Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horvarth grabbed a good soundbite yesterday as she railed against hospitals employing paid lobbyists; Health Minister Deb Mathews was just as quick with her response that she'd put an end to the practice.
"Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews is promising to crack down on the use of lobbyists by hospitals amid criticism that scarce health-care dollars are being wasted on trying to influence the government. The New Democrats raised the issue in the legislature on Monday after they found that at least 14 hospitals have firms registered on the province's list of lobbyists."
link: Opposition grills government on hospital lobbyists - The Globe and Mail
There will probably always be more hospitals bidding for approval of new programs and capital projects than there are funds to realise them. The approval process is complex and multi-layered. Many are deserving, but need alone will not ensure approval. To succeed, a project must be well conceived, designed and explained to those whose backing is required. Successful projects are presented by those who have a comprehensive knowledge of the government's priorities as well as the ability to match their proposal to the government's needs and to communicate that match effectively.
Yes, hospital CEOs in Ontario are generally well-paid executives who should be able (and for the most part are) to present a proposal to an LHIN or the health ministry competently. But that's not to say there in anything inherently wrong in hiring someone else to assist. They are also busy generalists who can only do so many tasks at once and so rely on experts to do the work-up and provide advice.
Government relations experts, aka lobbyists, are people whose job it is to know and understand governments' priorities, to help their clients tailor proposals to match governments' needs and to effectively communicate the submission. There is nothing inherently evil or unethical or even wasteful in that any more than anyone would seriously object to hospitals using program planners, budget analysts, architects and engineers and others to prepare a proposal. Some of these might be permanent hospital employees and others might be on short term or consulting contracts befitting the temporary of the task. So why the problem with lobbyists as part of the team? And why shouldn't they be paid?. Who is expected to work for free? Would it be less of an issue if the hospital employed such expertise full-time? Would that be more cost effective?
Should hospitals not do everything within their powers and abilities to serve their communities? If the lobbyist were called a consultant it wouldn't carry the same stigma that we associate with lobbyist, and so, Andrea Horwath used the "L" word. It was a cheap, headline grabbing sound bite that will do little to help satisfy Ontarian's health care needs. Deb Mathews shouldn't have been so quick to take the bait, either. She really has better things to do than to micromanage hospital budgets.
