Taxpayer indemnifying private medical consultants

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
97
But this is separate from the need for private practitioners to indemnify themselves as the OP has said.
I'm not sure it is separate.

I'd agree that the solution to dysfunctional court awards is not for the taxpayer to cover the private work of consultants, although that's the solution that has been chosen.

But to see the issue in isolation is to not see the full issue.

And the full issue seems to be what supports the State can extend to people with disabilities, regardless of whether any person or institution can be expected to take responsibility for "causing" the disability.
 


Noble Guardian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
828
Twitter
@NobleGuardianIE
I'm not sure it is separate.

I'd agree that the solution to dysfunctional court awards is not for the taxpayer to cover the private work of consultants, although that's the solution that has been chosen.

But to see the issue in isolation is to not see the full issue.

And the full issue seems to be what supports the State can extend to people with disabilities, regardless of whether any person or institution can be expected to take responsibility for "causing" the disability.
I agree that the costs of settlements/awards is a significant problem, as well as the necessity of proving negligence in order to secure such redress, but this is a separate issue from the indemnification of private providers.

An analogy might be in transport; should the state cover the insurance premiums for private taxi drivers as well as for state transport companies? I would say not, even though private hire drivers are providing a similar service as the state providers.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
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.
Why do you think I would be bothered by a lack of a Private practice Obstetrician. So rich people who need Obstetricians can't skip the queue and have to use the Public system like the rest of use ...boo bloody hoo ...Oh hang on , No Fantastic!!! Means the Government might actually ensure services are good when they have to use them themselves :rolleyes:
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
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.
There are all sorts of reason for oxygen deprivation to the brain some may be due to negligence/ incompetence some may not be. I feel duty bound to respond to your point by stating the medic/HSE will deny negligence in all cases. Its pointless either of us making sweeping statements either way however.

There also seems to be a bit of ignorance here around the determination of the size of awards. Both the victim and the HSE/SCA will engage medical experts to cost the award and will usually come to an agreement. Some poster here seem to think Judges are just pulling figures out of thin air when in reality they are mostly merely rubber stamping an already agreed figure between victim and SCA/HSE. Negligence will be fought over costs are generally predetermined by " meddical experts" on both sides.

As you state this isnt relevant to this thread but given the false information being provided it is important it is challenged.

Hopefully now we can return to the topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,742
Why do you think I would be bothered by a lack of a Private practice Obstetrician. So rich people who need Obstetricians can't skip the queue and have to use the Public system like the rest of use ...boo bloody hoo ...Oh hang on , No Fantastic!!! Means the Government might actually ensure services are good when they have to use them themselves :rolleyes:
I never said you would be bothered. I presume it wouldn't affect you. fwiw, it wouldn't affect me either.

You have to ask why the government is doing this. Doubtless some will fall back on the usual tedious accusations of corruption or old school tie, back-slapping etc. I don't know the full background, but it seems likely that there is a recognition that successive governments have allowed this legal compensation monster to grow to the extent that the insurance premium for a consultant in private practice is now €335,000 in some fields.

Pulling the rug from under private consultants doesn't seem like the best way to create a fairer single tier health system imo, not without dealing with the claims problem first.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
Why do you think I would be bothered by a lack of a Private practice Obstetrician. So rich people who need Obstetricians can't skip the queue and have to use the Public system like the rest of use ...boo bloody hoo ...Oh hang on , No Fantastic!!! Means the Government might actually ensure services are good when they have to use them themselves :rolleyes:
Good point. I'd go further though. We have a situation in the public sector where high court judges have flagged the hiring of inadequately vetted medics by the HSE on a number of occassions with dangerous consequences. In essence the public patient is left dealing with junior and inadequately veted medics whilst the consultant looks after his private patients.

Its unacceptable and needs to end.
 

Noble Guardian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
828
Twitter
@NobleGuardianIE
Some poster here seem to think Judges are just pulling figures out of thin air when in reality they are mostly merely rubber stamping an already agreed figure between victim and SCA/HSE.
In the Morrissey Judgement (available on courts.ie) justice Cross gave a detailed breakdown of all the costs awarded so it's easy to see where the 2.1M came from. I can't remember whether that figure included costs or not.

The issue of whether private providers should be covered by the state seems quite straightforward to me (no, unless doing state-contracted work).
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
I never said you would be bothered. I presume it wouldn't affect you. fwiw, it wouldn't affect me either.

You have to ask why the government is doing this. Doubtless some will fall back on the usual tedious accusations of corruption or old school tie, back-slapping etc. I don't know the full background, but it seems likely that there is a recognition that successive governments have allowed this legal compensation monster to grow to the extent that the insurance premium for a consultant in private practice is now €335,000 in some fields.

Pulling the rug from under private consultants doesn't seem like the best way to create a fairer single tier health system imo, not without dealing with the claims problem first.
I love that Irish notion that youre never effected by these things ...Ermmm if its my tax money being wasted then Im definitely being affected.

Payouts may be a problem , but to suggest that the Irish medical profession isn't a most cosseted , protected and voraciously greedy profession, eternally ready to screw the Irish taxpayer is ridiculous.

Can you name any other country or profession , where , while being paid by the public purse to engage in public health provision you are free to go and work privately for your own reward.

Seriously , can you provide a single exampole of it anywhere in any supposed civilised country

Or where the most expensive childrens hospital , funded by the taxpayer , and the first thing the child will be asked is ...public or private ..Private ...oh through here ..Public ..oh you'll have to wait 2 years ...in a publicly funded hospital ..FFS!!!:rolleyes:

Want a private practice pay you're own costs (.and applies AFAIK in every other jurisdiction) ...same goes for your education too ...simples ....... and do you know what , if it means a shortage of consultants , then I think its a price worth paying to finally take on the greedy corpulent consultants
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
In the Morrissey Judgement (available on courts.ie) justice Cross gave a detailed breakdown of all the costs awarded so it's easy to see where the 2.1M came from. I can't remember whether that figure included costs or not.

The issue of whether private providers should be covered by the state seems quite straightforward to me (no, unless doing state-contracted work).
Generally they wouldnt. There is some transparency around costs paid to the victim. Conversely the costs incurred on legal fees and " medical expert" reports are a black hole.

Yes its pretty simple to me, the taxpayer should fund insurance for public patients. Consultants should fund their own for private.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
Good point. I'd go further though. We have a situation in the public sector where high court judges have flagged the hiring of inadequately vetted medics by the HSE on a number of occassions with dangerous consequences. In essence the public patient is left dealing with junior and inadequately veted medics whilst the consultant looks after his private patients.

Its unacceptable and needs to end.
There is a thread that runs through every Irish scandal , every single tax payer rip off , every case where lack of accountability is blatant and the corrupt walk away not just with reputations intact but usually with a bloody big chunk of taxpayers money

Thats the Irish legal profession , the black beating heart at the centre of everything

The only club in Ireland even more obnoxious than the consultants
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
I love that Irish notion that youre never effected by these things ...Ermmm if its my tax money being wasted then Im definitely being affected.

Payouts may be a problem , but to suggest that the Irish medical profession isn't a most cosseted , protected and voraciously greedy profession, eternally ready to screw the Irish taxpayer is ridiculous.

Can you name any other country or profession , where , while being paid by the public purse to engage in public health provision you are free to go and work privately for your own reward.

Seriously , can you provide a single exampole of it anywhere in any supposed civilised country

Or where the most expensive childrens hospital , funded by the taxpayer , and the first thing the child will be asked is ...public or private ..Private ...oh through here ..Public ..oh you'll have to wait 2 years ...in a publicly funded hospital ..FFS!!!:rolleyes:

Want a private practice pay you're own costs (.and applies AFAIK in every other jurisdiction) ...same goes for your education too ...simples ....... and do you know what , if it means a shortage of consultants , then I think its a price worth paying to finally take on the greedy corpulent consultants

What i find bizarre is that vast sums are being paid to the legal profession and medical experts for the admin around these awards. While justifiably the legal profession are now been ctiticised there is zero analysis or critical commentary about the medical profession coining it !!
 

Lagertha

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
4,460
The taxpayer invests a lot of money and resources in every doctor and nurse trained in Ireland, there should be a mandatory period of time that all doctors and nurses trained here have to work in the Irish public health system. I would prefer if it were at least 3 years. As is stands people qualify then emigrate for higher wages. We import lesser qualified staff from abroad, usually from Africa, India and Pakistan, those people gain better skills here working for less than Irish medics and then they emigrate for higher wages, on and on it goes.

Ironically, the wealthier people in Africa, India, Pakistan and the Middle East will be treated by white doctors and nurses because we export our well educated staff and import the ones who wouldn't be employed there.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
I never said you would be bothered. I presume it wouldn't affect you. fwiw, it wouldn't affect me either.

You have to ask why the government is doing this. Doubtless some will fall back on the usual tedious accusations of corruption or old school tie, back-slapping etc. I don't know the full background, but it seems likely that there is a recognition that successive governments have allowed this legal compensation monster to grow to the extent that the insurance premium for a consultant in private practice is now €335,000 in some fields.

Pulling the rug from under private consultants doesn't seem like the best way to create a fairer single tier health system imo, not without dealing with the claims problem first.
Unfortunately for that argument to ring through you would need to ignore the reality that negligence awards are a relatively recent development whilst the indemnifying of private consultants goes back decades.

So sorry claiming that high negligence awards justify indemnifying private work just doesnt stack up.
 

Massey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
808
Unfortunately for that argument to ring through you would need to ignore the reality that negligence awards are a relatively recent development whilst the indemnifying of private consultants goes back decades.

So sorry claiming that high negligence awards justify indemnifying private work just doesnt stack up.
Where did you get that?
 

Barroso

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
4,018
I never said you would be bothered. I presume it wouldn't affect you. fwiw, it wouldn't affect me either.

You have to ask why the government is doing this. Doubtless some will fall back on the usual tedious accusations of corruption or old school tie, back-slapping etc. I don't know the full background, but it seems likely that there is a recognition that successive governments have allowed this legal compensation monster to grow to the extent that the insurance premium for a consultant in private practice is now €335,000 in some fields.
Per annum? which fields?

Pulling the rug from under private consultants doesn't seem like the best way to create a fairer single tier health system imo, not without dealing with the claims problem first.
If you can't afford to pay the overheads in the private business you are in - then you shouldn't be in that business. There is no onus on the rest of us to subsidise your private lifestyle.
Get a job in the public service, they are apparently crying out for staff - and they pay enormous salaries the like of which the rest of us can only look at in openmouthed wonder.
 

Wasmanormouse

Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
41
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?

One day, a private patient, scheduled for a procedure in a public hospital by a private consultant, will say; No. I’m not jumping any queue even though it may make you richer. Schedule me in a private hospital, for which I have cover.

It is up to the privately insured to see to it that they are getting what they pay for.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
Where did you get that?
Go back to the 60's , good luck questioning a doctor back then. Good luck getting medical records. People didnt question authority back then the priest and the doctor ruled, particilarly for the poor.
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
Why do you want to force more consultant to leave?
I dont. They are free to work in the public sector. If the wish to work in the private sector they should fund it themselves like every other business.

Why do you want the taxpayer to subsidise a private business?

Are there other private businesses you feel the taxpayer should subsidise?
 

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,210
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.
I've no problem with you providing detailed comparisons with international awards. And I would welcome a light being shone on the profiteering of both the legal and medical professions and insurance companies from medical negligence cases were you ever prepared to highlight it. Indeed it is something i continuously raise here.

However you've just thrown out a figure and made a sweeping statement without any providing any backround information in regard to the specific injuries in that case. Of itself it is proof of nothing.

If you have a problem with the size of an award in a particular case you should start a thread on that and provide detailed analysis of your reason for feeling it is excessive. If you have a problem with the overall size of awards again start a thread and provide international comparidons.

That is not the subject of this thread however despite your attempts to derail it. Once again is it appropriate for the taxpayer to indemnify a private business ?

Thank you.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top