{"id":46954,"date":"2018-04-07T11:04:31","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T15:04:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/huntsville.dopperonline.ca\/?p=46954"},"modified":"2018-04-07T11:14:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-07T15:14:00","slug":"two-full-hospital-acute-care-sites-finally-considered-former-mahc-directors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/doppleronline.ca\/huntsville\/two-full-hospital-acute-care-sites-finally-considered-former-mahc-directors\/","title":{"rendered":"MAHC leadership needs to deliver what the community has demanded ~ former MAHC directors"},"content":{"rendered":"

A ray of hope emerged with MAHC\u2019s recent announcement<\/a><\/span> that the \u201cnot status quo\u201d qualification was dropped, putting the community\u2019s preferred two full acute-care site option on the table for evaluation, coming three years late. Now, a pressing concern is what costing criteria will be used in model selection? Will it be based on the 2014\/15 cost data, as recently published by the MAHC board chair blog?<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This cost data comparing three future hospital models is dated, and the assumptions behind the two full-service acute-care model drove the costs up.<\/p>\n

<\/broadstreet-zone><\/strong><\/div>\n

Based on the detailed numbers in the Master Plan appendices (per MAHC web site), 100 per cent of the Bracebridge site and 70 per cent of the Huntsville site were costed as new builds. This translates to 87 per cent new build<\/em>, and the remaining 13 per cent full renovations.<\/p>\n

Per the Comparison Table below, the two-site model total square footage would be 90 per cent larger<\/em> (75 per cent after bed reduction) than the current two hospital sites combined. (Note: it\u2019s also approximately 36 per cent larger than the one-site model.) It is hard to fathom what is driving this magnitude of hospital size increase<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To our knowledge, there are no<\/em> hard Ministry-specified timelines associated with reaching the latest new standards for existing hospitals. If there were (within capital planning timelines of five,10 and 20 years), it would far exceed provincial affordability. (Our rough estimate: $70B+.) With our hospitals\u2019 ages sitting at the provincial average of about 45 years, it is hard to imagine a capital plan with this much new build being approved. Lowering the level of the capital-intensive \u2018new build\u2019 would help. This would also allow staged upgrades to newer standards and facility improvements sooner.<\/p>\n

For example, lowering to 50 per cent new build and 50 per cent renovations drops cost by close to 20 per cent:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Why does MAHC\u2019s two-site plan have such a high space increase and \u2018new build\u2019? It certainly makes it less attractive from a cost perspective, so it must have influenced the one site recommended in 2015. There should have been a lower cost option considered.<\/p>\n

<\/broadstreet-zone><\/strong><\/div>\n

Within the narrative of the Chair\u2019s blog, we find other concerning comments:<\/p>\n