Victorian patient facing three years of pain in surgery wait

A 52-year-old Victorian man unable to tie his shoes is facing a three year wait for spinal surgery at the Austin Hospital, after he was shunted on a secret waiting list for an outpatient appointment.

A letter sent by the Austin to the patient’s doctor in January, and obtained by Crikey, lists the date of 1:30pm on Thursday September 1, 2011 for the appointment at the hospital’s Heidelberg campus in Melbourne’s northern suburbs:

After that visit, the man will join another waiting list for the spinal fusion procedure, languishing for a further 267 days, according to the government’s YourHospitals website, and taking his total time in the treatment queue to over three years.

The patient’s doctor, who has chosen to remain anonymous, is livid over the letter and is pursuing his patient’s case as his condition deteriorates. The extra wait time could mean the patient is re-prioritised as a more urgent case.

The controversy comes a day after state health minister and Labor rising star Daniel Andrews lashed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd over a lack of cash to back-up his plans to seize control of hospital funding, claiming that “words won’t cut waiting lists”. Yesterday, Premier John Brumby said the PM’s plan was written on “scraps of paper” and challenged the federal government to restore its share of the health budget, which has been dwindling for years.

Last year, both the state Auditor General and the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission called on the Victorian government to immediately publish the outpatients data, which is currently only available through Freedom of Information requests submitted by the opposition and the media.

A spokesperson for the minister said the government was currently negotiating a national framework for outpatients reform in conjunction with the federal takeover. But he said it was impossible to comment on anonymous cases.

“I don’t know the patient’s details. I’m not a health clinician, you’re going to have to speak to the doctor, not the government.”

Austin Hospital Communications Director John Heslev told Crikey that waiting times for orthopaedic outpatient appointments at the hospital were “a problem”.

“We’re addressing it as best we can…but it’s time and bed intensive, and we could fill the hospital with patients if we wanted to. We’ve acknowledged that there are issues and resources have been going in to improving waiting times for orthopaedic surgery — as such we’ve doubled the procedures we’ve delivered in the last six months,” says Heslev.

But Heslev admitted that ” cardiac and other surgeries” often take priority and that the hospital was receiving increasing numbers of referrals outside its catchment area. He said the Austin was happy to release its waiting times for outpatient appointments if the government gave it the green light.

“We’re happy to talk about those times because orthopaedics is by far our longest wait.”

Australian Medical Association Victorian President Dr Harry Hemley said it was time the government took action on the hidden lists and that a year-long wait for an outpatient appointment wasn’t uncommon.

“The Brumby Government has been ignoring calls to present the whole picture on elective surgery waits for too long,” says Hemley. “If a patient and their doctor don’t know how long they will have to wait, they can’t make informed decisions about their treatment options, let alone decisions about living arrangements, organising carers and taking time off work.”

The Victorian government has been dealing with the issue for over five years, marshalling senior bureaucrats in 2006 to head a special unit within the Department of Human Services after the secret list saga hit the media.

In addition to the outpatients list, the government has also been accused of covering up data on “patient-initiated postponements”, where patients are struck off waiting lists because they are “not ready for care”. Investigations last year revealed that hospitals were loath to admit blame for the postponements because they would lose money under the department’s controversial bonus funding framework.