• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AB Premier reveals plans to transfer hospitals from AHS

According to this, board members are not paid. But are still on the 150k+ compensation disclosure list.
But of a puzzle. I'm sure there are some benefits, travel, gratuities, etc.

 
Executive compensation isn't the first thing to worry about in a fiscal picture, but it makes nice headlines.

Obviously public bureaucracy and administration is more efficient than private bureaucracy and administration; that's why public agencies constantly out-compete non-public ones.
 
Executive compensation isn't the first thing to worry about in a fiscal picture, but it makes nice headlines.

Obviously public bureaucracy and administration is more efficient than private bureaucracy and administration; that's why public agencies constantly out-compete non-public ones.
1725037075654.gif
 
Executive compensation isn't the first thing to worry about in a fiscal picture, but it makes nice headlines.

Obviously public bureaucracy and administration is more efficient than private bureaucracy and administration; that's why public agencies constantly out-compete non-public ones.
Mandates in delivering public services are radically different from mandates in the private sector.
 
Smiths moves seem to drive a dagger into the rural/urban divide in AB, transferring rural hospitals, on to of this talk of moving ministries out of calgary and Edmonton would put the bureaucracy into the UCP heartland. Alienating urban voters is a sure fire way to lose their remaining seats in calgary, lethbridge and med hat which would mean losing the next election.
 
Mandates in delivering public services are radically different from mandates in the private sector.
Exactly.

Private sector fires people who don’t perform.

Public sector…well, productivity and accountability aren’t tied to job security. Rosanna DiPaolo still got her at-risk pay and performance pay, even though you and your colleagues are still ‘feeling the love’ years later…
1725038268488.gif
 
My quick skim of their financials (the CRA charitables form) doesn't reveal that. Maybe I skimmed too quick but I couldn't find the "39" going to admin. Going to the "5010" line (Total expenditures on management and administration) - amount is blank.

What did catch my attention was the numbers of part-time vs full-time employees (and compensation totals). My immediate supposition was that accounted for the high use of part-timers in continuing care facilities (one of the negatives noted during Covid time), but on looking at Covenant's "report to the community", the light bulb went on and I realized that "Covenant Health" is a distinct and separate 'charitable' entity from "Covenant Care" and "Covenant Living".

As to the efficiency of Covenant's administration costs, it is briefly touched on in this Edmonton Journal article that presents the viewpoint of the Alberta Medical Association president.




and brings up one of the concerns of a 'faith based' entity providing some health services.


and swings round to the fact that whomever operates the facilities, it will still be a single funder.

Statement of Operations (pg 8), further detail in Note 23 (pg 25)

Like I said, healthcare is out of my lane and I only skimmed the numbers with no knowledge of Covenant prior to today. My primary point was that NFP executives making decent coin in line with the size of their operation isn't inherently bad, and if: service is good and in keeping with the mandate AND admin/ cost per dollar ratios are in line you can end up with best of both worlds- an organization more efficiently run than a public bureaucracy without the cost drag of the profit model.

As to some of the points in the article:
re religion-> crossed my mind, but the specifics of the organization are separate from the financial concepts
re duplication -> agree, duplication is not ideal. But that doesn't mean that the issue is with private NFP providers it could just as easily be said that the issue is the provincial bureaucracy reaching too close to the ground. A lot of the time arguments against change are made against how a given incremental change interacts with the status quo, rather than impact of the change if it was implemented in a more widespread, committed fashion.
 
My primary point was that NFP executives making decent coin in line with the size of their operation isn't inherently bad, and if: service is good and in keeping with the mandate AND admin/ cost per dollar ratios are in line you can end up with best of both worlds- an organization more efficiently run than a public bureaucracy without the cost drag of the profit model.
^ This.

NFP doesn’t mean volunteer, it means expenses equaling revenues.
 
Back
Top