ll answer this question in a general way being that I am not aware of the details of the situation or the reasons for the dismissal. Whether justified or not, when something like this happens it points to a larger issue related to effectively engaging people in a planning process and ensuring they feel heard. In moving forward it would likely be necessary to revisit the consultation and decision-making frameworks. With the election around the corner it may also be wise to wait before pursuing this path further. From what I understand, funding formula problems are putting extra pressures on this process. Should the NDP be elected, these financial pressures should be relieved considerably and should have a positive impact on the planning process moving forward. Finally, as I understand it, if a hospital board is dismissed the provincial government appoints supervision, and this person will not necessarily look out for the interests of the community as the planning process moves forward. Rather than going this path, which may provide less assurance for the communities, it may be ideal to re-approach the existing board, make modifications if needed, and re-visit how the communities will be involved moving forward.
Norm Miller – PC candidate
Norm Miller
I support two acute care sites. I have been very clear that I support the communities of Muskoka and Almaguin and the vast majority of the people here who support two fully functioning hospitals, one in Huntsville and one in Bracebridge.
Hospitals, like schools, are a building block of the community and without access to a hospital, what families or businesses would want to move here.
Doug Ford has said straight out that he supports two fully-functioning hospitals, one in Huntsville and one in Bracebridge. And the PC Caucus supported the introduction of my motion calling for a review of the funding of medium-sized hospitals. Many of them represent areas with hospitals facing similar funding shortfalls.
Beyond supporting our two hospitals and supporting a review of how medium-sized hospitals are funded, the PC Party will work with front-line healthcare workers from doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, personal support workers and others to find ways to deliver better health care. We will build 30,000 new long-term care beds so that alternative level of care patients, those who should be in long-term care, have somewhere to go. Right now alternative level of care patients are taking up a large percentage of hospital beds, contributing significantly to wait times.
I understand why Huntsville Council brought forward the motion. They were frustrated because they didn’t feel that the Board of MAHC was listening. The fact that the single site recommendation from 2015 is still on the MAHC Board’s books is a big cause of concern for many people.
Not only was this motion passed by Huntsville Council but it has been supported by the councils of a number of the communities north of Huntsville. In speaking to people across the region, they are terrified of the idea of losing the Huntsville Hospital. Without the Huntsville Hospital, people in Burk’s Falls, Sundridge, Emsdale, Sprucedale, Kearney and so many other communities, would have to drive to either North Bay or Bracebridge. Imagine driving that distance with a sick or injured loved one on a snowy winter night.
This motion probably wouldn’t have been my approach. My own approach had been to try to work with the previous Minister of Health. But when we saw that MAHC got only a 1.4 per cent increase as opposed to the 4.6 per cent average increase given to hospitals by the Liberal government in the most recent budget, I went from trying to work with the government to demanding the government act responsibly for the people of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I asked questions, introduced petitions signed by more than 6,000 residents and introduced a motion calling for a review of medium-sized hospital funding. And what did I get in response? An answer saying that hospitals in growing communities like the ones represented by the Liberal Minister were getting more funding.
With answers like that, I might be driven to the same level of frustration as Mayor Aitchison and members of Huntsville Council. But I don’t think the fault lies at the feet of MAHC. I believe the chronic underfunding by the Liberal government is a critical factor.
Jeff Mole – Independent
Jeff Mole
There is an ongoing process and now is not the time for political meddling. I am disappointed that Norm Miller would get an early jump on the election campaign by encouraging others to gather signatures on a petition before we know the outcome of the process or the election. I personally support two acute sites in Muskoka. I have a meeting scheduled with the board of Muskoka Algonquin Health Care (MAHC) and will make a statement after this meeting.
As an independent candidate, I have no party affiliation. If elected, I will remain open to working with the governing party on this and other matters of interest to communities in the region. We may have a minority parliament. If this is the case, having a flexible independent member (not beholden to party ideology) will uniquely position us to change the mind of any premier that is offside with this and other important matters in the region. In a majority situation, I will consult the community about options.
I was not privy to any private conversations by members of council regarding a motion asking the Minister of Health to dismiss the board of MAHC. I am not sure this was helpful to the process. However, it is reasonable to assume that council passed this motion with a view to protecting the interests of their constituents. Accordingly, they will have an opportunity to answer for their actions in public debates preceding the upcoming municipal election.
Brenda Rhodes – Liberal party candidate
Brenda Rhodes
I support the two acute care site model. I have complete confidence in Kathleen Wynne’s commitment to our community’s health care. I had a very frank one-on-one discussion with her a few weeks ago about the change needed to the provincial funding formula around medium-sized hospitals and I felt she was very receptive; she recognizes how important it is that people live in close proximity to their local hospital. Funding formula aside, the fact is the Ontario Ministry—and the Premier— should not be involved in the process of determining the structure of our hospital at this stage. Municipalities must first complete the necessary requirements on our end before the Ministry becomes involved, which is what MAHC is currently doing.
The process the MAHC Board is required to follow and subsequently the work the task force is going through is lengthy, complicated and essential to ensure they weigh all aspects and gather imperative information to make an educated decision. Could this process have been better explained to the public at the onset? Yes, certainly. But do remember that both the MAHC Board and Task Force are comprised of volunteers from our community—our neighbours who are giving huge amounts of time and energy with the end goal of helping our hospitals thrive.
I feel asking the Ministry to step in now could take away our ability to create the solution WE, as a community, want. This is a time for local leaders to be pulling our community together and to better explain the process to concerned citizens and ensure we first complete the necessary requirements on our end before the Ministry becomes involved. I am extremely thankful for the advocacy work our municipal leaders have been doing on our behalf, but my concern is this: why has the brunt of advocacy for our hospitals fallen on the backs of our municipal leaders for so long? We have needed a representative at Queen’s Park who was continuously advocating for changes to our hospitals’ funding—not just when election time rolls around. It’s time for a new MPP who will lead the charge at Queen’s Park for hospital funding that truly reflects how our community is changing and growing. We are all working toward the same goal. Let’s stay focused; let’s stay united.
Matt Richter – Green party candidate
Matt Richter
I prefer the two acute site model to meet the needs of the vast geography and unique population fluctuations of Muskoka and Almaguin. It is important to note that MAHC used to consist of three sites (Burk’s Falls had a site until it was closed in 2009). Our area has made substantial sacrifices already to ensure the viability of our two acute sites in Bracebridge and Huntsville. The Green Party of Ontario is fully committed to directing the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to provide a dedicated funding formula that meets the needs of medium-sized hospitals. As has been reported over the past year, there are over 20 areas in Ontario that share the same struggle faced by MAHC: inadequate funding. While making a pre-campaign stop in our riding, Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario, was asked his stance on this issue, and he was quoted: “Flawed one-size-fits-all provincial funding formulas and policies threatened not only rural hospitals, but also rural schools and businesses. And so we need to have a different funding formula for large urban centres and for rural communities so people have access to the care they need,” he said. “And it needs to account for the fact that you’re not going to have assembly-line care here because you don’t have population base here for it, but you still need acute-care facilities.”
I appreciate that the Huntsville Council is extremely frustrated with the Ontario government for not providing fair and adequate health care funding for our area. Following the 2018 Ontario Election, I believe Huntsville Council will form a united front with councils from communities within the MAHC catchment area to focus time and energy squarely on the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to provide health care funding to maintain our two acute sites.
Hospital models currently being considered:
Two Acute Sites: The Two Acute Sites model proposes to maintain acute care beds and Emergency Depts., general surgery, obstetrics and intensive care in two sites. These would be supported by other core diagnostic services and allied health and support services in both sites. Specialty surgeries and programs like Chemotherapy and Complex Continuing Care that are currently single sited are proposed to continue to be in one site only. The future model also proposes to add a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit and MRI capabilities at one site.
Inpatient Site/Outpatient Site: The Outpatient/Inpatient model proposes to include Emergency Depts. at two sites and to separate outpatient and inpatient services between two sites. The Outpatient site would include services that do not require an overnight stay in hospital like endoscopies, x-rays and other diagnostic imaging, and services like chemotherapy and dialysis. The Inpatient site would include all hospital beds, surgical services, obstetrics, and intensive care, and would be supported by other core diagnostic services and allied health and support services in both sites. The Inpatient site also proposes the addition of a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit and MRI capabilities.
One Site: The One Site model proposes to provide all programs and services on a single site, including the addition of a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit and MRI capabilities.
BY DOPPLER ONLINE ON