With the first anniversary of the March general election only a month away, one might say that the Labour government should now refrain from couching its statements and plans for action in the context of the situation it inherited from its Nationalist predecessor.
After such a long period during which the previous government held sway on all aspects of social, political and economic life, that is easier said than done.
There were too many things carried forward, not least the number of people living in poverty, or at the risk of it, and the situation in the State hospitals that are palpably unable to meet the demands placed on them.
In addition, revelations are brought to light that necessitate continuing reference to and analysis of the Nationalist past.
The latest in the health sector is the report commissioned by the government from Johns Hopkins University, which cost €1.3 million.
It was completed in June 2012 and was full of bombshells calling out for urgent action. That notwithstanding, it was left to gather dust in some drawer.
The reason for the negligent inaction was obvious. June 2012 saw the next general election on the near horizon.
Though action was desperately required, the Nationalist government did not want to bring the Johns Hopkins report to bear and thereby risk stirring up a hornet’s nest.
That was left to the Labour government to do.
It commissioned former Nationalist minister and EU commissioner John Dalli to review and report on the health sector.
He did so, in his usual blunt style. Instead of the stakeholders rallying round to see what could be done, bearing in mind that patients from among the people were the primary consideration, a terrific hue and cry was triggered.
Rather than focus on those parts of the Dalli observations that were suitable for treatment in terms of systems, critics of Dalli and the government threatened to bring the house down in an obvious effort to stymie the report.
Will they do the same now that The Sunday Times of Malta yesterday revealed the main content of the Johns Hopkins report?
Johns Hopkins came. They saw. They were appalled. They commented
That shouldn’t be allowed to happen. This report should be made available to the media and the public in full.
They in turn should dissect it in two parts. The thorny part which deals with union power and conditions of work should be left for further study by interested parties, though a timeframe should be established.
The sections that deal with operational systems ranging from management to procurement and covering a host of topics in the process should be analysed in the context of an early drawing up of plans for immediate action.
There will be difficulties. One difficulty will be experienced by the government itself.
Both Johns Hopkins and John Dalli referred to political interference in the running of the health system.
Given that the government is politically accountable for the services provided by the system, it is inevitable that any government will want to follow closely what needs to be decided.
Yet involvement should not equate to interference. Arms length systems can and should be drawn up, which give much more space to the professionals and stakeholders in the system.
Other than in the final analysis, control should be left to management, internal auditors and to regulators. It will be a complex set-up, but it can be worked out.
Regarding the Dalli report, it was alleged that he had some axe to grind. That cannot be said of Johns Hopkins.
They came. They saw. They were appalled. They commented. Their comments must now be judiciously acted upon as far as possible.
Moving forward, that should be done without government and Opposition continuously throwing brickbats at each other.
What counts is not political gain, but achievement.
Malta has a fine, broad, medical profession. Its physical resources need strengthening. Its systems require overhauling.
Given the vast amount of financial and human resources deployed in the health system, progress can be made.
It should take place without any delay.