In 1993, 52 rural hospitals were closed. If a recent study is to be believed, the “funding cuts did not adversely affect rural residents’ health status or their access to health services.”
The report has been the subject of many a coffee-time conversation in rural Saskatchewan.
Two things have been highlighted in the press: much of the study is based on mortality statistics, and “89 percent of the respondents reported that funding cuts had no effect on their personal health.”
According to the study, “communities that experienced the 1993 acute care funding cuts had the largest overall improvement in mortality rates; communities that still have small hospitals, the smallest.”
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
In other words, if you’re in one of the 52 communities whose hospital was closed, statistics show that you’ll live longer. If you’re in a small community that still has a hospital, look out!
Have the researchers found something that people have been seeking for years, the secret to eternal life?
Nice thought, but hardly.
Looking at Eston, Sask., albeit in a non-scientific way, many people who have died since health reform did so in other communities where they moved because care was no longer possible at home. Because their address was no longer Eston, they would not have been counted as Eston residents for the purpose of the study.
What too many people are missing is the large BUT in the report.
People are saying the cuts have had no effect on personal health BUT they are having an effect on health care.
“Most respondents recalled being satisfied with health services prior to the 1993 acute care funding cuts. Over half were dissatisfied with current health services.
“When asked why they were dissatisfied, most respondents said it was because doctor, emergency and hospital services were now less available.
“Those individuals most discontented with the current health system were young, perceived their use of health services had greatly decreased, anticipated harmful effects on their health from the funding cuts or were in poor health.”
That doesn’t leave many to be happy with the system.
I’ve talked to several people in the health field about the report. The kindest thing they can say about it is it’s a good starting point.
What it is a starting point to, no one is quite sure.
The money could have been better spent providing front line health care.
