Grey Power March 2017

NZ GREYPOWER MAGAZINE » MARCH 2017 35
ADVOCACY REPORT
From page 33
sion, supported, with qualifications, the
national prioritisation tool for elective
surgery but did not focus on nationally
consistent priority criteria.
We now believe, from stories provided
to the Health National Advisory Group
chair, that apart from alleged ‘phantom
waiting lists’ and surgeons telling people
they do not meet the criteria and therefore
should consider having treatment
privately, access to elective surgery and
interpretation of the priority scores differ
across DHBs throughout NZ and that
whilst some of our people are not waiting
an inordinately long time for treatment,
others, depending on which region
they reside in, are suffering from severe
ill health, incapacity and distress as two
cases from our qualitative research below
reveal.
Case #1 “My knee was so severe I was
unable to sleep without morphine but I
was unable to even meet with a surgeon
to assess my conditions and discuss options
as I repeatedly received the same
response that I failed to meet the criteria.
When I enquired about what the actual
criteria was I was stonewalled. I finally
got to see a private surgeon who advised
me that I may have been able to keep my
knee if I had been seen earlier. Of course,
earlier efforts were declined by ACC. Between
ACC and DHB’s, so called ‘elective’
surgery is a joke in this country – and
from my perspective not a funny one.”
Case #2 “I am now trapped between
several specialists and ACC and couldn't
have an op unless I chose to pay for it myself????
I'm, although drugged up, in constant
pain, some of it serious enough to put me
into spasms, and I haven’t slept a night
through in bed for about five years; have
pretty well decided I must go to my grave
in pain.
Apart from my knee pain, I'm in good
health, and my marbles are mostly intact;
still do the cryptic. Hope at least that you
can start some help for others, think it's
too late for me.”
Thus, we believe that the costs of delayed
access to elective treatment although
a little difficult to quantify include
increased operating/treatment time, longer
stays in hospital,
more surgery complications, prolonged
physical, psychological, and social suffering;
i.e. problems with pain, discomfort,
mobility, anxiety/depression, self-care
and loneliness, extra costs of pain relief
medication and doctor visits, threat to the
principle of providing equitable access to
care, cost of home help etc. and the likelihood
of falls or other accidents caused
by delayed surgery – e.g. unable to see
because of cataracts, falls because of hip
pain and so on.
The benefit is that “Investment in
health can mitigate health costs and improve
quality of life” (I. Powell in ‘Time
for honesty and investment approach to
health funding’, nzDoctor.co.nz 17 August)
GREY POWER ASKED THE MINISTER THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
Q. Which measures are in place to ensure
the health system makes the best use of the
limited health care resources so that those in
most need receive the timely, equitable medical
treatment they require?
A. District Health Boards have a health
plan which has to be signed off by the
Minister – they have target plans – no
government can fund every operation
– people are living longer with more
health conditions and they are more active;
therefore, more joint surgery, for
instance, is required, but the number of
operations carried out are well ahead of
population growth. Government want to
increase preventative measures
Q. Does the cost of delayed elective medical
treatment for older people outweigh the
costs of the household help and accidents
caused by physical impairment etc.?
A. No answer has been received yet
Q. What does the use of nationally recognised
priority tools mean in practice? Does
their use mean that people are assessed consistently
and equitably across New Zealand
given that DHBs are required to have nationally
recognised priority tools in place to make
sure the decision-making process is clear and
fair?
A. DHBs have variable thresholds and
they have discretionary funding – the
funding is allocated on population and at
present is at its optimal level-the funding
allocation is right across DHBs
The Minister undertook to respond
to Grey Power re ‘phantom waiting lists’
and information on the consistency of
application of priority criteria - no written
response has yet been received but
Grey Power’s gain was to meet the present
Minister of Health for the first time
and speak about an issue which is really
important to its members
HEALTH
MEETING WITH HON PETER DUNNE,
ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF HEALTH
(ISSUE 1)
The meeting discussed state provision
of cannabis-based medicine.
Grey Power’s stance is that there is
a case for increased and affordable access
to professionally produced cannabis-based
medicine especially since its
qualitative research suggests that many
older people are waiting a long time for
assessment and treatment or indeed may
never receive the treatment necessary for
their pain. In fact, we have at least one
case study in which the respondent informed
that his morphine had gradually
been increased until he was now on the
maximum permitted dosage and still no
surgery in sight.
Although the cannabis-based medicine
Sativax is legal in New Zealand it requires
Ministerial approval for use following
recommendation of a general practitioner.
However, we would like other appropriate
cannabis-based medicine to gain
consent for distribution in NZ dependent
on all the usual checks and balances and
also importantly to be government funding
as occurs for other medical products.
The Hon Peter Dunne’s response was
that there are many other products but
they are not of pharmaceutical grade -
manufacturers have not requested that
their products be tested – more products
could be approved if they pass the
requisite tests - sometimes general practitioners
are reluctant to initiate the recommendation
process – there is a clear
pathway for the use of cannabis-based
medicine – the standard is that products
must have clear medical benefits – the
products can be dangerous if unregulated
and public emotion and hype is a problem.
Continued on page 39
Cancer and health insurance – a real example
Advertorial
Heaven forbid if
your doctor ever
uses the ‘C’ word
in your presence. That’s
what happened to a Grey
Power member from
Christchurch in 2016.
Grace was doing her
regular breast check when
she found an odd lump.
She’d been meticulous
in having mammograms
every year and the
results had always been
completely clear. When
her doctor examined
her, he thought it was
probably nothing. Grace
wasn’t convinced so she
asked to be referred to a
specialist.
Unfortunately, the
specialist confirmed
what she feared - She
had breast cancer and a
radical mastectomy was
required. Because there
was no time to lose she
was rushed straight into
public hospital for the
procedure.
Grace had Southern
Cross medical cover
through her husband’s
employer until June
2016. As he was about to
retire she started looking
around for options to
help reduce the cost –
without reducing the
quality of cover. She saw
the offer Grey Power’s
National Vice-President,
Mac Welch negotiated
with Vesta and made the
crucial decision to take it
up by moving her cover to
Partners Life. The cancer
diagnosis came less than
3 months later.
Changing her cover
has meant that she is
assured of the most
comprehensive cancer
treatment available. She
now knows that whatever
happens in the future –
she will have access to the
treatment she needs.
The table below
demonstrates some key
differences between her
old and new cover.
Call Vesta on
0800 283 782.
This is a real example.
The member has given
us permission to tell
you about her story. We
have chosen to change
her name and location to
protect her privacy.