Page 4430 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
most we as an Assembly could do is make a request and then it would be up to the Auditor-General to consider that request. It would be her decision as to whether or not she went ahead with any investigation and what she would consider appropriate as to the terms of reference.
In terms of paragraph (2), the proposal put forward by Mr Hanson today makes me wonder if he has read any of the documents relating to the sale, including the minister’s discussion paper on the issue that makes significant reference to the work already done by the Auditor-General on inefficiencies in the current Calvary arrangements.
Mr Hanson: It’s not about that.
MS BRESNAN: You might hold it up but it does not seem you have read it, Mr Hanson. It is worth Mr Hanson having a look at that 2008 paper for, through it, the Auditor-General found that, due to a number of structural inefficiencies and the public hospital pursuing cost recovery with the private hospital, the public hospital had effectively been subsidising the private hospital. The media release put out by the Auditor-General that accompanied the report says:
There have been significant efforts over the years, mostly by the ACT Government, to improve the contractual arrangements, largely without success.
The media release also says:
Under the cross-charging arrangements, the private hospital is required to reimburse the public hospital for the costs associated with its use of staff, facilities, and services in the public hospital. The current CHC reimbursement systems involve complex calculations and the exercise of judgement. This, as well as inadequate controls, increases the risks of incorrect calculations and potential cross-subsidisation of the private hospital.
Audit examined a sample of major cross-charging calculations by CHC for the months of June 2006, July 2007 and October 2007 and found a number of omissions and incorrect charges.
Audit also reviewed a sample of private hospital patients’ records during the period from January 2006 to June 2007 and found that 25 cases were recorded in the Patient Administration System as private hospital patients admitted in the private hospital’s Private Recovery (PR) Ward. However, these patients were physically located in the public hospital’s Intensive Care Unit (ICU) according to their individual Medical Records. The public hospital subsidised the care of these patients to the benefit of the private hospital.
To quote the Health Care Consumers, an organisation that has a well-informed position of these arrangements:
The cumbersome cross-charging arrangements were highlighted in the 2008 Auditor General’s Report and are a direct result of there being no formal commercial separation of the public and private arms of the Calvary operation. This sale of Calvary Public Hospital to the ACT Government can remove this issue. It can also generate efficiencies by reducing duplication of a range of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .