KEY POINTS:
The three Auckland health boards involved in the dumping of longstanding laboratory service provider Diagnostic Medlab have accused it of trying to frustrate a smooth handover to new provider Labtests Auckland.
The latest round of accusation-hurling in the increasingly bitter dispute comes as the judicial review into the
decision, set to be heard in the High Court in Auckland on November 20, is postponed until February 12.
The Regional Health Boards of Auckland, which represent Waitemata, Counties-Manukau and Auckland health boards, claim the delay was a result of Diagnostic amending its statement of claim - but the laboratory service provider says the DHBs asked for the delay, "presumably to get their own case in order".
The health boards claim Diagnostic's lack of co-operation not only puts its own staff at risk, but raises serious doubts about the company's ability to deliver on its contract, which runs until June 30.
Garry Smith, spokesman for the health boards, said Diagnostic continued to resist working with the boards on planning for the transition to Labtests, whose contract takes effect from July 1. The boards have written to Diagnostic seeking urgent discussions to mitigate this risk.
"No matter what the outcome of the court case, the sensible and ethical thing for Diagnostic to do would be to participate in the ongoing transition planning process to ensure that their own staff can be given certainty of future employment and the public of Auckland are not adversely affected by either legal action or Diagnostic's commercial strategies."
Mr Smith says the health boards are confident in the decision process which was signed off by Audit New Zealand. The health boards say the eight-year, $560 million-plus contract with Labtests will save them more than $15 million a year.
But Diagnostic chief executive Dr Arthur Morris is appalled at the suggestion his company has an ethical responsibility to help implement "a bad decision". Many health professionals and their organisations have supported Diagnostic.
"I invite Mr Smith to release our statement of claim and our supporting affidavits so that Auckland's health professionals and the Auckland public can make up their own minds about the DHBs' decision."
Dr Morris said Diagnostic intended to meet its contractual obligations until June 30. "It is premature for Mr Smith to claim we're being unco-operative."
The real issue, he said, was that Diagnostic staffers had said they would not work for the new provider.
"It's disingenuous for Mr Smith to claim that Diagnostic's action has resulted in the court proceedings. The truth is that the DHBs have asked for the delay, presumably to get their own case in order.
"It is possible that the DHBs have sought the delay because they are not ready for public scrutiny."
