Yes, within the terms of their contract with their employer (who, as in the case of every voluntary hospital, was the Rotunda, not the HSE).
Yes, within the terms of their contract with their employer (who, as in the case of every voluntary hospital, was the Rotunda, not the HSE).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
The doctor and insurer is charged for this so it is an income stream for the hospitalThe doctor also uses the staff and facilities provided by the State for public patients to deal with their private patients.
That's not what happened when my family member was doing it.The doctor and insurer is charged for this so it is an income stream for the hospital
A thought provoking post @Seaniemed. The IT seem to be giving a very one sided almost ideological coverage of this.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.
The issue isn't Consultants working in addition to their contracted hours, and I hope that they are actually fulfilling their contracted hours. The issue is the State indemnifying Consultants on public contracts for their private work.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.
Apologies yes I worded this badly - what I meant is that the top consultants were carrying out their private work in the maternity hospitals mostly, rather than working in Mount Carmel. The calibre of staff therefore (not just obstetric consultants) wasn't as good.But in passing the above cope reads a bit contradictory to me - what point are you making?
If a solicitor is working for a private practice firm they are indemnified by their employers Professional Indemnity Insurance. If they have a side practice their employers insurance doesn't cover them.
That in itself suggests to me that it's a bad model. The consultant can charge patients for private work if they carry the insurance but would have to provide it anyway if the expectant mother was seeing them as a public patient. Given that patient confidentiality and clinical decision making can act to muddy the financial waters when it comes to audits etc it seems rather loose (I used to be married to a doctor).Indeed. However the CIS was set up to cover all work in public hospitals - they may have decided this was easier than unpicking the "who did what and when" given the fluidity of care responsibilities that may have occurred.
I want the State to foot the bill for public work but not foot the fill for private work.So, now that the dust has settled, consultants still do private work in public hospitals across the country - do you still wish for the CIS to amend its coverage?
Them's the cost of doing business.Bearing in mind obstetric consultants pay much higher private indemnity than I do, for example.
Given that the average full time GP earns significantly more than that I'd be very surprised if there were many hospital consultants only earning 280k.Idealogically I agree with Slaintecare, I'm just defending the legalities of what went on. Private maternity care seemed to be fine with everyone the day before this scandal broke, and it'll go back to being fine the day after it passes. To complain about "inflated" salaries when the real increase just about kept up with inflation (220k in 2012 is worth 280k now) is a bit unreasonable.
The Minimum Benefit Regulations cover many procedures. There's certainly a case to be made for removing maternity cover from the list.Finally, I might remind you all that maternity cover is a statutory obligation in all insurance policies. Will we see options offered without maternity cover now that private care is being removed?
The only losers will be the Consultants who currently get their private business subsidised by the people of Ireland.The only winners here are the PMIs.
You're suggesting the average full time GP earns significantly more than €280k?? Where did you pull that figure from?Given that the average full time GP earns significantly more than that I'd be very surprised if there were many hospital consultants only earning 280k.
I dont understand this statement.Given that patient confidentiality and clinical decision making can act to muddy the financial waters when it comes to audits etc it seems rather loose
Revenue have full access to all the records in my business. They don't have access to all the records where patient or client confidentiality is involved. One of my children saw a psychiatrist for a while. He was excellent. He insisted on being paid cash (€250 for 40 minutes of his time) and gave hand written receipts. The only reason anyone asks for cash it for tax evasion. If a shop did that they'd be caught. If a doctor does it they get away with it. I used to be married to a doctor. She's an excellent doctor.I dont understand this statement.
In 2018 their net income from the GMS alone was €170,000 to €210,000. Their private income is on top of that. GMS payments and private fees have increased significantly since then. My Ex wife earned significantly more than the above figures but she is very good at her job and works full time. I'm also a close friend of a GP and have 2 other Doctors in the family. It's also worth remembering that a GP is as qualified as a hospital consultant. They both spent 4 years specialising. The GP may not have gone to the right school or been as good at Rugby.You're suggesting the average full time GP earns significantly more than €280k?? Where did you pull that figure from?
The POCC23 salary scale headline figures exclude on-call payments and many other additions. As an accountant friend of mine says, "Show me your P60" (i.e. your tax return). The headline figures exclude overtime (1.5 times normal pay during the week and Saturdays and 2 x their normal pay Sundays and Public Holidays), Twilight Premium (an extra 1/6th of their pay for working nights of weekends, it's not clear if this is in addition to overtime multiples), €12,000 extra for professional development, etc.If I tell you the POCC23 salaries and that they're available online you're now claiming that they must not be accurate?