BC's
Auditor General is a master of subtlety. Without directly
criticizing the Campbell government for failing to account
for the largest line item in its budget, his May26th
news release said "Strelioff believes that clear
performance agreements can contribute to effective delivery
of the $6 billion of public money spent by health authorities
in delivering health services to BC people." BC's six
health authorities have a budget of $6.6 billion - the 0.6
that was missed in the Auditor's news release is 0.6 of
a billion or $600 million. $6.6 billion is over half of
the health budget and almost a quarter of all provincial
government spending. Note that the Auditor said that the
performance agreements "can contribute" rather
than saying that they "do contribute". Throughout
his report,
he suggested hope for the future while criticizing the status
quo.
"Accountability"
is one of the favorite terms in the New Era, and like Orwellian
New Speak, it doesn't necessarily mean what ordinary people
might expect. Witness, for example, how government abuses
question period by having back benchers lob friendly questions,
or look at the staged cabinet meetings and try to find one
revealing question or hint of a debate. The Auditor wisely
observed that "We also thought it was timely to review
these agreements because they are emerging as an accountability
tool across government."
It could
be that the word "accountability" is used in the
New Era, not to mean that government is held accountable,
but as a catch phrase that political spinmasters think will
appeal to the public. That could explain why the Auditor
reported "Our first major finding is that the agreements
lack a specific purpose." It is ironic that the
Auditor's report came down within days of a Supreme Court
judge ruling that the Minister of Health is legally and
politically accountable for the health system. The Auditor
reported on how ambiguity can interfere with accountability.
He wrote that "In addition, to hold a health authority
accountable for meeting a specified level of performance,
we believe that greater clarity is needed about who makes
decisions, when decisions are to be jointly made, and how
unusually sensitive or controversial issues should be handled."
During
debate in the Legislature on Health Service Minister Hansen's
budget, Hansen took the position that he would not interfere
with management decisions made by the health authorities.
It is fair enough to say that the Minister shouldn't micromanage
the system, but he should be accountable for meeting important
objectives. According to the Auditor "We found that
the agreements have not achieved their potential of becoming
the key accountability documents between the ministry and
each health authority. One main reason for this finding
is that the agreements do not state the most important objectives
for the regional health care system."
When
the BC Liberals were in opposition, they continually stressed
the importance of measuring outcomes rather than inputs.
Times have changed. The Auditor reported that "Good
performance agreements set measurable targets. We found
that many of the targets in the agreements are vague,
e.g., improvement in the performance of emergency health
services. Apart from the financial targets, they are often
not seen by the health authorities as requiring significant
effort." Perhaps that is because the real objectives
of the Campbell government are financial, and patients'
outcomes are not on the radar scope. The Auditor found that
of the 22 performance measures in the agreements, 15 are
concerned with process improvement, two set expectations
for internal results, and only five address patient/client
outcomes. Keep in mind that the Campbell government eliminated
infant mortality as a performance measure in all of its
service plans. Even though it is not a surprise from the
Campbell government, it is disappointing that the performance
measurements for health authorities are big on budget management
but silent on infant mortality. Perhaps pressure from the
Auditor will help to change that.