Wild Ginger Writing

(This story was originally written in February and March of 2011 while I was the reporter at the Arrow Lakes News. It’s a story I’m particularly proud of and an important issue many people still don’t know about. Link: http://www.arrowlakesnews.com/news/117590813.html)

The recently revealed scoring system for capital health projects isn’t new at all and has actually been in use since 2008, and not just by the Interior Health Authority (IHA), but by all health authorities in the province.

Since we first reported on this in our Feb. 16 issue, critics of the system have argued it gives larger cities such as Kelowna or Kamloops more capital health projects since they have more cash to work with, and puts smaller villages such as Nakusp and New Denver at an unfair disadvantage.

This is because of a bonus points section that gives higher priority to projects if communities pay more.

The Ministry of Health and the IHA said this system is used to make fair and balanced decisions across B.C., and the bonus points have no effect on priority.

But Michelle Mungall, MLA for Nelson-Creston, Karen Hamling, mayor of Nakusp, and Paul Peterson, Area K director of the Regional District of Central Kootenay, believe it’s anything but.

“This can be totally detrimental to rural health care,” Mungall said. “The bonus points system is absolutely going to be detrimental, you really couldn’t dispute that. Because a larger community with a larger tax base has it a lot easier to come up with funds.”

Ryan Jabs, spokesperson for the ministry of health, said that doesn’t happen, and this scoring system is about equality across the board.

“We use a common practice with the health authorities to prioritize capital projects,” Jabs said. “This is so everyone is on the same playing field. We look at how we score those projects and prioritize it accordingly.”

This is done by the health authorities, such as IHA, reviewing proposals and checking off boxes in two separate sections titled “Sustainment” and “Enhancement,” depending on the nature of the project.

The health authority will then go over the scoring tool. The sections they look at are: Strategic alignment; innovation; access and flow; human resources; safety and risk management; urgency. Each section has five boxes next to it that when checked off will give points to the project, ranking from zero to 20 points.

Each section has a maximum amount of points, so innovation can only hold up to 10 points overall, while access and flow can get up to 20–25 points.

The fluctuation differs when the project is either an “Enhancement” or a “Sustainment” project.

These sections are all added up and an overall score out of 100 points is given. The higher the score, the higher the priority.

But the dispute comes in for the “bonus criteria” area of the scoring tool which can add up to 40 more points to a project. There are two bonus sections called “Operating Cost Benefit” and “Funding partnerships.”

Under “Funding partnerships” the scoring tool states if up to 86–99 per cent of the funding is covered by non-Ministry of Health sources, it will receive 20 more points towards its project.

“Kelowna and Kamloops are within our own area,” said mayor Hamling at a Feb. 8 council meeting. “So say if Trail all of a sudden comes up with a whack of money and wants things in their hospital, they’ll get it.”

However, Jabs said the ministry of health hasn’t been taking the bonus criteria into account when it comes to decisions, and was put in as a test to see if it would work out.

“We make decisions based on ultimate need,” Jabs said. “It’s not being used in making our decisions.”

But IHA acute services director for the Kootenay Boundary Ingrid Hampf said they’ve being using it for some projects, and went on to list three of them.

“Three examples in our backyards would be the CT Scanner for Nelson. The fourth floor maternal child project in Trail, and the heli-pad recently done at Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital,” Hampf said. “This is because there simply wasn’t enough dollars to go around, and because the community felt a desire to contribute, those projects were able to go ahead.”

Hampf said the bonus points system is really to let people know there are alternatives to getting the project to move forward if IHA doesn’t have the funding available right away.

“I think we should be clear – it’s not about the bonus points,” she said. “It’s really asking ‘Do you have the money or not?’ Bonus points is really a misnomer for do you have the funds capable to move that project forward.”

She also reiterated Jabs point that it does not take away from other projects.

“It gives communities the opportunity to get a project they may not have had quite as quickly,” Hampf said. “It’s like if you have $100 in your wallet and you decide you need to pay telephone or utilities, but you would really like to go our for dinner. So someone says ‘Hey, I’m going to get you an extra $40.’ You can still pay but also go out for dinner.”

But Mungall isn’t buying it from the ministry of health or the IHA.

“That’s ridiculous,” she said. “The ministry makes no sense, and the IHA is being ridiculous.”

Mungall said communities don’t need a bonus points system to let them know they can contribute to capital projects.

“To me, it seems that they’re back peddling,” she said.

Mungall said the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of the bonus points altogether.

“They know people don’t like this, and the best way to back peddle is to scrap it,” she said.

Mungall said she’s going to try and get into contact with minister of health Colin Hansen to change this system.

The ministry maintains the bonus points have no effect on the outcome of a project, and it doesn’t take away from other needed health items.

IHA also said it doesn’t take away from other important projects.

However, IHA said the bonus points have been used to get projects off the ground that would not have gone through for, possibly, years.