Broken Tools Or Unskilled Labour?

It was another interesting conversation over the breakfast table this morning with my wife. She asked me a question I'm not so sure of the answer so maybe I'll be able to fumble my way around to an answer here.

She asked me if I were one of the 'top level' executives working for IHA, would I do the job for $50,000 per year or less rather than the average current wage of about $225,000 (not counting bonuses and expense account).

My answer was no, but let me explain. In my view, there is not enough money to pay me to implement IHA protocols which are actually cuts to rural health care. I could not sleep at night knowing that I was one of the people behind, for example, the reduction of operating hours at a small rural hospital emergency department. Especially when common sense would tell me I could be putting the residents of that community a greater risk of a disaster waiting to happen. I couldn't handle the stress, first off, then to top it off I don't think I could handle the verbal abuse directed at myself and my fellow board members for making those decisions.

The IHA protocol manual, I imagine, is very much like the guidelines set out for mechanics by Chilton. If it takes you 20-minutes to do an oil change, but Chilton says it's 45-minutes, you charge the 45-minutes in labour because that's what the manual tells you to do.

I see some of the 'top level' IHA officials in the same light. I'm sure at least one of them has the common sense to see what is happening around them in rural health care in British Columbia, but they are just doing what the manual is telling them to do. Expect me to talk (or possibly rant) more about that 'manual' in future posts.

So why are things falling apart for rural health care? I think there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think since our population is aging, and let's face it, thanks to medical science, we're all living longer lives, I don't think the IHA manual was prepared for the extra pressure it would experience with more seniors tugging at the system. Secondly, I think as a result of more seniors living longer, the system requires a serious overhaul to address that issue. I suspect that the chapter in the IHA manual titled, "After Age 65" is either an unfinished chapter, or has nothing in it past the title page.

Or maybe, just maybe, the 'top level' officials at IHA can't implement the program because they don't know how. Maybe they are in over their heads, which means, of course, they are the wrong people for the job.

You decide.

I'm sticking with my original answer that no amount of money would be enough for me to make sweeping changes to a system that isn't working.