Editorial: Ryall's goals for health look sharper

Opinion

Targets can be the bane of any organisation. Unless they are well defined and readily measurable they are worse than useless, create more work than necessary and waste time and money that could be used for something more useful. The Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, has found some classics among the previous Government's targets for district health boards (DHBs), which he has culled from 10 to six.

The boards will no longer have targets for nutrition, physical activity, dental care and mental health. This is not necessarily because these things are not important, the minister says. They would be covered by other priorities and measures, of which there are also plenty.

As he put it, "We have inherited a system overburdened with 13 health priorities; 61 objectives, with an additional subset of 13 health objectives; a set of 10 health targets measured through 18 indicators; 25 other indicators of DHB performance; not to mention four hospital benchmark indicators assessed through 15 measures; and an outcomes framework with nine outcomes measured against 39 headline indicators".

This is what happens when public services have to be monitored entirely by reports against targets. Arbitrary targets can be the bane of business management too, but in the commercial world targets can be measured by the responses of paying customers, prices and profits, which tell an organisation more reliably whether it is doing enough of the right things.

When Labour scrapped the previous National Government's business model for hospitals and related services, replacing Crown health enterprises with district health boards, it made much of the democratic element of elected boards. But in fact the boards were set up as branch offices of the Health Ministry, which decided most of what they would do.

And since notions of profit were no longer acceptable as a means of measuring their efficiency, administrative monitoring would be required. Boards would be assessed against written goals, objectives, priorities and the rest.

This Government is content to keep Labour's administrative structure and the best it can do is try to simplify its procedures. Impractical, largely symbolic declarations on nutrition, obesity and physical activity have gone. As Mr Ryall said, how could a district health board be held responsible for increasing the number of people who ate the recommended daily portions of fruit and vegetables?

The six goals he has set look sharper: shorter stays in emergency departments (95 per cent of patients to be admitted, discharged or transferred within six hours), faster elective surgery (an increase of 4000 a year), shorter waits for cancer treatment (radiation within six weeks by August next year, and four weeks by December).

Those three are treatment targets, the rest are preventive: immunisation for 85 per cent of 2-year-olds by July next year, rising to 95 per cent two years later; help for hospitalised smokers to stop; more people to be assessed for risk of heart disease and more free checks for people with diabetes.

Inevitably, there will be complaints that worthy causes have been ignored. Already the Obesity Action Coalition asks where responsibility for nutrition, physical activity and obesity lies if not with health boards. Well, many could answer that one. It lies with the individual.

There are many things public health bodies cannot do, and many things they cannot measure. Impractical goals just divert energies to the writing of formulaic reports instead of helping people who need it.

Hopefully, the cull has just begun.