Temporary medical staff were a major cost to the DHB in 2018-19, when it racked up almost $10 million hiring short-term workers - in August 2018 it spent $1 million to cover shortages and absences.
The SDHB has battled to meet Ministry of Health budget expectations for several years, and expenditure on locums is one of several areas it has previously identified where potential savings could be made.
The organisation recorded a $85.8 million deficit last year, a result hiked by $41 million in one-off costs.
It has budgeted for a $10.9 million deficit this year, but in November notified the Ministry of Health it was now planning for a $15.7 million deficit.
Figures released to the Otago Daily Times under the Official Information Act showed locum payments were substantially down in the last financial year, from $9.8 million to $6.9 million.
November 2019 ($759,220) and March 2020 ($764,861) were the most expensive months.
Locum costs were down markedly during the Covid-19 Alert Level 4 lockdown period, but the board was able to keep those costs down. In June 2020 it spent $357,966 on locums, having paid $957,578 in June 2019.
Last year members of Parliament’s health select committee quizzed the SDHB on its policy regarding use of locums.
It replied that it had no specific policy, although managers were required to "live within their means" as per their approved budget.
"As a general rule, the DHB prefers to fill vacant positions with regular employees rather than contractors due to the cost benefit of this.
"Where the DHB is unable to fill roles, the DHB will use locums," the SDHB said.
Staffing and pharmaceutical costs have historically been two of the biggest budget areas to be overspent.
A report to a SDHB subcommittee meeting last month said pharmaceutical costs were $170,000 over budget for the month of November, and $190,000 unfavourable for the year to date.
Related Stories
Comments
Therefore, tenured staff are working harder and longer?
It's kindness and hugs
It has alway been easier to just call in locums in SDHB than to address the issues for local staffing and the inequality of what the loyal local staff expected to do or paid versus the costs paid out for locums which exacerbates the situation.Nice to see management taking some action and if they address more some of its own staffconcerns and comparable expectations, compared to that willing agreed to for locums, iSDBH should see the bill reduce yet further and encourage rather than discourage, staff loyalty and staffing.