To the editor:

Re: Health care cuts will evolve over ‘09-10 budget year (Capital News, July 24, 2009).

I was genuinely dismayed to see the statement from Murray Ramsden, chief executive officer of the Interior Health Authority, when he indicated: “IHA has the largest population over the age of 65 in the province so the pressure that brings on our health care services will only continue to increase.”

Such a statement makes it appear that Mr. Ramsden is attempting to shift the blame for a $30 million budget deficit onto the shoulders of IHA seniors.

So, I really must question why it is that Mr. Ramsden was previously so unaware of this age group within IHA boundaries that he did not budget accordingly for their necessary services? 

When I first moved to the Okanagan Valley some 16 years ago, I recognized that there was more than the typical number of seniors in this geographic region—and I wasn’t even involved in health care.

Surely population demographics over time should have influenced intelligent budgetary considerations?

In case Mr. Ramsden really doesn’t understand the significance of demographics to fiscal planning, let me be one of the first to point out to him that the baby boomer generation will soon be reaching that 65 year age bracket. 

Although one does not immediately become incapacitated and fully dependent upon a health care system upon reaching that milestone—as Mr. Ramsden’s comment seems to imply—it is important that neither he nor the IHA board express extreme shock and dismay several years down the road at the impact this population’s “arrival” at health care’s gate will have on IHA budgetary planning.

As to current IHA budgetary expenses, I believe that I recently read that something like 80% or more of IHA yearly budgetary expenses are actually paid out as salaries.

It seems to me that this is actually the real area that requires much more focus, not only by Mr. Ramsden and the IHA board, but the general public as well. 

How did we get to the point in health care that employee salaries are a much more important consideration than patient care in a health care system? 

Why are staff expenses and salaries not the first serious cuts? 

After all, without patients, there would be no need for that extent of salaries. See how simple it is when we cut to the basics?

We also have the creation of some very expensive infrastructures in the valley, such as the KGH Tower, while long awaited and very necessary residential care facilities have been put on hold for far too many years.

I do wonder if the comments quoted by Mr. Ramsden were actually intended to inflame public sentiments against the creation of these much needed residential care facilities. 

His focus appears suspiciously and pointedly biased against those over age 65.

Sharon Harris,

Kelowna