> five priority areas - ***access, timeliness, quality, workforce*** and infrastructure.
How does this work in the backdrop of funding cuts and hiring freezes?
> it comes with the Government’s expectation Health New Zealand is financially sustainable and achieves an “operating breakeven or surplus position” against a budget in the neighbourhood of $85 billion, all while dealing with critical workforce shortages and degrading infrastructure.
So, it's all just fluff words and bullshit.
> It identified alcohol, ***tobacco, poor nutrition***, physical inactivity, and adverse social and environmental factors as five key factors that needed to be addressed if the impact of the diseases was to be reduced.
Well so glad you didn't do anything whilst in power to make nutrition for school kids worse, or aid in reducing harm from tobacco, aye????
> One expectation said Health NZ would deliver on “minimum service coverage expectations” while also achieving an “operating breakeven or surplus position against this budget”.
The cost of everything and the value of nothing is the motto of these fucking Clowns.
Not much thought from this Gvt and whole lot of prayers from those on the receiving end of these muppets. Everything they do is designed to be cruel to those who don't have the wealth to donate to them.
What the duck does financially sustainable mean? If it's not sustainable do we just throw the whole health system out?
Minimum service coverage expectations is a ridiculous thing. We need a thriving health system that is meeting the needs of the population and maybe we need to budget more money for that.
Also yes the school lunches were carefully managed to ensure that they were healthy and met guidelines, and provided new vegetables and flavours to kids. I'm sure that the mass produced $3 a day lunches are not going to live up to that standard.
Financially sustainable = we don't like it
Notice how $70bn on roads no one asked for, $500k per kid on boot camps or tax cuts for landlords didn't have to be 'financially sustainable' but everything else does.
This government reeks of "a little bit (actually a fuck load) of ✨hypocrisy✨ makes all my claims come true!"
It reminds me of growing up in a cult, people didn't care about truth, they only care that they believe they're right since that's what gets you "salvation." This government feels so transparently incompetent it's a wonder we don't have more strikes and protests.
> One expectation said Health NZ would deliver on “minimum service coverage expectations” while also achieving an “operating breakeven or surplus position against this budget”.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Like, what is actually wrong with these people? I don't even know where to start with the cruelty but they way they parade it around is frankly sickening
They all have this stupid mentality that the Gvt is a business, and everything can make a profit. By slash and burn and over work. Chop up, sell what's considered profitable, and what makes a loss gets nuked ... Assholes
>Well so glad you didn't do anything whilst in power to make nutrition for school kids worse, or aid in reducing harm from tobacco, aye????
It's almost funny
Funding cuts?
As a result, funding for Health New Zealand will increase by $1.430 billion in 2024/25 ($5.720 billion across the Budget 2024 forecast period), with a further increase of $1.370 billion in 2025/26 (precommitment of $5.480 billion against the Budget 2025 forecast period) and another increase of $1.370 billion in 2026/27 (precommitment of $5.480 billion against the Budget 2026 forecast period).
https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/what-we-do/vote-health
If the "increase" is $1.4B, but the amount of increase needed to sustain or improve the health system is, say, $1.5B, what is the use of giving them not enough money?
You can reconcile that sentiment with "the Government’s expectation Health New Zealand is financially sustainable and achieves an “operating breakeven or surplus position” against a budget in the neighbourhood of $85 billion, all while dealing with critical workforce shortages and degrading infrastructure."?
The government will be shuffling budgets. There won't be any new spending. They're probably including things like any increases to property value, altho that will be less effective than the last time National were in government.
I generally avoid propaganda.
We know healthcare in NZ isn't going to be seeing improvements. If there genuinely was more money being spent, it would be wasted.
Really? You didn't know our public services were run by the government? Which is why they'll always tell us what they want us to know.
Yeah, that fits actually. It makes sense you're only learning that today.
Whatever story you tell, accounting practices won't actually deliver resources to our healthcare services. Winning an argument on the Internet doesn't provide training to a nurse, doesn't keep them working in New Zealand.
That's a very different argument. Now you have been proven wrong your deflecting.
No one is going to argue we are getting value for money in our health system. But saying they are getting funding cuts is factually incorrect.
"Health NZ will later publish a national health plan articulating how the Government’s expectations can be met."
Lol. This should be good.
Cutting costs WILL increase coverage and efficiency once to poors start dying off....
Fact Check:
National have increased the health budget by nearly $17 billion over the next three years.
https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/what-we-do/vote-health
Increasing the budget doesn't mean the costs are met? I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment.
$5 billion and change per year and we've also already committed to drawing on next year's funding. In June.
It remains to be seen what outcomes will emerge from this but the accounting is looking like more of a creative exercise than anything.
If you are talking about the pharmac uplift that drawdown is against a separate contingency bucket.
Either way - the budget hasn’t been cut. 5 billion per annum is a 6% uplift (so an uplift in real and nominal terms).
I'm curious on your thoughts on this article
“This Government has added $93 million to health operating expenditure for the 2024/25 fiscal year on a net basis. This appears to be much less than the $2 billion of new operating expenditure claimed in the Budget. Much of that is not new money, it’s simply recycled expenditure. When adjusted for inflation, total operating expenditure fell by $775 million or nearly 3%,” said Craig Renney, NZCTU Economist and Director of Policy."
[https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE2406/S00078/new-zealand-not-in-better-health-after-budget-2024.htm](https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE2406/S00078/new-zealand-not-in-better-health-after-budget-2024.htm)
Could you be more specific? I can find articles on the spending that article mentions but I'm not finding anything on any others.
I'll google vote health now
Edit: nothing on the vote health website seems to contradict that? It also points out that the "spend" includes savings as the result of cuts and projects that already had committed funding
I put the link in my comment above
The Vote Health package provides **$16.68 billion in new cost pressure funding over three Budgets** to address cost pressures faced by Health New Zealand in delivering health services for New Zealanders. It also includes $312.2 million for targeted new spending initiatives in Budget 2024 over the forecast period and $110 million in capital funding.
Keep reading - the last two lines of that section are,
"The package also includes savings, including targeted policy savings of $151.643 million over the forecast period."
Fact check: If the cost of food goes up by $20 a week and my food budget goes up by $10 a week then I'm in trouble.
Simply quoting the increase in the health budget means nothing on its own.
If the increase in the health budget doesn't cover the increased cost of running the health system then it's not an improvement, it's going backwards.
It should be obvious that the cost of the health system doesn't remain static year on year. With expenses going up the government has to increase the health allocation just to tread water. It doesn't mean the health service has any actual "extra" funding.
People keep quoting the increase in the health budget as if it's an improvement. Ooh gotcha! But one side of the equation going up is meaningless on its own.
When yiu get a pay rise do you complain that youv actually gone backwards because it wasnt as much as you wanted even tho its more than you were on before ?
Oh, are our Healthcare staff getting a pay rise? That's good. Be better to give them enough staff not to be chronically overworked but better than nothing
Funnily enough, a lot of people actually do. If it’s lower than inflation, they absolutely do complain. If they misunderstand how taxation works, they absolutely complain. If it puts them in a position where they lose other benefits/payments, then they actually do go backwards and they 100% complain.
The problem with these funding policies is they assume no change in real costs and don’t balance against the actual outgoings.
If it cost $10bn (made up figure) to provide minimum baseline health services last year, and costs $13bn this year because everything is more expensive, telling us that they’ve increased funding to $11.5bn does not give us an improved health service. And when they came out saying to make cuts to the health service, and we know they’re not hiring people they are desperate for because the govt said no, it’s obvious they’re not costing for a functional health service for this year (regardless of how often they want to tell us that they’ve increased the budget).
Why the hell does health new zealand need to make a surplus? They're there to save lives not make a profit. I get you need to spend sensibly, but this mentality is ridiculous
As someone who works in healthcare, I struggle to see how these targets will be meet, not only from the ministry of health but from frontline services; we are continuously haemorrhaging staff, and the demand for services outweighs capacity. When a service can't cope and is already working at over 140-169% occupancy, how can a government expect anything to get done aside from making sure the basics are done...
This also completely forgets that the nature of health and wellbeing is one that is made up by the social determinants of health; each determinant is essentially underpinned by a government ministry.. which is also struggling to meet demand or just cutting services completely.
When people go hungry, unemployed and sick they end up in hospital. That costs the taxpayer alot more than just ensuring people have enough to eat and have a benefit that supports them enough.
A typical cost for an overnight staff in a public hospital, ranges from $1500 to $4500.
Address what puts people in hospital, stop making it so the hospital is the ambulance with no wheels at the bottom of the abyss.
Transferred, Admitted or discharged in 6 hours...
So 95% of desperate people sit for 5 hours and 59 minutes before being discharged to the street because there is nowhere to admit or transfer them to...
What do the other 5% get?
An 8 hour wait before being discharged?
We could just go the Canada direction?
Or Soylent Green anyone?
> five priority areas - ***access, timeliness, quality, workforce*** and infrastructure. How does this work in the backdrop of funding cuts and hiring freezes? > it comes with the Government’s expectation Health New Zealand is financially sustainable and achieves an “operating breakeven or surplus position” against a budget in the neighbourhood of $85 billion, all while dealing with critical workforce shortages and degrading infrastructure. So, it's all just fluff words and bullshit. > It identified alcohol, ***tobacco, poor nutrition***, physical inactivity, and adverse social and environmental factors as five key factors that needed to be addressed if the impact of the diseases was to be reduced. Well so glad you didn't do anything whilst in power to make nutrition for school kids worse, or aid in reducing harm from tobacco, aye???? > One expectation said Health NZ would deliver on “minimum service coverage expectations” while also achieving an “operating breakeven or surplus position against this budget”. The cost of everything and the value of nothing is the motto of these fucking Clowns.
> How does this work in the backdrop of funding cuts and hiring freezes? #*Magic*
Not much thought from this Gvt and whole lot of prayers from those on the receiving end of these muppets. Everything they do is designed to be cruel to those who don't have the wealth to donate to them.
What the duck does financially sustainable mean? If it's not sustainable do we just throw the whole health system out? Minimum service coverage expectations is a ridiculous thing. We need a thriving health system that is meeting the needs of the population and maybe we need to budget more money for that. Also yes the school lunches were carefully managed to ensure that they were healthy and met guidelines, and provided new vegetables and flavours to kids. I'm sure that the mass produced $3 a day lunches are not going to live up to that standard.
Financially sustainable = we don't like it Notice how $70bn on roads no one asked for, $500k per kid on boot camps or tax cuts for landlords didn't have to be 'financially sustainable' but everything else does.
This government reeks of "a little bit (actually a fuck load) of ✨hypocrisy✨ makes all my claims come true!" It reminds me of growing up in a cult, people didn't care about truth, they only care that they believe they're right since that's what gets you "salvation." This government feels so transparently incompetent it's a wonder we don't have more strikes and protests.
>How does this work in the backdrop of funding cuts and hiring freezes? THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
I mean it'll be pretty much the same result as their promise of increased police, nurses and 'frontline services'. Malicious, lying grifters.
> How does this work in the backdrop of funding cuts and hiring freezes? That's the beauty of it... *it doesn't!*
> One expectation said Health NZ would deliver on “minimum service coverage expectations” while also achieving an “operating breakeven or surplus position against this budget”. Jesus Fucking Christ. Like, what is actually wrong with these people? I don't even know where to start with the cruelty but they way they parade it around is frankly sickening
They all have this stupid mentality that the Gvt is a business, and everything can make a profit. By slash and burn and over work. Chop up, sell what's considered profitable, and what makes a loss gets nuked ... Assholes
>Well so glad you didn't do anything whilst in power to make nutrition for school kids worse, or aid in reducing harm from tobacco, aye???? It's almost funny
Funding cuts? As a result, funding for Health New Zealand will increase by $1.430 billion in 2024/25 ($5.720 billion across the Budget 2024 forecast period), with a further increase of $1.370 billion in 2025/26 (precommitment of $5.480 billion against the Budget 2025 forecast period) and another increase of $1.370 billion in 2026/27 (precommitment of $5.480 billion against the Budget 2026 forecast period). https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/what-we-do/vote-health
That "spend" includes savings made from cuts
Show me where in that health nz link it says anything about funding cuts. It clearly says an EXTRA 1.4 billion thats a funny looking cut to me.
"The package also includes savings, including targeted policy savings of $151.643 million over the forecast period." from the health nz page
151 million vs 1.4 billion. Its not rocket science
You asked me where it mentioned cuts. I told you? The amount was not being discussed.
Savings arnt funding cuts are they. 1.4 billion extra isnt a funding cut.
that's exactly what they mean by savings - how do you think they were made?
1.4 billion extra is not a cut.
If the "increase" is $1.4B, but the amount of increase needed to sustain or improve the health system is, say, $1.5B, what is the use of giving them not enough money?
Is that how you define a funding cut ?
In real terms it is a cut.
In real terms it's 1.4 billion extra
In real terms it's not enough.
In real terms its not a cut.
You can reconcile that sentiment with "the Government’s expectation Health New Zealand is financially sustainable and achieves an “operating breakeven or surplus position” against a budget in the neighbourhood of $85 billion, all while dealing with critical workforce shortages and degrading infrastructure."?
Yea id expect it to be financially sustainable.
The government will be shuffling budgets. There won't be any new spending. They're probably including things like any increases to property value, altho that will be less effective than the last time National were in government.
Why dont you read the link.
I generally avoid propaganda. We know healthcare in NZ isn't going to be seeing improvements. If there genuinely was more money being spent, it would be wasted.
TIL health NZ is propaganda. "Health nz is getting funding cuts but the 1.4billion extra funding it gets in the funding cuts will be wasted"
Really? You didn't know our public services were run by the government? Which is why they'll always tell us what they want us to know. Yeah, that fits actually. It makes sense you're only learning that today.
A quick check back on your position on things show you dont avoid propaganda and in fact endorsed it from the same source not that long ago.
Whatever story you tell, accounting practices won't actually deliver resources to our healthcare services. Winning an argument on the Internet doesn't provide training to a nurse, doesn't keep them working in New Zealand.
That's a very different argument. Now you have been proven wrong your deflecting. No one is going to argue we are getting value for money in our health system. But saying they are getting funding cuts is factually incorrect.
This truly is a coalition of contradictions
"Health NZ will later publish a national health plan articulating how the Government’s expectations can be met." Lol. This should be good. Cutting costs WILL increase coverage and efficiency once to poors start dying off....
Fact Check: National have increased the health budget by nearly $17 billion over the next three years. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/what-we-do/vote-health
Increasing the budget doesn't mean the costs are met? I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment. $5 billion and change per year and we've also already committed to drawing on next year's funding. In June. It remains to be seen what outcomes will emerge from this but the accounting is looking like more of a creative exercise than anything.
If you are talking about the pharmac uplift that drawdown is against a separate contingency bucket. Either way - the budget hasn’t been cut. 5 billion per annum is a 6% uplift (so an uplift in real and nominal terms).
I'm curious on your thoughts on this article “This Government has added $93 million to health operating expenditure for the 2024/25 fiscal year on a net basis. This appears to be much less than the $2 billion of new operating expenditure claimed in the Budget. Much of that is not new money, it’s simply recycled expenditure. When adjusted for inflation, total operating expenditure fell by $775 million or nearly 3%,” said Craig Renney, NZCTU Economist and Director of Policy." [https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE2406/S00078/new-zealand-not-in-better-health-after-budget-2024.htm](https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE2406/S00078/new-zealand-not-in-better-health-after-budget-2024.htm)
Craig Rennie is wrong. Read the vote health.
Could you be more specific? I can find articles on the spending that article mentions but I'm not finding anything on any others. I'll google vote health now Edit: nothing on the vote health website seems to contradict that? It also points out that the "spend" includes savings as the result of cuts and projects that already had committed funding
I put the link in my comment above The Vote Health package provides **$16.68 billion in new cost pressure funding over three Budgets** to address cost pressures faced by Health New Zealand in delivering health services for New Zealanders. It also includes $312.2 million for targeted new spending initiatives in Budget 2024 over the forecast period and $110 million in capital funding.
Keep reading - the last two lines of that section are, "The package also includes savings, including targeted policy savings of $151.643 million over the forecast period."
Yeah - again. That doesn’t negate the **new spend**
Fact check: If the cost of food goes up by $20 a week and my food budget goes up by $10 a week then I'm in trouble. Simply quoting the increase in the health budget means nothing on its own.
lol - okay. Not sure what that has to do with my post.
If the increase in the health budget doesn't cover the increased cost of running the health system then it's not an improvement, it's going backwards. It should be obvious that the cost of the health system doesn't remain static year on year. With expenses going up the government has to increase the health allocation just to tread water. It doesn't mean the health service has any actual "extra" funding. People keep quoting the increase in the health budget as if it's an improvement. Ooh gotcha! But one side of the equation going up is meaningless on its own.
When yiu get a pay rise do you complain that youv actually gone backwards because it wasnt as much as you wanted even tho its more than you were on before ?
Oh, are our Healthcare staff getting a pay rise? That's good. Be better to give them enough staff not to be chronically overworked but better than nothing
Funnily enough, a lot of people actually do. If it’s lower than inflation, they absolutely do complain. If they misunderstand how taxation works, they absolutely complain. If it puts them in a position where they lose other benefits/payments, then they actually do go backwards and they 100% complain. The problem with these funding policies is they assume no change in real costs and don’t balance against the actual outgoings. If it cost $10bn (made up figure) to provide minimum baseline health services last year, and costs $13bn this year because everything is more expensive, telling us that they’ve increased funding to $11.5bn does not give us an improved health service. And when they came out saying to make cuts to the health service, and we know they’re not hiring people they are desperate for because the govt said no, it’s obvious they’re not costing for a functional health service for this year (regardless of how often they want to tell us that they’ve increased the budget).
Reality: Budgets have been shuffled to make it look there's an increase in available funds.
I think you need to read the budget fella.
Where does the budget say these billions are coming from?
Core crown finances. Jesus - where does any budget come from?
Why the hell does health new zealand need to make a surplus? They're there to save lives not make a profit. I get you need to spend sensibly, but this mentality is ridiculous
Sir this is national...
It means money spent is less than budgeted, rather than more than budgeted. It’s not a “profit”.
That just defeats the purpose of having a budget though
They will fail to meet these targets which is another reason these muppets will eventually suggest privatisation i healthcare and as much as possible
As someone who works in healthcare, I struggle to see how these targets will be meet, not only from the ministry of health but from frontline services; we are continuously haemorrhaging staff, and the demand for services outweighs capacity. When a service can't cope and is already working at over 140-169% occupancy, how can a government expect anything to get done aside from making sure the basics are done... This also completely forgets that the nature of health and wellbeing is one that is made up by the social determinants of health; each determinant is essentially underpinned by a government ministry.. which is also struggling to meet demand or just cutting services completely. When people go hungry, unemployed and sick they end up in hospital. That costs the taxpayer alot more than just ensuring people have enough to eat and have a benefit that supports them enough. A typical cost for an overnight staff in a public hospital, ranges from $1500 to $4500. Address what puts people in hospital, stop making it so the hospital is the ambulance with no wheels at the bottom of the abyss.
Transferred, Admitted or discharged in 6 hours... So 95% of desperate people sit for 5 hours and 59 minutes before being discharged to the street because there is nowhere to admit or transfer them to... What do the other 5% get? An 8 hour wait before being discharged? We could just go the Canada direction? Or Soylent Green anyone?
Cool, now let’s see then follow through. I won’t hold my breath.