Now I am not accusing you of any complicity or fault in this.

Thanks. I think.

I’ll look into the stats when I get a chance.

No. We have deposits equal to our CURRENT liabilities. It means that (unlike the DHBs) we are solvent. And, yes, there are a number of companies who would like to be in that position…

Is that interest factored into the original amount funded?

No. Obviously not. That money is mostly re-channeled back into the community, usually in the form of improved services. Some may be used in administration (which is hardly a surprise).

why are taxpayers debt funding this amount for you to earn interest on?

Why are taxpayers debt funding anything?

And let’s not get too excited by the “not for profit” stuff. In the case of a PHO it simply means there is no profit to distribute, but this tells us nothing about what costs were incurred that led to no profit.

Firstly, not for profit means that all the money going into PHOs (apart from the $30 million admin funding) goes to fund primary health services. I don’t see any indication that the PHO is costing a lot to run. True, operating expenses were three times the amount the Ryall give for this purpose, but it was still about 9% of total revenue, despite this year being very expensive administratively, because of the changes envisaged in PHOs. Last year, the operating expenses were less than 7% of total.

I take it you aren’t too keen on letting me see the financial side of my investment in your business by making your accounts public?

Seeing as these are public companies, you can view the accounts any time you want in exactly the same manner you would for any other company. The annual report is usually on the website of each PHO within a week or two of being released at the AGM. I try not to drag my colleagues into my blogging debates, which is the only reason I don’t link you directly to the PHO accounts.

No doubt I’m missing something vital?

All the PHO does is add an additional layer of bureaucracy to the equation. However, it does remove the GPs from direct contact with the DHB, which, given the extremely poor relationships GPs have had historically with DHBs and CHEs, is probably a good thing.

this isn’t related to this post but I see nowhere else to raise a suggestion.

I heard on the radio today that this year has set a record for the total number of deaths.

Now I am not accusing you of any complicity or fault in this. What I would like to suggest is that you run your ability to analyse such matters and then report them in a clear and understandable format. I would be interested to see if the increase was in line with the total population or are we seeing the babyboomers starting to ‘pop their cogs’.

Notwithstanding this, you have valid points about the contract rollover issues. Better to fix those though.

And let’s not get too excited by the “not for profit” stuff. In the case of a PHO it simply means there is no profit to distribute, but this tells us nothing about what costs were incurred that led to no profit.

As a taxpayer funding this entirely (I hope I’m correct here), I take it you aren’t too keen on letting me see the financial side of my investment in your business by making your accounts public?

I’m trying hard not to have a go at the PHO’s but none of this makes particularly good economic sense to me. Though it may be better than what weas there prior to the PHO experiment, so much is still hidden it’s hard to tell.

No doubt I’m missing something vital?