While the group has gnarly long-term issues which it wants to be addressed, it has also given Mr Brown options for "quick wins".
It will be hoping these will appeal to a minister up to his eyebrows in a plethora of problems which cannot be solved overnight, from workforce shortages to dilapidated infrastructure.
The three "quick wins" being proposed by the group are the introduction of psychiatric consultations via telehealth within 12 months, delivery of a publicly funded blood collection service in Wānaka within two years and increased local access to publicly funded radiology services via the government’s $30 million funding boost announced last June.
None of this sounds outrageously unrealistic or horrendously expensive.
The lack of a blood testing laboratory in Wānaka, meaning patients have to pay for blood test services which are free in other places, including Gore and Balclutha, seems particularly unfair for those who may need frequent tests. It is hard to understand why this could not have been addressed earlier.
It is difficult to know how Mr Brown might react to the group’s wider concerns. He may be reluctant to commit to much for fear of an avalanche of similar conundrums from other disadvantaged rural areas elsewhere.
Close your eyes and stick a pin almost anywhere in a map of New Zealand, and the report’s main themes: significant unmet needs, systemic barriers, and a lack of strategic health planning, will ring true.
What the group’s report illustrates is that despite many reports being prepared on the needs of our rural communities over the years, there has been a reluctance by successive governments to fully come to grips with planning for changing demographics.
The district health board era came to an end with the promise of the demise of the post code lottery in the provision of health services under the new national model. That promise is far from being realised.
So far, there does not seem to be much more than tinkering going on in this area.
The National Travel Assistance Scheme which is supposed to support those who need to travel long distances for specialist care is a case in point.
After there was considerable noise about the shortcomings of the scheme, and people going without treatments because they could not afford to travel for care, a year ago the price paid per kilometre for vehicle use rose a whopping six cents to 34c a kilometre. (The old rate of 28c had been in place for more than a decade.) Contrast that with the $1.04/km Inland Revenue Department rate businesses could apply to the first 14,000km of travel in the 2024 financial year.
Amounts which could be claimed under the scheme for accommodation also rose a year ago to $140 a night for motels and $35 for staying with friends and family.
However, the hoops to be jumped through to qualify for anything from the scheme are so onerous and out of touch with reality, many people cannot get anything.
As the HAW report points out, Upper Clutha residents can travel 2750km to visit Dunedin Hospital five times in six months and still not be eligible for reimbursement from the scheme.
It was distressing to read a patient would gradually lose their eyesight after foregoing treatment for macular degeneration because they could not afford to have Avastin eye injections administered privately in Wānaka or travel to Dunedin where the treatment was subsidised.
We wonder how many similar stories there are, not just from the Southern district.
Mr Brown needs to listen carefully to what HAW is saying and consider how best to address its concerns.
Trotting out the tired old trope about the government’s record spending on health will not cut the mustard.
