• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Taxpayer indemnifying private medical consultants

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,121
So fresh from the revelation that the taxpayer will be building private rooms in the new hospital for consultants comes the revelation that the taxpayer is indemnifying private medical consultants.

Following the recent tragic case at Holles Street it appears the scan was carried out by a private business Merrion Fetal Clinic. This private business contains the usual celebrity consultants.

At a time when other businesses are struggling to stay afloat due to high insurance cost our consultants appear to have overcome this problem by having the taxpayer indemnify them.

Is it appropriate for the taxpayer to be bearing the risk while these medical consultants reap all the rewards?

 


Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,664
The problem is the astronomical compensation awards meaning they can no longer get insurance. If the state didnt step in there would be no health system.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,121
The problem is the astronomical compensation awards meaning they can no longer get insurance. If the state didnt step in there would be no health system.
You mean no PRIVATE health system?

Why are consultants special, other businesses are struggling, i dont see the taxpayer subsidising them?

These are services that are being provided at least to a certain extent publicly already. Why is the taxpayer therefore hugely subsidising private business?

You lads earn a fortune and if you f*ck up mug taxpayer will foot the bill!
Its socialism for the rich essentially.
 
Last edited:

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,379
The problem is the astronomical compensation awards meaning they can no longer get insurance. If the state didnt step in there would be no health system.
Oh Dear , way to utterly misrepresent the OP.
I and I suspect ,many others have no problem indemnifying consultants when engaged in public work ....but we shouldn't be covering the premiums of private businesses and if excessive premiums close down private places, like the one in the OP ....win win as far as Im concerned
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,664
You mean no PRIVATE health system?

Why are consultants special, other businesses are struggling, i dont see the taxpayer subsidising them?

These are services that are being provided at least to a certain extent publicly already. Why is the taxpayer therefore hugely subsidising private business?

You lads earn a fortune and if you f*ck up mug taxpayer will foot the bill!
Its socialism for the rich essentially.
The link in your OP is behind a paywall, but fair enough, I agree the state shouldn't cover them for private work. Though the tentacles of the public and private health system are so interwoven, it's not that easy to separate.

The problem is the compensation awards fundamentally still.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,998
Yes consultants are well paid but not compared to say Dubai. We are losing 500 doctors per annum to emigration. 20% of consultants posts are vacant. Unless you want to force them to remain in Ireland, market forces dictates we are going to have to substantially increase their pay.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,121
Yes consultants are well paid but not compared to say Dubai. We are losing 500 doctors per annum to emigration. 20% of consultants posts are vacant. Unless you want to force them to remain in Ireland, market forces dictates we are going to have to substantially increase their pay.
Whats that got to do with my OP?

The taxpayer is indemnifying a private business.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,121
The link in your OP is behind a paywall, but fair enough, I agree the state shouldn't cover them for private work. Though the tentacles of the public and private health system are so interwoven, it's not that easy to separate.

The problem is the compensation awards fundamentally still.
Not for the consultants its not! The taxpayer covers the cost and the consultants take the profits.

Very easy to seperate. Set up your private practice if you want. If you do you pay the insurance, provide the building and equipment out of your own pocket. Just like any other business.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,998
Whats that got to do with my OP?

The taxpayer is indemnifying a private business.
Thats true and it does need to stop. But until private hospital capacity is available, private patients will continue to occupy beds in public hospitals.

You will never eliminate the private sector from healthcare. Keeping public patients in public hospitals, and keeping private patients in private hospitals is a better approach.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,664
Not for the consultants its not! The taxpayer covers the cost and the consultants take the profits.

Very easy to seperate. Set up your private practice if you want. If you do you pay the insurance, provide the building and equipment out of your own pocket. Just like any other business.
The issue is that private practice will immediately cease. If that's what people want, then fine. But, go into it with eyes open.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,379
The issue is that private practice will immediately cease. If that's what people want, then fine. But, go into it with eyes open.
No it wont

Private healthcare is widely available (and widely used ) in the UK despite the free NHS
However if you are a private patient you stay in a private hospital ..not a publicly paid for one

And quite right too
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,664
No it wont

Private healthcare is widely available (and widely used ) in the UK despite the free NHS
However if you are a private patient you stay in a private hospital ..not a publicly paid for one

And quite right too
Published 4 years ago. I doubt the situation has improved since then


... the cost of clinical indemnity has doubled in recent years for many specialties, and jumped by an average of 40% last year alone.

The impact of this is that indemnity charges are now at unaffordable levels for some consultants in private practice. An example of this is the fact that there are now no full-time private practice obstetricians in this country as their clinical indemnity would be more than €335,000.
I posted about a report in the IT on Saturday where a child with autism got 7.8 million last week, even though autism is widely understood to be mostly genetic in origin. That kind of award doesn't happen in other countries afaik.
 

Noble Guardian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
814
Twitter
@NobleGuardianIE
If patients are being referred to private clinics for appropriate investigations as a result of capacity not being available in the public system, then it might be appropriate for the state to offer the same protection it does for staff within their walls (subject to QA safeguards, etc.).

however, if these are tests not routinely performed in the public system and patients themselves choose to use, then it's reasonable tor those providers to indemnify themselves.

I'm indemnified for the work i do for my employer; if I choose to moonlight, i should be responsible for my own indemnification.
 

Noble Guardian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
814
Twitter
@NobleGuardianIE
In the current case, I'm not sure it would be in the State's best interests to allow the bankruptcy of the consultants involved, given that the same consultants provide the public service in Holles Street. Probably better to suck this one up and do better next time in ensuring everyone understands who is indemnified and for what.

 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,121
Published 4 years ago. I doubt the situation has improved since then



I posted about a report in the IT on Saturday where a child with autism got 7.8 million last week, even though autism is widely understood to be mostly genetic in origin. That kind of award doesn't happen in other countries afaik.
If you have an issue with a particular case start a seperate thread. Your post has nothing to do with this thread. Its also a bit despicable to question a court finding without providing any information

High insurance costs are a concern to all private businesses that doesnt mean the taxpayer should pay them.
 
Last edited:

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,121
In the current case, I'm not sure it would be in the State's best interests to allow the bankruptcy of the consultants involved, given that the same consultants provide the public service in Holles Street. Probably better to suck this one up and do better next time in ensuring everyone understands who is indemnified and for what.

Better to get private consultants to fund their own business like the rest of us.
 

Noble Guardian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
814
Twitter
@NobleGuardianIE

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,664
If you have an issue with a particular case start a seperate thread. Your post has nothing to do with this thread. Its also a bit despicable to question a court finding without providing any information
Ah yes, I remember now. You got similarly shirty the last time I shined a light on the enormous compo awards in this country from medical "negligence" .

And my post is directly relevant to this thread, whether you like it or not.
 

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
36
I posted about a report in the IT on Saturday where a child with autism got 7.8 million last week, even though autism is widely understood to be mostly genetic in origin. That kind of award doesn't happen in other countries afaik.
And I'd connect that to this

Cerebral palsy

"This is a major issue. Obstetrics accounts for over 60% of the medical litigation payouts in Ireland. This is largely related to the fact that cerebral palsy is within our sphere. It is a catastrophic outcome for the child and for the family, and what we find is that the aetiology of the condition is very unclear. It is certainly not all related to labour. Some people estimate that only 10% of cases are related to labour and underlying this there can be genetic causes, prematurity, metabolic disorders etc, and the problem here is that it is very difficult for parents to access care from the word go."

"So they either don't have a legal case, or they have a case that can take many years to go through the High Court, and I think we should be aiming to care for 'every child, every time'. She points out that parents often have no choice but to litigate in order to get the necessary services and income; often they have to give up their jobs to look after their child.
I'm not sure it is necessary to litigate to draw down supports, but I suspect having a heavily handicapped child is a huge commitment for parents.

And I'd assume if the cause of the handicap is something like Downs Syndrome, there's no prospect of a court award, yet the parents still have to make that commitment.

It strikes me as unreasonable to have resources allocated via court decision (or to avoid a court decision, as in the case of the award you mention). Giving large cash awards to people, just because there's enough ambiguity in their claim for it not to be dismissed, is not a good way for us to handle our affairs.

I think the challenge is finding a way of getting "us" to form an effective and cohesive constituency.
 

Noble Guardian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
814
Twitter
@NobleGuardianIE
Cerebral palsy is relates to cerebral hypoxia *not enough oxygen getting to the brain). There's a brain scan based on MRI (a diffusion scan) which can determine whether hypoxic changes are recent (within about 10 days) or not, and so such a scan could help determine whether CP-like symptoms were related to a hypoxic event which was coincidental with labour or not.
Parents can refuse such a scan. I would be interested to know how many are advised to do so by their legal council for fear of potentially damaging any later court action. One could come up with a myriad of spurious reasons "haven't you people done enough damage already... I'm worried about the effect of radiofrequency emissions...).
Which or whether, it would certainly clarify the incidence of delivery-associated CP as opposed to other potentially "non-negligent" causes.

But this is separate from the need for private practitioners to indemnify themselves as the OP has said.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top