Given that several recent opinions have come under fire for the authors' affiliations and conflicts of interest, I would like to disclose my own and encourage others to do the same... calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…
My only sources of income this year have been 1) my salary at the UofC, and 2) book royalties likely totaling less than $1000. The only contact that I have ever had with any politicians of any party has been after the publication of my opinions on bill 30 and privatization....
In fact, I only moved to Alberta three years ago and published pieces that were critical of privatization well before ever coming to Alberta.
Possible ghost-writing of opinions has also been raised. To be clear, I've written every single word of any of the opinions I've written and @UbakaOgbogu and I have written every single word of the ones that we've co-authored.
The nature of that contact was 1) emails to schedule my appearance on a publicly-available facebook live and podcast, and 2) a zoom call to briefly discuss bill 30 in advance of a press release that quoted me and a meeting where members of the press could ask me about bill 30.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Bill 22 (Health Statutes Amendment Act) now tabled. Broadly, will enable transition from Alberta Health Services to 4 new organizations, each responsible for a different silo of the health system (it remains unclear why gov is moving away from an integrated model) /1
4 agencies (primary, acute, continuing, mental health & addiction) will deliver or arrange delivery (contract out?) services, evaluate & adjust to meet needs, implement ministerial plans, ensure integrated transfers within & between sectors (will be a huge job!). /2
Minister of Health will be "oversight minister" and set strategic direction and sector ministers will be responsible for each of the 4 sectors /3
Manning report on covid has dropped. Notably, the panel's mandate wasn't to look broadly into the management of covid, but more narrowly to look at governance in a public health emergency. /1
I'm not going to disparage any specific person, but it is fair to say that the panel's composition seems designed to reach particular conclusions on the issues. /2
Report immediately mischaracterizes who makes decisions in a pub health emergency by putting Cabinet at the top of the list and saying cmoh is merely "highly relevant". Although that's what happened during covid, the law is quite different (for now...see bill 6). /3
Watching the presser on changes to the health system...
Smith highlights challenges with staffing and surgical wait times, but unclear how their proposed reforms will fix any of this. Says that current system lacks accountability and falls short on putting patients 1st /1
Delivery system will now focus on 4 areas, each with their own organization: primary care, acute care, continuing care, mental health & addiction. Calls current AHS structure "scattered" and "rigid". Will apply province-wide to avoid pre-AHS regional fragmentation. /2
Smith says this new model will be more responsive to issues, better able to mange performance, more accountable, more adaptable to innovation, and responsive to make space for local input. Unclear how the new model will facilitate these goals. /3
Gov announced forthcoming changes to the Public Health Act today that will give cabinet greater power over decisions during a public health emergency. Some thoughts... /1
First, clarity over the role of the CMOH was much needed. This should have been fixed much, much sooner when it became clear that what was happening during covid (i.e. cabinet making decisions) was out of step with the law (i.e. CMOH making decisions). /2
Two questions required attention. First, who ought to make decisions during a health emergency (CMOH, cabinet, combo)? And second, how much independence should the CMOH have (e.g. a bureaucrat reporting to the Minister of Health or able to disclose recommendations publicly)? /3
Much anticipated decision in Ingram v Alberta (CMOH) is out! This case addresses the legality of covid public health orders. A summary and some thoughts... /1
As discussed ad nauseam during covid, this decision clarifies that the authority to issue public health orders is that of the CMOH and not cabinet. Despite this, Hinshaw repeatedly said that she was merely an advisor, thereby improperly delegating her power to cabinet. /2
Specifically, the Act "requires that decisions with respect to public health orders must be made by the CMOH" or her delegate. Instead, decisions here "were made by cabinet" or its committees. This delegation was "not permitted" by the Act. /3
Catching up on the Smith/Copping presser...
Smith commends front line staff and scapegoats AHS. Appoints administrator to replace AHS board. 4 priorities: EMS response times, ER waits, surgery waits, develop long-term reforms through consultation with health professionals. /1
Copping also commends front line staff and talks about the need for more capacity (doesn't address preventing people from needing hospital services in the first place). Claims a temporary administrator is preferable to board because they can work on these issues full time. /2
Administrator will work with CEO and will report to Minister of Health/Premier.
EMS: fast track transfers, use other modes of transport for non-urgent cases, empower EMS to step down calls from 911, empower paramedic to triage and determine need for ER transfer by ambulance. /3