Choice and the Rotunda

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
5,664
Folk should not be allowed to breach their contracts. That's all I'm saying on the actual controversy.

But the IT editorial argues that women should have the choice and their level of income should not come into it.
Which chapter of Marx did they get that from?
Any good or service will have different levels of quality, perceived or otherwise. The market economy is what creates the equilibrium.
Is the IT recommending random selection, uniquely for maternity services?
 
Last edited:
Folk should not be allowed to breach their contracts. That's all I'm saying on the actual controversy.

But the IT editorial argues that women should have the choice and their level of income should not come into it.
Which chapter of Marx did they get that from.
Any good or service will have different levels of quality, perceived or otherwise. The market economy is what creates the equilibrium.
Is the IT recommending random selection, uniquely for maternity services?

People say all sorts of stupid things when it comes to healthcare. The most utterly moronic of which is "you can't put a price on a human life".
This is a derivative of that mindset.

I have no sympathy for the doctors involved. I do believe in publicly funded healthcare but I'd like to see more of it privately delivered. I also believe in market economics and if people choose to purchase healthcare in addition or as an alternative to that which they are paying for through their taxes then good for them, they are subsidising the public system by doing so.
 
Last edited:
A credible left wing argument is that for something like maternity services there should be no choice - the State should allocate its resources as best as it sees fit.
But to argue for choice and at the same time say your level of income should not be a factor in who gets their choice in a scarce market makes "having your cake and eating it" sound reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t the elephant in the room here the fact that obstetrics consultants cannot get professional insurance because no company will insure them due to the level of compensation awards? So, they do their private work within the public system, leaving the tax payer liable for any claim? Is this correct?

I have no problem with choice. If you go public, you work with the consultant you’re allocated. But, if a woman (or couple) are planning to have more children and wish to deal privately with a consultant of their choosing, they should be allowed to do so.

My issue, if my understanding of the liability situation is correct, is that we taxpayers should not be paying for any damages incurred.

D.
 
Interesting observation from @Dinarius. I wonder what amount of insurance is paid by the Health Board for consultants who treat private patients within a Health Board hospital?
 
Can the state get liability insurance which the consultants cannot? I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that actions taken against consultants operating in the public sphere are paid for out of the public purse.

D.
 
Can the state get liability insurance which the consultants cannot? I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that actions taken against consultants operating in the public sphere are paid for out of the public purse.
Yes, the State indemnifies all Doctors seeing public and private patients in a public hospital. The doctor also uses the staff and facilities provided by the State for public patients to deal with their private patients. Details here

From this link (my Bold):
The CIS covers clinical claims against HSE and voluntary hospitals/State authorities, including claims against the following categories of staff:-

• Non-consultant hospital doctors (to include public health doctors), nurses and other clinical staff employed by hospitals/enterprises and State authorities, whether permanent, locum or temporary.

• Hospital consultants are covered with effect from 1st February 2004 in respect of clinical negligence incidents occurring on or after that date. Cover applies in respect of his/her public practice in a public hospital, his/her private practice in a public hospital or at another facility used by the hospital to provide services to private patients of the hospital, subject always to the terms of his/her contract.

• The CIS also extends to indemnify consultants in respect of claims arising from the treatment of private patients in private hospitals/enterprises in circumstances where the individual indemnity cap limits, per speciality, have been exceeded.
 
I wonder how much this is worth to each Consultant?
A Plumber need Public Liability insurance. A doctor needs insurance in case they screw up.

If the plumber was working for the HSE the HSE would indemnify them for the work they do as a HSE plumber. It wouldn't insure them for their nixers. Why is the State covering the cost of indemnifying doctors to do what would be regarded as nixers if they were working as plumbers?
 
1. Given the level of claims awards, imagine what an annual premium would be for a consultant?
2. Now, imagine this same consultant trying to get insurance after a successful claim was made against them? (Or, what it would cost if an insurance company was willing to take them on again.)

It seems to me that unless claims are reduced such that consultants can access professional indemnity insurance, there is no solution to this problem other than carrying on as we are.

D.
 
Last edited:
1. Given the level of claims awards, imagine what an annual premium would be for a consultant?
2. Now, imagine this same consultant trying to get insurance after a successful claim was made against them? (Or, what it would cost if an insurance company was willing to take them on again.)

It seems to me that unless claims are reduced such that consultants can access professional indemnity insurance, there is no solution to this problem other than carrying on as we are.

D.
How about the State insures doctors when they are working for the State and they insure themselves when they are working for themselves?
 
That’s the point: they can’t insure themselves because no insurance company will underwrite obstetrics, since the awards routinely run into millions.

D.
 
That’s the point: they can’t insure themselves because no insurance company will underwrite obstetrics, since the awards routinely run into millions.

D.
But the current scheme covers all hospital doctors.
 
But, is it an insurance scheme or is it the state dipping into the public purse when a successful case is brought against it? Surely the latter?

If a Garda car hits you, the state compensates you from exchequer funds, not a motor insurance company.

If I’m right, then the status quo is a no-brainer for consultants. They are having their cake and eating it.

D.
 
From the punter's point of view, if they must pay (with insurance) for the full private health service then they are getting no value at all for that element of their taxes that is going to fund public health.
It is a bit like the argument over whether fee paying schools should have their teacher salaries paid by the State.
 
But, is it an insurance scheme or is it the state dipping into the public purse when a successful case is brought against it? Surely the latter?

If a Garda car hits you, the state compensates you from exchequer funds, not a motor insurance company.

If I’m right, then the status quo is a no-brainer for consultants. They are having their cake and eating it.

D.
Yes, the State pays out of exchequer funds. Using your analogy it is as if the Garda, working as a security guard or private detective in his personal capacity, crashed his private car and the State picks up the tab.
 
It is a bit like the argument over whether fee paying schools should have their teacher salaries paid by the State.
Not at all. Much like Private health insurance subsidises the public system so private schools subsidise the public education system. If the schools were public the kids would get the same education but it would cost the State significantly more.
 
Not at all.
My dear Purple, I think you have taken me up wrong, but maybe not. I fully support the State paying the teachers' salaries of fee paying schools.
One argument is that if they were made to pay all the costs of their child's education out of after tax income, they would be getting no value at all for that element of their income tax that is allocated to public education.

On topic, FOT has a very well argued piece in today's IT, very leftie of course and he refrained from his "posh push" faux pas of last week.
 
Last edited:
On topic, FOT has a very well argued piece in today's IT, very leftie of course and he refrained from his "posh push" faux pas of last week.
Yes, this is fuelled exclusively by the greed of the Consultants. That is the only issue at hand.
A Consultant working fulltime will get paid around €350k to €500k a year. They can make a significantly more with additional private work.

If they want to work in addition to their contracted public hours I have no problem with that (as long as they fulfil their overtime and on-call duties) but the people of Ireland should not be footing the bill to indemnify that work. The people of Ireland should also not be providing the staff and facilities they require for that private work (and yes, they are doing so at the moment for all Consultants who work in both the public and private system).
 
Folk should not be allowed to breach their contracts. That's all I'm saying on the actual controversy.
Nobody breached any contract. You'll note the Minister quickly switched from claiming the doctors had breached their contracts to making vague threats about Service Level Agreements.

A Consultant working fulltime will get paid around €350k to €500k a year.
The consultant salaries are published online. No consultant working fulltime on a public contract will get "€350,000 to 500,000" a year.

The POCC ranges from around €230k-285k per year. An additional €10k is paid to account for the fact we can be asked to do on call. We then have a bursary of approximately €36,000 per year for call-ins. In return we are only allowed to officially do 37 hours a week.
Clause 24.10 says that if our employer agrees, once we have fulfilled our 37 hours we can then pursue "external work" (external explicitly refers to work external to the contract, not the site).
Please note the Government proposed and signed this contract. It reflects the EU directive which says an employer may not unreasonably restrict an employee from pursuing additional avenues of working outside their contract. If you have a problem with the terms of the contract then complain to the Department of Health who proposed, negotiated and signed this contract.

Contrast this to the "old contract", where consultants were paid between €180,000 and €230,000 but are allowed to pursue 20% private work either on or off site. There was an interim "O'Reilly" contract which paid between €120,000 to €170,000 approx but this was widely held to be a recession contract, not reflective of global market demand for consultants.

The State indemnity scheme is given to a hospital. Any woman, whether public or private, will encounter many healthcare professionals who need indemnity. A midwife. A clerk. A HCA. A non consultant doctor. The consultant. A woman who has a negative outcome, whether public or private, is entitled to make a claim against the hospital responsible for their care.

For clarity, all women in the Irish healthcare system get a set standard of maternity care. It may look like this:
Booking visit (free, public, 12 weeks), Anomaly scan (free, public, 20 weeks), Antenatal clinic visit (free, public, variable timing), delivery (free, public, variable timing)

A woman may wish to get additional scans for reassurance. These are not clinically necessary. For this she would pay a consultant an antenatal fee (€3000-10,000). In return she would get a private clinic visit every 4 weeks (12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36), a discussion how she might like to deliver (with the recent advent of maternal choice of caesarian section this is less important), and a commitment that the same consultant would attend her delivery.

The consultant attendance at delivery is paid for by the Private Medical Insurers (PMI) - around €500.
The maternity hospitals will not allow you private inpatient care if you are not booked with a consultant privately. That consists of a standard 3 night stay in a private room (not guaranteed), and slightly increased care provision (but realistically not clinically significant).

The fees that consultants charge privately are for the antenatal care visits. Once you make it to delivery the contract is fulfilled. To suggest the consultant is responsible for anything and everything that could potentially happen is silly, and you all would not tolerate a similar suggestion in your own careers

Mount Carmel failed because it couldn't compete with the maternity hospitals. Because the skillset remained there, carrying out public and private work, the calibre of healthcare staff at MC was poor, and outcomes were as such. Plus, it went bust when the country went bust.
It is entirely possible that a current private hospital could establish a private maternity wing - and now that the vacuum has been created, perhaps they will go ahead and do it.
 
Nobody breached any contract.
Correct me if I misheard,
But did the Master of the Rotunda on Six One news not say that there was a single consultant on a public contract providing private services to about 9 patients a year and that this has now stopped and they had initially wanted a meeting with the minister to explain why they let this happen
 
Back
Top