Oct. 4, 2004.

To the Toronto Star Re: Editorial, Sept. 24.

I thank the Star for supporting improved access to home care. However, your proposal to issue long-term contracts to profit or non-profit corporations deserves reconsideration.

The oft-repeated notion that privatization and competition equal innovation does not bear up under scrutiny.

Competitive bidding has led to so-called innovations in writing winning bids and finding ways to cheapen working conditions for nurses and support workers thereby destroying continuity of care and creating staffing shortages. But we have been able to find no evidence of public benefit in turning over home-care delivery to for-profit corporations.

On the other hand, non-profits often can access volunteer help, free or cheap facilities and other community supports and civic engagement that for-profits cannot.

Moreover, there are several truly innovative models of ethical, public or non-profit home-care delivery services which could improve integration of care and prove superior to a long-term contracting system.

Under competitive bidding, the public funds multiple sets of management, computer systems, case managers, head offices and profit-taking in each of 43 home-care districts. Why are we financing the infrastructure of literally hundreds of offices across the province? All this simply to open up a potential profit-making market.

Greed should not be mistaken for innovation. It is as old as time.

Natalie Mehra,

Provincial Coordinator,

Ontario Health Coalition, Toronto