The DHBs Fold…
In the game of Laboratory Test Chicken that has been going on recently, the Auckland DHBs have just folded their hand (to mix a metaphor) and are now the clear losers. All the “savings” promised by this move are now totally lost. Labtests have been pushed into providing a much more comprehensive service than they were originally contracted for, with more blood sample stations and greater access to their (fewer) pathologists. DML have taken back a small portion of their service, but probably not enough to make their current set-up viable.
I don’t see any victors in the extremely stupid battle.
The DHB boards have now moved into a completely untenable position. Their “spin” is that they are no longer beholden to a single supplier for lab tests. The reality is that the whole debacle has been for nothing. There is only one of two conclusions one can realistically draw.
either:
- The Boards did not properly assess that Labtests could properly perform the contract as given – in which case they should be fired forthwith for incompetence.
or:
- The Boards have allowed themselves to be railroaded by DML into seriously damaging the reputation and viability of Labtests – in which case they should be fired forthwith for incompetence.
Either way, Tony Ryall needs to lace up the big boot and kick the entire lot out (Go on, Tony. You know you want to!). The evidence is that they couldn’t manage a hot dog stand, let alone a multibillion dollar health budget.
Related posts:
- It’s All About Patient Care Yeah, right. Just in case you were naive enough to...
- Doctors 4, Labtests 0 Latest update on the game of Auckland pathology football is...
- Hidden Benefits I have been following the DML/Labtests saga with interest. The...
- Playing Chicken Apparently, Auckland DHB is now going to play an expensive...
- Teething Over The Auckland DHB say that Labtests has improved significantly over...
Oct 13 09 9:38 pm
DML don’t deserve to get any business after the way they’ve acted. They’ve done everything possible to undermine the process.
This is simply rewarding extremely bad behavior.
scrubone´s last blog ..Keep it to yourself
Oct 14 09 9:03 am
Most of the board members involved in this decision have already moved on. Kay McKelvie resigned, her sister was HC’s right hand man, whoops, woman. Another seems to have done a sideways hop into the new ‘Auckland supacity’ bandwagon. These people seem to be professional non-competents who know the right people and go the right dinner parties. More of Auckland’s history is due to this type of non-competence than is remembered.
Oct 14 09 9:36 am
Labtests overstated their ability to provide a service …and then lived on hope that the DML staff would move to them in droves. Bierre severely underestimated his unpopularity within the pathology community and this debacle is the result of his little hissy fit to get back at his former colleages for ditching him (and Labour’s eagerness to destroy a succesful, although monopolistic, private enterprise). Sadly the taxpayer and the Auckland public have to suffer.
Oct 14 09 11:12 am
Actually there is a third conclusion, that the Labtests (and the Board) have allowed themselves to be put in the situation of grossly overestimating the ability to deliver on the contract.
While DML may have had ‘sour grapes’ over losing the contract the sole responsibility lies on Labtests to deliver on their contract and provide the service they said they would provide with the promised cost savings. The service requirements are all patients have access to collection services, health professionals get timely results and access is given to pathology services. Labtests themselves acknowledge that they have had problems that needed to be fixed and didn’t fully consider clinical issues as they concentrated on setting up the lab and collection services, and that isn’t the fault of anyone else other than them.
Oct 14 09 4:16 pm
Mawm has swollowed DML propaganda that we have all been subjected to hook, line and sinker. Dr Bierre resigned in protest at DMLs non adherence to standards of the Cervical Screening Programme. Internal politics and a poisonous culture which we have seen evidence of throughout this debarcle led him to leave. DML saw him as a threat and set about destroying his reputation.
What has happened to the women who were not provided with the required level of care at DML?
Oct 14 09 7:11 pm
Michelle: Your third conclusion is really my first conclusion. From the boards perspective, it was up to them to satisfy themselves that Labtests was up to this, not just take their word for it.
While it may be that Labtests did not fully appreciate all the clinical issues, the majority of those issues that are upsetting patients and doctors alike are a combination of the cuts in service mandated by the DHB’s for cost savings (that DML did not want to do) and deliberate obstructionism on behalf of some GPs
Oct 14 09 7:13 pm
Yeh Mitch – Bierre took DML all the way to the Supreme Court to stop them getting rid of him.
As I have said before I have no interests in either lab, but have seen the difference in the quality of the service supplied by the different labs. Medlab had the right to feel agrieved by the award of the contract to Labtests on the basis of the insider knowledge allowing Labtests to bid on a lower specification of service and that it would be acceptable to the DHB’s.
Oct 14 09 9:35 pm
Mawm
Don’t know who has been feeding you rubbish but you are wrong. DML settled before the Employment Court because they got caught out with some documents that showed what they had been doing but that is years ago. Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court confirmed no insider knowledge was involved. I would rather believe the Courts than DML propaganda. Dr Bierre stood down from ADHB before the RFP process began and had no involvement in the process or decision. There is no rule about many years later competing against a former employer – it happens all the time in the real world. The specifications for the tender process were published so were known to both the parties that ended up tendering. DML thought they had the contract in the bag because they had spent so much time trying to ensure that if their position in Auckland was ever challenged they could do exactly what they have done – use the media to destroy any competition. What they have done, as others have said, is behave in a highly unprofessional and unbusiness-like manner. They should never get another contract in New Zealand.
Oct 15 09 11:41 am
If you google Bierre, Employment Court and Monaghan you’ll find the Emplyment Court Decision. If anyone is interested. It’s good Tony has a friend in you Mitch.
Oct 15 09 6:54 pm
Mitch your facts are wrong. Strange that the particular issue over cervical smear reporting, that Bierre claimed was a problem under DML, is one of the big concerns expressed about Labtests service.
DML might not have behaved well in your eyes, but they have not been unprofessional.
Oct 16 09 5:36 am
I’ve consistently said that the boards are culpable for this fiasco, and also that once lawyers were involved, the public are unlikely to discover the truth. Shonky at the start and downhill from there.
Labtests lawyers were clearly standing on quicksand, especially considering some rumours about quality of results, such as prostate results for female patients.
The simple reality is that the boards failed to fulfill any requirement for oversight care and due diligence, and should be sacked. Some managers probably should follow them before the door swings shut, however I suspect neither event will occur.
Awarding a service contract to an entity that did not have adequate numbers trained and skilled staff, and which apparently relied on enticing employees from the existing supplier was alway fraught, and certainly not rational business practice.