Because it’s important, I’m going to make one last attempt to just clarify the answer to his previous question. The reason why I say there is no black and white rule about the limitations on how we can spend doctors’ money or other money or the budget for physicians, what I meant by that is over the last two or three years FMB has directed when we are, for example, approving extra budget for, say, out-of-territory residential treatment or something, FMB has directed very clearly that that money is allocated for that item and it cannot be spent for anything else. Obviously, there is a lot of merit for having that sort of discipline. At the same time, there are some local situations and unique situations in each authority and if we feel that we can improve the system by changing the way the money is being spent, then we can go back to FMB with a business case. That’s the way it is and that’s the way the department responds.
The second thing about the Member suggesting that we should move the physician money into the department so that we can manage it better, I’m not sure about that. We do know that physician costs are one of the largest ticket items in Health and
Social Services budget. I’m not sure if where it’s located makes that much difference on how we manage that as much as what we are doing to manage that. I think the largest portion of that money is at Stanton. Each authority has a physicians’ budget. As the DM has spoken of many times and I have, what we are doing is part of the Foundation for Change and managing our health care system, is that we manage physician resources as NWT resources regardless of where it’s located, and we want to maximize the work that they do, we want to maximize the efficiency. We want to make sure that the doctors are working together and cooperating so that we lessen the possibility for inefficiency, and that’s why we have medical directors working together. It goes on and on. I don’t think where the budget item is allocated makes that much difference on how we manage them.