Scott Lynda: General Debates 
Scott Lynda: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11733] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I will talk today about the terrible way that Labour is treating older New Zealanders. I will concentrate on three things: cuts to surgery; a broken promise on asset testing; and the cruel decision regarding Alzheimer’s medication. We know that this Government is wasting a whole lot of money in the health sector. We know that it has increased bureaucracy with 21 district health boards and 66 advisory boards. We know that we now have primary health organisations and that all across the country they will have governance boards made up of one-third Maori one-third providers and one-third community members. 
It does not matter whether the organisation is based in a region where only 3 percent of the population is Maori the board will still be made up of one-third Maori at a minimum. It does not matter that Maori primary health organisations have no non-Maori on the boards. That is fine. There can be no non-Maori on those boards but the governance of primary health organisations has to have a minimum of one-third Maori. We are seeing primary health organisations all over the country going to the wall. We saw Middlemore Primary Health Organisation Ltd with 62000 people enrolled go into liquidation. The start-up cost of the organisation is wasted money because this was never trialled. 
We know that 20 percent of the funding that goes into the access formula is based on race. We are told that that is because of mortality. If it is because there is higher mortality for Maori what about men’s higher mortality? I ask the men on the other side of the House how many years they will die before women. On average it is 5 years. The men of New Zealand access services less often than women but not only do they get far less funding than Maori they get less funding than the women who go to primary health organisations. Funding cannot be fairly based on mortality. Primary health organisation access funding is based on race and it is unfair. 
However with money going into that kind of funding what do we see with surgery? We did the financial review today of one of the district health boards and they were very honest about the fact that they had to cut surgery and about the way they had been forced to put up the points for hips knees cataracts surgery gynaecology tubal ligations and ear nose and throat. The hurdles people had to jump to get surgery had gone up. Every district health board that we review tells us that the points have gone up which means that patients have to be sicker to get service. Who bears the brunt of that? Three hundred patients in Nelson and Marlborough have just been dumped from the waiting list for ophthalmology. 
By the Government’s own admission its  
Health and Independence Report 
2003 
 showed that we are doing fewer orthopaedic procedures than in 1999 when National left office. We are doing fewer cataract procedures than in 1999 yet we have an ageing and increasing population. This Government is not delivering to the elderly of New Zealand with regard to elective surgery. 
Then there is asset testing. This Government went to the elections twice promising to remove asset testing. Has it done it? No and do not think that Grey Power does not notice. All it has done is increase the asset level that people can keep and that is exactly what National did in 1998. Labour has not kept its promise. Then we come to the cruel decision made this week about Alzheimer’s medication. There are no other medical treatments for Alzheimer’s but Pharmac’s budget has been held. Again the  
Health and Independence Report 2003  
shows that Pharmac’s budget was held at $515 million for 2000 $515 million for 2001 and $503 million for 2002 and 2003. That is why Pharmac cannot afford to invest in new medications. I will read a few press releases. The Alzheimer’s Society release is headed: “A day of shame for New Zealand”. These medications do work. As a geriatrician before I came to Parliament I know that these medications can work. 
I will read the comments made by some of the people who made submissions. Ann Bethall has written a submission for her friend Kath who cares for her partner Bob who has dementia. Bob is only 58 years old. He was a dynamic hard-working businessman who improved markedly when he was put on this medication. The couple can no longer afford the $225 per month that the medication costs because Bob cannot work and now he may have to go into care. It costs $36000 a year to put somebody into care. These medications can keep people out of care and it is shame on this Government that they are not funded.