In an historic joint council meeting held in a packed Algonquin Theatre on the evening of Monday, February 1, Huntsville and Bracebridge municipal representatives voted unanimously in favour of pursuing a two-hospital model for Muskoka.
“This is a remarkable occasion. I can’t recall a joint meeting between the two councils,” said Bracebridge Mayor Graydon Smith, who thanked Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison for hosting him and his council “for such an important issue to both communities and the greater Muskoka and East Parry Sound communities as well.”
How it happened
The move comes as a direct response to a May 27, 2015 recommendation announced by the board of Muskoka Algonquin Health Care, which manages both the Bracebridge and Huntsville hospitals. MAHC has been struggling with funding shortfalls and aging infrastructure for years. Its recommendation calls for the closure of both hospitals in favour of a single acute care hospital centrally located between the two communities. But that recommendation has raised concerns among community members and politicians alike. Paramount among their concerns is the travel time required to access timely life-saving health care, access for vulnerable populations and those living in more remote areas as well as the socio-economic ramifications of losing a hospital in any one given community. Other concerns include the additional costs that would be incurred by the municipal sector in order to support the infrastructure required for a new hospital site as well as the cost of building a new hospital from the ground up. Those concerns were brought to the North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network, which reports to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. In response, the LHIN established a taskforce made up of its own members, MAHC and municipal representatives to facilitate an analysis of how MAHC arrived at its preferred single hospital model and whether other viable options could be considered that would garner greater community consensus.
What’s the plan
With the help of a Huntsville hospital working group, consultants, and staff at the District of Muskoka, Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison and Bracebridge Mayor Graydon Smith joined forces and presented an alternative on Monday night. That alternative calls for redeveloping the existing two hospital sites and maintaining 24/7 emergency rooms at both hospitals including inpatient beds to support emergency admissions and core diagnostic services.
One of the sites would focus on acute care services and conduct the bulk of surgical procedures with advanced diagnostic imaging services. It would include a family birthing unit for low to medium risk obstetrics as well as emergency endoscopy services among others. The other site would focus on chronic care, contain all complex continuing care beds and offer select day surgery for things such as cataracts. The proposal calls on both sites to serve as health hubs with the co-location of related health care services.
Who gets what?
A determination as to which site will provide which services has not been made. In a press conference following the presentation, Aitchison said MAHC should very much be involved in making that decision. He said both sites would offer “tremendous services” along with 24/7 emergency rooms. “In the absence of us making this move, you might have to go to Barrie or you might have to go to North Bay. I would much rather drive to Bracebridge for certain services or Huntsville for certain services than having to drive all the way to Barrie or North Bay or Orillia.”
It terms of getting MAHC on board, Aitchison noted that the Ministry of Health requires broad-based community support in order to come to a decision.
When Mayor Smith and I went and presented to the LHIN board meeting back in the fall, it was pretty clear at that point that the broad-based community support was not there,” said Aitchison. “I think there’s a lot of merit in the proposal that we put forward and with some further analysis I think that we can demonstrate to MAHC that this is a really workable solution that supports both communities and delivers better patient outcomes at the end of the day for all Muskoka, East Parry Sound into Algonquin Park and all around the surrounding area.
Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison
Smith said there’s more work ahead; he said he looks forward to working with MAHC, the LHIN and other stakeholders realizing that change is difficult but necessary. He also said that no matter the outcome the municipalities would continue supporting MAHC.
Now that the mayors have support from their councils they’ll be presenting the two-site model to the LHIN.
Where is the site then John? If the District and the Province will not allow for a new site on a ‘greenfield’ site it pretty much has to be where there are existing services. So which town do you pick?
Is it just me or did Huntsville Town Council and Mayor Aitchison invite the Trojan Horse into the Algonquin Theatre last week? Mayor Smith and Bracebridge Council have positioned themselves in this joint proposal to win the A site selection. This was a long and costly circle we just traveled in, to come back to the point that MAHC presented a year ago. Spending money on two antiquated structures at two campuses didn’t make sense to MAHC that is why the one site option made the only sense and still does. Politics aside, health care is about serving the health needs of Muskoka, East Parry Sound and Algonquin Park. A hospital built with new energy efficient materials, innovative energy supplies and innovative ways of dealing with waste will make lower operating expenses more sustainable. Delivery of all medical acute needs for Muskoka, East Parry Sound and Algonquin Park in one location means better equipment, more specialized Doctors, better use of more diverse talents and equipmen,to serve all our needs. Every constituent in every region will be better served by spending health dollars wisely, One site, in my opinion does this.
It seems to me that this two- site proposal is much the same as what was suggested many months ago by MAHC, to which members of the community fiercely objected.
Make no mistake, there will not be two acute-care hospitals, there will be ONE acute-care hospital (SiteA) with surgical services and obstetrics and there will be a second non-acute health care facility with geriatric and rehabilitative services. Whilst they say that there will be two 24/7 emergency departments, it is almost certain that ambulances carrying seriously injured or ill patients will bypass site B and go directly to Site A. If there is little activity during the off-hours in site B’s emergency department, it won’t be long before it becomes a type of walk-in clinic with limited hours.
Vulnerable populations mostly arrive at the hospital by ambulance, by car with a family member, by taxi or by seniors support transportation. This would not change if there was one new central site. It also makes no difference where the hospital is located when it comes to having a health hub or a health care campus…this could easily be accomplished with the one site model. The need to keep roads accessible in bad weather will always be an issue, whether we have one site or two.
Given a choice between having a site B in my community or having a new, single-site acute care hospital that is geographically central to the entire region served…I vote for a new, single-site acute-care hospital. Many of the people that I talk to, say that given that choice, they also would vote for a new, single-site acute hospital.
While 2 sites might seems like a good plan at present, a B site in Huntsville will not serve the broader community.Ask the Doctors….
I support the two-site solution. I would like to see a transportation system developed between the two hospitals so that patients have a way of getting from one hospital to the other for treatment. As it is now, people who live outside of the towns and are required to travel to Huntsville from Bracebridge or Gravenhurst for treatment have to have someone to drive them. That isn’t always possible.
I am very supportive of a two-site solution, howver, just what that means has yet to be determined. In the past the MAHC has proposed moving various departments to one site or the other and has often been met with a great deal of criticism from both towns. But now it seems that such a proposal seems likely if we maintain two sites. But we all know that we can’t have it all at both sites. As the article reports “A determination as to which site will provide which services has not been made.” – Sounds like the best compromise – but are Huntsville mothers going to want to have their babies in BB or vice versa- and so on with restructuring.