Thank you. I notice there seems to be an absence of the description under this particular title. Is there a reason why in-house respite services at $225,000 isn’t listed in some type of detail, or furthermore, why isn’t it broken out on its own? Thank you.
There was no specific reason for it to be here. The only other option would be to break it out on its own, and if that’s the request of the House, then we would break it out on its own in the next cycle.
Just trying to understand, why would in-house respite be treated as a program delivery under grants and contributions? To me I think in-house respite services would be, if it’s a grant under grants and contributions, something we’d supply to some association or organization that does that. So why would we refer to it as in-house? Thank you.
Thank you. For that detail we would have to get back to committee.
Thank you. Sure, if you can have an answer by 6:30, that would be good.
---Laugher
That’s fine. I was only kidding on that one. I’d be happy if they could get back as soon as possible. That would be quite helpful. Furthermore, I would also hope that they would take the guidance of maybe profiling it under a different method. It seems strange that it’s parked there.
The only thing I would ask, then I think we could probably leave this page, is why was there such a jump between the ‘12-13 mains and the revised estimates. I mean, what actually changed in the game? We went from $473,000 to $739,000, so there was a significant change between the two of them, those two numbers between the mains and the revised. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ms. Mathison.
Mr. Chair, this was another reallocation from mental health and addictions in activity 500. The funding was moved over here to activity 200. Thank you.
What was the reallocation? Would we find that corresponding difference somewhere else? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, specifically it was the in-house respite contribution that was reallocated.
Then maybe, in case I missed it, where was it reallocated from?
It was reallocated from activity 500, mental health and addictions.
Sorry; calling it activity 500 doesn’t mean anything to me and I would be surprised if it means anything to anybody else, except unless you’re an accountant. I think it is important to say, on the record, as Members we don’t get allocations broke out by activity listed as their unit block, although I know from a coding point of view, when you implement it into the accounting systems, you would implement it 500 slash whatever. Just to let the Minister and the staff know, 500 doesn’t mean anything unless it’s money. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I believe your comment was noted by that department. Thank you. Page 8-18, Health and Social Services, activity summary, program delivery support, grants and contributions, contributions. Are there any questions?
Agreed.
Health and Social Services, information item, program delivery support, grants and contributions, total contributions, $20.521 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 8-20, Health and Social Services, information item, program delivery support, active positions. Any questions?
Agreed.
Page 8-22 and 8-23. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s just a sort of semantics here, but I’m wondering where the travel budget is for authorities. I think each division here has travel. Does it include travel by authorities or is it essentially in the $34.992 million? It’s just not broken out here. Is that correct? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that we’ll go to Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The funding for the authorities in the travel area is not broken out separately. It is rolled into the grants and contributions.
I see the $152 million, so in terms of fees and payments, the $35 million and the program delivery details, $198 million. So all the travel by the authorities would be within the grants and contributions. That seems strange, but I just want to get that clear. Thank you.
Thank you for that. I never would have guessed that, so I appreciate that information. Would we know what proportion of that $152.568 million is travel? I see it’s on the next page. I withdraw any further questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Any questions? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one question here I wanted to ask with regard to data collection from the Health and Social Services authorities. It has been expressed to us in committee a number of times that the department sometimes has difficulty in providing information to Members because it’s not all that easy to collect data from the authorities. Is the department working on that with the authorities and does that mean that there’s a money issue here? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have the deputy minister provide response to that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. DeLancey.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a number of reasons for the difficulties in getting data from authorities. One reason is capacity. Sometimes authorities are challenged with staff vacancies and turnover. Another reason, as I have mentioned, is that authorities are using different information systems. They have different financial systems. They have different risk management systems. So when we try to roll out data on a territorial basis, we get lots of information but quite often the information is apples and oranges: it’s not comparable, we can’t use it to analyze trends, so it becomes like reams of useless information.
I talked about the back office. One of the priorities that was identified in the back office is for information management and information systems. Part of that is because we recognize that we can’t do proper trend analysis without getting everybody on common systems, using the same systems, the same definitions.
Another thing we are doing to try to respond to that is the accountability framework that we talked about in the House last week where we will come up with an agreement that everybody measures the same things and reports on them in the same way. We are putting some steps in place to try to address this deficiency. Thank you.
Thanks to the deputy minister. I have one last question in regard to this. If it is a capacity issue, which is what it sounds like, and it is a fairly large change, I gather there’s no funding in this budget to effect the changes. I think the DM said earlier that any changes will be done from within. Is it reasonable for Members to expect a request in the 2014-15 budget for funding to increase capacity to get these sorts of things done? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, the only funding that’s in this budget is under directorate where we do have two additional positions being funded through THSSI funding. That is, our project manager for the back office project was working with authorities on this. There will be one-time costs that we would likely bring forward through the business planning process to bring all the authorities on to the TSC. Just as when the TSC was created, there were one-time costs to bring every department up to a standard, because right now the authorities have different standards. That is one cost that we can anticipate for sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. DeLancey. Committee, we’ve been at this for a number of hours here. Does committee agree that we need a short recess?
Agreed.
Thank you. We will just take a short recess and come right back. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Okay. I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. We left off on page 8-23, health services programs, operations expenditure summary, $198,000. Is that $198,000 or $1.98 million? Sorry; $198.582 million. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know I’d like to read a motion on this page, but I think I’ll start with a question or two first. That said, the question I have is under grants and contributions to the hospital services that we provide. One of the primary funding problems that we have, and I highlighted it the other day in the opening comments, which was how we fund medical travel and physician services. I’m just wondering, would the Minister speak to that as to what type of funding model he would consider, in the context I’ve asked, the department to think about or consider or even go so far as I think they should implement funding doctors and medical travel out of the department and not at the health authority.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In our medical travel review we are looking at medical travel being probably brought back to Health and Social Services and would be one of the projects under the back office functions.
I’m terribly sorry to say this. I actually couldn’t hear the answer. Could the Minister repeat a quick summary of that? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ms. DeLancey.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to medical travel, we have the program redesign going on right now in partnership with Stanton, and one of the things we’re looking at is where that medical travel budget and program administration should be placed. We’re really leaning towards seeing it not just in Stanton, as the Member said, but more of a back office function. Where that budget would show up would probably be in the department.
With respect to physician services, the Stanton physician budget is specifically for their pool of specialists. It makes sense to have that budget stay with Stanton, but we do recognize that it is structurally underfunded, that they are now relying annually on THSSI funding to make that up, and that is part of our work with the authorities to right size the budget, is to make up that deficit.
I was able to hear all of that this time around. Thank you very much for repeating it. I apologize for that.
As far as the specialist money, that doctors money tends to be oversubscribed and underfunded, as the deputy minister knows, as well as the Minister, obviously. Does the Minister see that maybe there’s a possibility of paying actuals until we get a new program in place? That’s always treated as a deficit. Sorry. That is one of the causes for Stanton, in particular, to be recognized as always carrying a deficit. That too, as I’ve heard, sounds like a good plan to solve some of the medical travel funding problems, but it would further work to solve some of the problems if actuals were paid on the specialists’ fees.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Beaulieu.
We will provide a detailed response. I will ask the director of finance to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Mathison.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the Stanton physician budget is over-expended annually. It is offset by the THSSI funding, $612,000 a year. It does offset Stanton’s deficit but they do carry additional deficit related to physician programs on their books and it contributes to their accumulated deficit.
Thank you, Ms. Mathison. Mr. Hawkins.
When does the Minister see a restructuring of this actually taking place to account for the oversubscribed physician funding column that can’t keep up to the pace of the demands?
