NZMA Thursday 12 February 2009, 2:12PM
Media release from NZMA
Today's ending of legal action concerning Auckland's half billion
dollar laboratory service raises concerning questions about how the
whole process was handled.
The Supreme Court today dismissed an application for leave to
appeal by Diagnostic MedLab, which has held the contract for more
than 30 years, against three Auckland region District Health Boards
which had awarded the contract to LabTests Auckland Ltd.
The NZMA does not wish to comment on the specifics of the court
case.
"However, the NZMA has major and ongoing concerns about how
laboratory reviews and contracting processes have been carried out
nationally," said NZMA Chair Dr Peter Foley.
"The flawed system of reviews and the contracting approach in
Auckland have created confusion and difficulties for an already
fragile workforce. We are extremely concerned that many good
pathology and other laboratory staff may now choose to leave New
Zealand to look for work.
Dr Foley said it was now the responsibility of the Minister of
Health to ensure continuity and sustainability of laboratory
services in Auckland, and the NZMA will be seeking an urgent
meeting with Tony Ryall to discuss how he will ensure this happens,
given the obvious disruptions to the many individuals
involved.
"Since 2004 the NZMA has been calling for a national policy
framework to be put in place for the 21 DHBs which have been
carrying out reviews of laboratory services, and making significant
changes to suppliers in some cases," Dr Foley said.
"Laboratory services are an essential part of our health service,
and vital for the community's health. Decisions about health
services should not be made just for cost reasons, or by applying
strictly corporate or legal processes. Sustainability, quality,
safety, and equity across the entire country are extremely
important.
"The previous Government's short-sighted reviews of laboratory
services were carried out without a comprehensive national policy
framework, and seemed only designed to save money. The poor review
process has put the pathology workforce at risk."