From the Save South Muskoka Hospital Committee:
The Save South Muskoka Hospital Committee (SSMHC) writes to respond to the recent Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC) initiative to establish community working groups. This is a disingenuous attempt to appear to be on a “collaborative” path with stakeholders. To date, MAHC has lacked substance, accuracy and transparency in every aspect of the redevelopment project.
MAHC’s frequent use of terms like “collaboration” is at odds with their actions. Collaboration is defined as, “the action
of working with someone to produce or create something.” Proper collaboration requires stakeholders to be informed
with the relevant information and should not be limited by an arbitrary submission date of November to the Ministry.
South Muskoka does not believe that proper collaboration has or will occur.
Despite recognizing a breach of the public’s trust in its previous conduct, MAHC has continually failed to repair trust.
By raising this community working group process with only a matter of weeks before a detailed submission is planned, this is more of the same conduct lacking good faith. The November submission date is arbitrary. The Honorable Graydon Smith, MPP has stated that the focus should be on getting the right submission to the province rather than having it be rejected. We are assured that the funding for these projects is not going anywhere. Any credible working group process should not be constrained by an arbitrary timeline.
MAHC has not been credible nor lived up to their 2015 promise to deliver two acute care equitable hospitals for the region, a commitment that MAHC reiterated before the District of Muskoka as recently as October 16, 2023. Merely a month later, however, by November 30, 2023, MAHC announced a complete redesign of the two-hospital redevelopment project had taken place. Redesigning a one-billion-dollar hospital system in a matter of weeks isn’t plausible. By extension, MAHC’s focus on finalizing the Phase 1.3 submission for November suggests that again their solutions are already set, casting doubt on the sincerity of the complete process.
MAHC also states that it has, “carefully analyzed the feedback and data to ensure our approach effectively meets the healthcare needs of our community” and expresses confidence in their proposed plan for addressing regional healthcare needs. This again raises doubt about the intended purpose and effectiveness that these working groups can have when MAHC is already expressing its confidence in its plan before receiving further input from these groups.
MAHC’s community working groups are established to tackle issues like bed capacity and patient transportation, as well as another group focused on “Community Programming” for prevention and health improvement. However, such community programming does not directly contribute to building hospitals and provides a false illusion to the public that this process will address the critical issues.
The SSMHC, the largest independent organization with over 200 members representing more than 14,000 citizens, was formed specifically to address the future of the two new hospitals in Muskoka. These thousands of supporters have expressed a lack of confidence in MAHC and call for strong intervention against the MAHC “Made-in-Muskoka” model by other elected officials and levels of government. We are deeply concerned that SSMHC has not been included in these working groups, despite being one of the only two groups—alongside the South Muskoka physicians—to have submitted “Position Papers” addressing key issues such as transportation, bed numbers, doctor retention and recruitment, and land use. We strongly endorse the model proposed by our doctors in the “Care Closer to Home – Version Two” report.
It is particularly troubling that MAHC has diminished the significance of the South Muskoka Hospital doctors’ perspectives by referring to the Care Close to Home – Version Two proposed model as coming from “some South Muskoka physicians.” It must be absolutely clear that this model is supported virtually unanimously by the doctors at South Muskoka Hospital. This is not just “some” physicians. These physicians have volunteered their professional expertise to develop the “Care Closer to Home – Version Two” model because they firmly reject the MAHC “Made in Muskoka” model and its negative implications for the health, safety and well-being for the residents of Muskoka.
To date, MAHC has not been transparent around the funding for each of the two hospital builds, nor the land acquisition, and has had very limited engagement with the public nor reasonable collaboration regarding the Made in Muskoka proposal – especially when considered against its significant unpopularity and now clearly identified shortcomings. Further, any transparency around environmental reports has been nonexistent.
SSMHC calls upon MAHC to release all relevant information so that collaboration can be meaningful and supported by fully and properly informed stakeholders.
It is crucial for the MAHC Board of Directors to recognize that the people of Muskoka are not easily misled while MAHC disregards the dedicated staff of doctors and medical professionals at South Muskoka Hospital and the voices from the community. SSMHC was given assurances that the final report submission to Minister of Health, Sylvia Jones, would be delayed until a fair and workable model for the two hospitals was agreed upon.
We accept nothing less and expect all levels of government to honour this commitment. We urge MAHC to “Keep the Promise” and heed the concerns of the sixty-one doctors and healthcare professionals who strongly oppose the MAHC model, “Made in Muskoka”. SSMHC firmly supports the physicians’ “Care Close to Home – Version Two.”
We encourage the public to voice its concerns with the Made in Muskoka model and to show support for the Care Close to Home – Version Two model through continued pressure on local municipal and provincial politicians, and the MAHC board. Further, we encourage all residents of Muskoka to continue engaging with your community on this critical matter.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
John Whitty says
MAHC’s dithering has cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars.
Unacceptable plans presented by them for 12 years, so far, as construction costs have skyrocketed.
Taxpayers are not spending a billion dollars to go backwards in health care in Muskoka.
Backwards at both Huntsville and Bracebridge hospitals.
The MAHC plan requires Huntsville residents to travel to Bracebridge for short term care. Unlike now.
Spend far less money and add wings to the existing sites to improve both, as suggested by former MAHC board member Dave Wilkin here: https://doppleronline.ca/huntsville/mahc/
“This journey started about 12 years ago, and yet, here we are today with no hospital capital upgrades done and fighting again in the community over what is still an unaffordable plan.
If they had listened to our and the majority of community voices back then, and instead of brand new hospitals, they opted for incremental existing site upgrades, we would be well on the way to the much-needed capacity expansion and hospital renewal, at an affordable cost. This is the route the vast majority of hospitals in Ontario take.”
And at Midland hospital.
A big increase in Midland not a big decrease in Bracebridge hospital beds as MAHC has planned.
Search “Georgian Bay General Hospital looks to future with $100M expansion plans”
I understand the $100 M is the local share for 240 beds.
John Whitty says
Perhaps now Bracebridge will finally get some answers to obvious questions that MAHC just brushed off.
https://southmuskoka.doppleronline.ca/town-of-bracebridge-wants-independent-review-of-hospital-plans/
And a cost comparison of simply adding new wings to the existing sites like most hospitals do.
Instead of massively expensive all new.