KEY POINTS:
Competing companies could be forced to work together to provide medical testing for Auckland after the High Court scrapped a contract awarding the $560 million service to newcomer Labtests Auckland.
Auckland District Health Board chief executive Garry Smith yesterday refused to rule out the possibility that the present provider, Diagnostic Medlab, and Labtests would have to share the testing work until a new tender could be awarded.
Medlab's contract expires on June 30.
This forum debate has now closed. Here is a selection of your views on the topic.
Mike Gill
Performing a lab test is a series of linked operations starting with specimen collection and finishing with delivery of a result on paper and electronically to the requesting doctor's computer. The lab computer links these operations. There is no way that one lab (and its computer)can do part of the test while the other lab (and its different computer) does the rest.If the DHBs want to involve both labs, the obvious way is to allow the requesting doctor to choose which lab she or he sends the work to. As of July 1st, both labs will have (they claim) fully staffed, fully equipped, laboratories and collecting services. Let them compete on service for the work. If Labtests provide the better service, as they claim they will, they will end up with the bulk of the work.
Dr John Foy
Without any doubt, as the judge said, this mess, is entirely due to the District Health Boards ruthlessly applying the chequebook management demanded of them by both the Ministry of Health and Finance, via DHBNZs NZ wide program of privatising our core public health services. This has been a demoralising and damaging fiasco.There need be no sharing, Medlab provide world class service and there is no reason to change.
Anne McQuinn
I have just finished reading a statement from Garry Smith (Lead CE of Laboratory Project) saying that the good that has come out of this decision is that they now have two providers who he calls "...very capable providers..." How can one - Labtests - be called a capable provider when this company has not yet got a working laboratory or even close to a full complement of staff? The heads that must roll should begin with the Minister of Health and move through the board Chairs and deputy chairs and most of all the community laboratory project lead chief executive.
Leslie
Congratulations Medlab! Woohoo! One step closer to democracy for NZ and one step closer to Aucklanders having medical care come mid-year...
NJ Milligan
Medlab should get the contract as they have given excellent service in the past but must reduce their costs to equal their rivals bid.
George
One word: unethical. I work for the ADHB and none of this surprises me. I work in direct patient care and have absolutely no input whatsovever. Policies appear to drop out of the sky and for all I know they are made by the Wizard of Oz. Every decision made seems to be some kind of insider trading deal with no patient focus and the mission statement and values of the organisation are pure rhetoric. If I were to suggest any change that I felt (or could even prove) would increase efficiency or save money, it would be met with a blank stare (picture a Stepford wife) followed by a list of a million reasons why it could not be implemented and why the system does not need change. The fact of the matter is that those making the decisions in the ADHB have only their best interests at heart: how to line their own pockets and to manipulate figures so they maintain control and their fat pay checks. This laboratory fiasco is merely one symptom of the disease.
Joanna Stewart
Ultimately I believe the fault lies with the three DHBs for not conducting the tender process correctly. I understand that the boards incorrectly believed they did not need to consult their customers (PHOs and the general public).I find it an amazingly irresponsible choice not to do so. How little do they value the stakeholders in public health? I would also be interested to know if Tony Bierre will be investigated.
Frank
I live in Australia. This kind of behaviour is considered not only unethical but quite often also criminal, and these cases are routinely investigated by a crime and misconduct commission. Let's see what the NZ government will do about it, if anything..
Dave Erson
How can there be any thought of the 2 labs working together after 1 July? Surely best business practice requires the tender process to be undertaken again with the current provider having an extension to their contract to provide services until such tender is awarded. The major concern now, with the judicial decision as clear and simple as it is, is how on earth do the government and we the people of Auckland have any confidence in the abilities of Smith & Browne? These two should, in my opinion, resign immediately as they have demonstrated they are unfit to lead.
Jimmy McIroy
The DHBs are have no business acumen, completely lack any qualitative discernment, and have demonstrated complete incompetence during the entire process.
Murray M
The DHBs need to get their act together and think of the facilities they alreay have. They are losing staff which poses more of a threat to the provision of services than their shoddy actions relating to Labtest. Give your own workers the pay rise they need, stop the arrogance and avert a strike after Easter!
Catherine Robinson
Conflict of interest? Without a doubt. The DHB is to blame for a complete shambles. DML is a longstanding highly reputable company which has served Auckland City for over 70 years but for some reason that doesnot count for anything...money does.
Barry Turner
The High Court decision regarding Community Laboratory testing in Auckland highlights the potential problems associated with the lack of accountability within the Public Sector generally. Since the effective devolution of the central control of much of the wider State Sector, a large number of publicly owned agencies previously subject to tight Public Service controls are no longer bound by current State Service guidelines. These guidelines address such issues as public accountability and the management of conflict of interest. Publicly funded organisations have had to "reinvent the wheel" by producing similar policies which may be inadequate or non-compliant with the relevant statutes. This has been combined with an effective privatisation of many publicly owned organisations. In many cases, the only real recourse available to affected parties is to apply for a judicial review, a potentially expensive and time-consuming process. Perhaps it is time for the Government to review accountability procedures within the Public Sector as a whole,to ensure that there are clear and unambiguous guidelines which are easily accessible by the public, in order that they can judge the actions of any Public Sector agency decisions, and call Public Officials to account for their actions.
Steve
The whole Auckland lab tests fiasco is a disgrace. It astounds me that the members of the health boards and Tony Bierre himself,have somehow failed to understand that having Mr Bierre (the chief executive of LabTests no less) would amount to a clear and serious conflict of interest. Small wonder that the High Court had little hesitation in overturning the contract - what did the health board expect here?
In my opinion, those health board members who were involved in the process, should resign from the health Board forthwith.
Olento Peauafi
The fault lies with the ADHB. Their attitude to the profession and the tender process was faulty right from the beginning. The ADHB did not have a business model for the tenders to comply with - may be a Toyota model in mind,with some phantom milestones. They were interested only in reducing costs, which now turns into "huge costs" to them, the profession, Auckland and New Zealand. Get rid of them, now.
Thom Montgomery
I believe every single member of the Auckland, Waitemata and Counties-Manukau district health boards should resign for permitting this waste of time and money.
Brian McNally
This is an entirely ridiculous situation, surely one of the bureaucrats should have realised the conflict of interest situation. Heads must role. We are sick and tired at the lack of accountability by our public servants. The chairman must fall on his sword.
NeillR
I find it incomprehensible that the ADHB assumes that they can carry on as usual. They obviously thought this was a sound business decision, but given that the Judge stopped just short of using the "c'" word, they should have tendered their resignations immediately or been sacked by the Minister. Unfortunately, given the current governance environment in this country, where no-one in public office appears to be accountable for a lamentable string of poor decisions, we are likely to see them carry on abusing their position and wasting taxpayers money.
Tim Spooner
Both parties are part of very large Australian companies who do not have the interests of Aucklanders as a priority, simply they want to make money. Stop treating them as though they are charities wanting to "help". The lot should be sacked.
Stuart Hayman
As a regular user of Diagnostics service, I am very satisfied with the service provided. It helps to make somewhat less of a pain having blood tests many times a year. I am totally unhappy with the ADHBs decision to reduce the service significantly for the sake of some money (which I have no doubt will be wasted). They did this without taking into consideration any of the users or the GPs who will apparently take the brunt of the shortfall. They were quite unethical in allowing Bierre to take any part in the decision making process. My own best outcome would be to return to the Diagnostic service, and the thought of spending many hours a year visiting my GP for not necessarily well taken samples, rather than a 10 minute visit to the local Diagnostic branch makes me very unhappy. Come back Frank Rutter.
Jane Milne
It is my understanding that any laboratory providing medical testing is required to be accredited and audited against IANZ regulations, and that all qualified staff are required to be registered while practising in NZ. Can someone in the newsroom please get comments from IANZ or similar regarding how a brand new laboratory with new/borrowed equipment can be accredited without having actual samples to process? I can not see how Labtests can say that they can be a quality service post July 1, when none of their systems will be tested until July 1 2007.
Nigel
I work in the area of Procurement (which this tender is part of), in the Public Sector. There are very good guidelines and rules set out by the Office of the Auditor General (via Cabinet ratification) and Audit NZ, which if followed can avoid situations just like this. The Health Boards are the only bodies responsible here as they did not identify risks in advance ie the conflict of interest, and did not as a result follow best practice in procuring a new contract for service. You reap what you sow and the DHB's have been in the game for long enough to know that expediency will only come and bite you in the backside.
Robert
The bosses of the health boards should be held accountable and the integrity of the tendering process is at question.
