The MDG party has submitted a proposal in the Storting to scrap the Health Platform, creating debate, with City Council Leader Kjetil Reinskou from Høyre calling it outrageous. Health Minister Jan Christian Vestre from Arbeiderpartiet is very skeptical of scrapping the system, believing it is impossible to agree to change the journal system now. The future of the Health Platform is being raised in the Storting again, though about a year ago, the Storting said no to investigating whether to scrap it but decided to review the system.
The Health Platform is used by 34 municipalities and all hospitals in Central Norway, but its implementation has been troubled. The bill for the data system in Health Central Norway may exceed 5 billion kroner, though it was supposed to cost 3.7 billion. Hospital employees and general practitioners complain about errors, extra work, and weakened patient safety due to the system. Vestre acknowledges that user-friendliness is challenging, with some procedures being too time-consuming, but says that even though there have been implementation problems, things are improving now. The process started in 2017, and the contract with Epic was signed in 2019. Vestre added that they are now focused on smaller projects with better cost control and systems that can communicate with each other.
It is time to cut out the IT tumor.
Medical professionals have expressed support for scrapping the system. Igor Jokic, a representative for the Overlegeforeningen in Møre and Romsdal, is pleased with MDG's proposal. Jokic described the Health Platform as a difficult work tool that makes the workday more demanding and creates more uncertainty. He also said that despite claims of improving user-friendliness, this is not reflected in the system, and it is important that the finances of health enterprises do not suffer as a result of scrapping.
Recent Storting history shows that about a year ago, the body rejected investigating whether to scrap the Health Platform but decided to review it. Vestre has emphasized a shift in strategy, saying they are now focused on smaller projects with better cost control.
Pulling the plug on this system and thinking it won't have dramatic consequences, that doesn't work.
A Health Authority report has revealed serious patient safety failures at Sørlandet Hospital. The question from Storting representative Mirell Høyer-Berntsen from SV demands answers on whether Vestre has trust in the hospital's leadership, after the authority uncovered several legal violations and serious system failures, leading to deaths and patient injuries at the hospital in Arendal. The hospital was criticized for allowing a surgeon without proper specialization to operate for several years.
Political debate over hospital structure in the Agder region has intensified. Glenn Tønnesen, who leads the health committee in Flekkefjord municipality, said it is not patient safety to have a hospital far away for those living east and west in Agder. The leadership of Vennesla municipality wrote in an op-ed that the hospital cannot continue to sacrifice patients on the altar of geography. The op-ed pointed out that hospitals have large maintenance backlogs, problems getting enough staff, and there have been two scandals in Flekkefjord and Arendal. Tønnesen believes the statement from Vennesla municipality goes against the KrF party line, and the county leader of Agder KrF, Kjerstin Lianes Kjøndal, and Tønnesen wrote a letter stating that KrF stands united on the need for three full-fledged hospitals in Southern Norway. Mayor Nils Olav Larsen said he challenges someone to look at whether the current hospital structure is the most optimal, and he would bow to it if it turns out to be, but based on newspaper articles, it does not seem optimal. The debate comes after the Health Authority recently stated in a report that the leadership at Sørlandet Hospital is operating indefensibly. Tønnesen said he welcomes a debate about hospitals but thinks it comes at the wrong time, though he is convinced there will be three hospitals in Agder in the future. Agder Arbeiderparti decided over the weekend that Sørlandet Hospital should consist of three locations: Flekkefjord, Arendal, and Kristiansand.
It could cost many billions of kroner, which taxpayers must cover. It could take many years. It could create great uncertainty for users, clinicians, those working in hospitals, and patients. And great unrest, which we do not need in Health Norway now.
The government is abandoning the proposal to cut support for laboratory tests for the fully private sector. Several in the consultation responses feared the proposal would affect infection control and create longer queues in the public health service, and dentists were also worried that patients would ultimately get the bill. Calculations showed the state would save about 400 million kroner per year on the proposal that is now being set aside.
Controversy has also emerged over a rehabilitation center at Røros. A Storting decision raised hope that the center would survive, but the health minister says it would be illegal to implement the decision.
We relate to what the Storting decides, but I will strongly warn against this proposal.
This process started in 2017, and the contract with Epic was signed in 2019. It's almost a decade ago. We have changed the digitalization strategy in Health Norway, so there are fewer such large projects now.
But now we have the system we have. This decision was made at least two health ministers ago, and now it is my responsibility to help it work as well as possible.
It is a difficult work tool. It makes the workday more demanding and leads to more uncertainty in the job.
Even though it is said that work is being done to improve user-friendliness, this is not reflected in the system. In a time when we are used to simple solutions, where everything is a few clicks away, it does something to the expectations of a new and modern user system. That is not the Health Platform, and it never will be.
The consultation showed that there is a need to look more holistically at how the public coverage of analyses can be made more efficient and targeted. There were also concerns related to possible consequences for analyses of generally dangerous infectious diseases, cancer, and other serious illnesses, as well as that the proposal could contribute to greater social differences, especially within dental health. The government is therefore not proceeding with the proposal to abolish reimbursement for laboratory analyses for private entities without an agreement now.