HSE stoops to an new low.

mitosis · 17-12-2012 12:56pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The same way they did until a month ago, when they suddenly changed how they bill.

Except it has become apparent that once they are treated people are no longer inspired to pay. The patients themselves are to blame for the action taken by HSE in this case.

Einhard · 17-12-2012 12:57pm

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Some people do need perspective alright - people like you.

All well and good saying 75 euro is one day's work in a job. It's a moot point for the majority of cancer patients who are physically incapable of working.

40% of job-seekers allowance is a MASSIVE chunk.

Perspective - you're a cancer patient in the sticks who can't work and has to drive 2 hours to St. Vincents or St. Luke's in Dublin paying petrol, tolls and parking in doing so which you can't claim back. Except you're high on morphine-based painkillers so you can't drive, so your spouse, sibling, child, friend, neighbour has to take a day off to drive you there and back.

That 40% of your jobseekers allowance suddenly becomes 50 or 60 percent. Then you have to drop 127 euro to the chemist for the prescription you got when you saw the oncologist. Oops. There we go - jobseekers allowance gone. I guess it's lucky your appetite is the first thing to go during Chemo because you won't be eating fúck all with the money you might have left.

Given the cost of these treatments runs into hundreds of thousands it's a total slap in the face to THE most vulnerable people in society to shake them down for 75 quid at the time when they are least likely to be able to afford it.

Charge the 75, but bill them and if/when they recover. Work a payment plan out when the patient can return to work or can spare more of their dole and have some chance of paying it off. Not unreasonable.

Good points...except for the fact that the majority of the low income people you reference would be on the medical card, and therefore not be eligible for the charge.

The fact is, that if people are only charged after the fact, then many people won't bother. And if the HSE goes after them for the money, then the Daily Mail et al will run headlines such as "Scandal! HSE pursues recovering cancer victim for money", and people here will be up in arms about the outrage of it all.

Fact is, the money has to come from somewhere. And if it doesn't come from those availing of the services, then it has to come from someone else. Like carers. Or pensions. Asking relatively affluent people to pay a tiny proportion of their medical costs isn't, to my mind, a terrible thing.

SEPT 23 1989 · 17-12-2012 12:58pm

Boombastic wrote: »

Sure they've increments to pay, can be wasting money on those scummy sick people

€266m top-ups are paid out to HSE staff

Bloody sick people ruining the HSE for the rest of us

They must be borderline psychopaths

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 12:59pm

Einhard wrote: »

...............

Fact is, the money has to come from somewhere. And if it doesn't come from those availing of the services, then it has to come from someone else. Like carers. Or pensions. Asking relatively affluent people to pay a tiny proportion of their medical costs isn't, to my mind, a terrible thing.

Or cuts to wages, or increment freezes, or...

spank_inferno · 17-12-2012 1:00pm

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

It would be your only worry if you didn't have €75.

If you have cancer and are unable to work you will get sick benefit.
If your spouse / partner doesn't work you will have a medical card.

So all of the above does not apply.

If ones spouse does work then they are not entitled to the medical card so will have to pay the €75.
Which as mentioned, is not unreachable for the vast majority of workers.

Death and Taxes · 17-12-2012 1:01pm

CJC999 wrote: »

And it generally wasn't paid so now they ask in advance. I don't see the problem, your being provided with a very expensive treatment and asked to pay a nominal amount in advance. If I had cancer the €75 fee would be the least of my worries.

Can you link to evidence of that, my understanding is they have shot over budget and are now looking to raise cash quickly.

Odysseus · 17-12-2012 1:02pm

Boombastic wrote: »

Sure they've increments to pay, can be wasting money on those scummy sick people

€266m top-ups are paid out to HSE staff

Bloody sick people ruining the HSE for the rest of us

When I see crap like this it makes me wish I was still able to claim increments, sadly I can't as I'm at the top of the league and unless I change jobs this is my wage until I retire.

Increments are part of the job, tough if you don't like it.

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 1:05pm

Odysseus wrote: »

When I see crap like this it makes me wish I was still able to claim increments, sadly I can't as I'm at the top of the league and unless I change jobs this is my wage until I retire.

Increments are part of the job, tough if you don't like it.

Not in a failing company, but then those in the HSE don't know much about the real world

snubbleste · 17-12-2012 1:06pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Can you link to evidence of that, my understanding is they have shot over budget and are now looking to raise cash quickly.

Public hospitals have spent over €3.2m on debt collectors to hunt down failed patient payments in just seven years.
Hospitals are spending almost €40,000 monthly chasing unpaid patient fees — the equivalent of €1,320 every day
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1103/world/hospitals-spend-over-32m-to-chase-debts-212830.html

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 1:11pm

snubbleste wrote: »

Public hospitals have spent over €3.2m on debt collectors to hunt down failed patient payments in just seven years.
Hospitals are spending almost €40,000 monthly chasing unpaid patient fees — the equivalent of €1,320 every day
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1103/world/hospitals-spend-over-32m-to-chase-debts-212830.html

Thats how much thy are paying to track down the debt,

The vast majority of the 2011-2012 payouts — €740,000 — went to just three debt collection firms.

These are LCMS Legal, Management & Credit (€360,288), Intrum Justitia (€263,940), and Debitask (€114,744), while €76,896 was paid to smaller firms.

The Irish Examiner revealed last year hospitals had spent €2.4m between 2005 and Dec 2010 in a bid to track down €266m.

The non-paid money related to private and road traffic accident fees (€221m), other outstanding patient fees (€28m), emergency department charges (€13m) and unsettled "miscellaneous" costs (€4m).

€266 million, they were trying to track down, which coincidentally is the same amount they paid out in increments

ShiverinEskimo · 17-12-2012 1:15pm

You can easily spot the people who don't know the other costs associated with having cancer.

Apparently a medical card solves all, but if you don't qualify, your spouse is obviously a millionaire and can afford to pay for the aforementioned tolls, petrol, parking and prescriptions. Can afford to spend more on heating the house because the chemo drives sufferers to feelings of hypothermia and they are there all day. They have the cash to spend money on extra soaps, disinfectants and wipes because of the infection risk to their spouse. The extra washing of clothes and sheets from all the undignified 'accidents' that happen is also covered.

What's an extra €75 euro on top of all that - sure you don't qualify for a medical card so you must be loaded.

Get a grip.

mfceiling · 17-12-2012 1:21pm

Confab wrote: »

I wasn't joking. Chemo drugs are very expensive. They could charge people the full whack if they want. Why should people get free treatment if they don't have a medical card or private health insurance?

And what if you've taken that many pay cuts that health insurance is just not affordable any more?

What you've cancer and are financially stretched.....f*ck off outside and die...preferably round the back near the bins so we don't have far to dispose of your body.

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 1:23pm

mfceiling wrote: »

And what if you've taken that many pay cuts that health insurance is just not affordable any more?

What you've cancer and are financially stretched.....f*ck off outside and die...preferably round the back near the bins so we don't have far to dispose of your body.

Actually can you just get in the bin, save us bothering with you at all

Odysseus · 17-12-2012 1:24pm

Boombastic wrote: »

Not in a failing company, but then those in the HSE don't know much about the real world

What is the next thread? Outrage at staff being paid their wage?

I see/work with people who are in a world of pain, some won't be here next year. Don't try tell me about the real world.

Now my break is up, I'm off to do something useful, see my next patient for which I get paid for, shocking isn't it.

LivelineDipso · 17-12-2012 1:24pm

Confab wrote: »

I wasn't joking. Chemo drugs are very expensive. They could charge people the full whack if they want. Why should people get free treatment if they don't have a medical card or private health insurance?

This is terrifying to read.

Welcome to IMF/CPA Fascist Ireland.

spank_inferno · 17-12-2012 1:34pm

LivelineDipso wrote: »

This is terrifying to read.

Welcome to IMF/CPA Fascist Ireland.

Trow labels if you want.
Or you can try to answer the point.

If one can pay, what is wrong with paying?
Seeing as the amount to pay is tiny compared to the true cost.

vikingdub · 17-12-2012 1:35pm

Confab wrote: »

I wasn't joking. Chemo drugs are very expensive. They could charge people the full whack if they want. Why should people get free treatment if they don't have a medical card or private health insurance?

Free? I was under the impression that both PRSI and the USC had a health levy included.

Lucas Castroman · 17-12-2012 1:36pm

If somebody can't afford a nominal fee of €75 per chemotherapy session, it begs the question what kind of life they have been living till then. The main trouble with society nowadays is people have no self-accountability. People are living their lives without a sense of consequences. Then if something goes wrong they look sadly at the state to dig them out. Rather than smoking your brains out\going on foreign holidays/eating out people should live more responsibly with an awareness that things do go wrong.

ShiverinEskimo · 17-12-2012 1:36pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

Trow labels if you want.
Or you can try to answer the point.

If one can pay, what is wrong with paying?
Seeing as the amount to pay is tiny compared to the true cost.

It's not about how it compares to the cost of the treatment, it's about how it compares to the patient's ability to pay for it, and how it is suddenly a pay now or don't get the treatment you desperately need.

It's HSE-backed mugging: Your money or your life.

steddyeddy · 17-12-2012 1:38pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

Trow labels if you want.
Or you can try to answer the point.

If one can pay, what is wrong with paying?
Seeing as the amount to pay is tiny compared to the true cost.

Again IF one can pay. IF being the important word there.

Ghandee · 17-12-2012 1:39pm

Odysseus wrote: »

When I see crap like this it makes me wish I was still able to claim increments, sadly I can't as I'm at the top of the league and unless I change jobs this is my wage until I retire.

Increments are part of the job, tough if you don't like it.

Attitudes like this are the ones that spur me on to say fcuk the hhc, fcuk the property tax, and fcuk the CPA.

Says it all really, in a nation that's essentially bankrupt, the hse secures itself 27 million for next years pays and increments, while the govt has included 700 million due to be paid to the public sector in increments alone for next year in its expenditure list for 2013.

To put it into perspective, the respite allowance cut, saved them 25 million, and the property tax will (good luck with this one though) bring them in 350 million there or abouts.

So, I don't like it. When they sort it out at the top, they can call on me to do my bit.

Don't like that? Tough.

ShiverinEskimo · 17-12-2012 1:40pm

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Rather than smoking your brains out\going on foreign holidays/eating out people should live more responsibly with an awareness that things do go wrong.

Absolute bollocks.

Maybe some people are paying a mortgage and raising a family instead?

What kind of fúcking bubble do you live in?

mitosis · 17-12-2012 1:41pm

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

It's not about how it compares to the cost of the treatment, it's about how it compares to the patient's ability to pay for it, and how it is suddenly a pay now or don't get the treatment you desperately need.

It's HSE-backed mugging: Your money or your life.

Where does it say someone who can't pay won't get treated? I can't find that in the piece. Or is it just something you made up to fuel your ire?

steddyeddy · 17-12-2012 1:44pm

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Absolute bollocks.

Maybe some people are paying a mortgage and raising a family instead?

What kind of fúcking bubble do you live in?

This bubble is unfortunatly all to common on boards :-(

ShiverinEskimo · 17-12-2012 1:46pm

mitosis wrote: »

Where does it say someone who can't pay won't get treated? I can't find that in the piece. Or is it just something you made up to fuel your ire?

They are 'insisting' on up-front payments.

Not sure how you've ever insisted on something but generally it involves the threat of not receiving what it is you've been asked to pay for.

Otherwise why the change? If it's going to be status quo and no one will be denied treatment and everyone who can't pay it then will be able to pay later then what's this all about?

Either it's an empty threat and the HSE are clowns, or it's a scheme designed to heap even more pressure on cancer patients and the HSE are clowns. I'll let you decide.

Lucas Castroman · 17-12-2012 1:48pm

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Absolute bollocks.

Maybe some people are paying a mortgage and raising a family instead?

What kind of fúcking bubble do you live in?

What are you having children you can't afford? We are the architects of our own destiny. It's this attitude that irritates me. I've had a ****load of children but now i'd appreciate if the state would raise them. It's on a similar theme... No accountability

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 1:49pm

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

What are you having children you can't afford? We are the architects of our own destiny. It's this attitude that irritates me. I've had a ****load of children but now i'd appreciate if the state would raise them. It's on a similar theme... No accountability

Yeah people shouldn't choose to get cancer, no personal responsibility at all:rolleyes:

Permabear · 17-12-2012 1:52pm

This post has been deleted.

ShiverinEskimo · 17-12-2012 1:55pm

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

What are you having children you can't afford? We are the architects of our own destiny. It's this attitude that irritates me. I've had a ****load of children but now i'd appreciate if the state would raise them. It's on a similar theme... No accountability

Because maybe people could afford to have kids until they had to stop working because they got cancer.

It's not fúcking rocket science.

ebbsy · 17-12-2012 1:55pm

I had to fight to get my brother in law who had terminal liver cancer a hospital medical card.

This story therefore does not shock me at all.

Zulu · 17-12-2012 1:58pm

Sergeant wrote: »

What is the huge difference between paying for it in advance, as opposed to be being billed for it afterwards? You still have to pay it.

To be fair Sergeant, it would appear from that post that you don't have a clue of the realities of being a caner patient. As a self employed person who is i can tell you that there's a huge difference.

As a self employed person, I don't get sick leave.
I don't getting support from the state for not being in work (other than the drugs refund scheme which, in fairness, was a massive help). When I don't show up for work, I get zero income.
Every penny was precious. When I recovered, and was able to go back to work (a lot sooner than I should have had to return) & start earning again.

Clearly, it is far easier for me to pay when I'm earning money, than when I was sick (potentially fatally) with no income.

Zulu · 17-12-2012 2:01pm

Valetta wrote: »

The €75 charge per visit is capped at a maximum of €750 per year- less than the average annual charge for insurance.

Don't forget the cost of ongoing CT scans that are NOT fully covered. And the cost of the blood work, that isn't fully covered.
For me these come in at about €1500 every 3 months - but yeah, whats €750 a year?

HondaSami · 17-12-2012 2:02pm

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

What are you having children you can't afford?

I don't understand why people say this, things change, its not like you can give the children back when times get hard.
Maybe people could afford them when they had them but lost their jobs or got sick etc,

woodoo · 17-12-2012 2:02pm

Odysseus wrote: »

When I see crap like this it makes me wish I was still able to claim increments, sadly I can't as I'm at the top of the league and unless I change jobs this is my wage until I retire.

Increments are part of the job, tough if you don't like it.

Yeah but its such an easy gripe to throw out there. Most people who complain about increments just don't understand the pay structures in the public service.

Lucas Castroman · 17-12-2012 2:04pm

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Because maybe people could afford to have kids until they had to stop working because they got cancer.

It's not fúcking rocket science.

The point which you've sadly missed is that if somebody is diagnosed with cancer and they can't afford a paltry €75 per chemo session (which is a drop in the ocean compared to actual cost) then they should seriously question how they've managed they're lives till then. I always hear this mantra "Everybody is entitled to free health care" which is rubbish. Nothing is free in this world. If you can't contibute this small sum you should not be treated.

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 2:06pm

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah but its such an easy gripe to throw out there. Most people who complain about increments just don't understand the pay structures in the public service.

:pac::pac:

Many people complaining about increments have seen their taxes rise and their services fall

crusher000 · 17-12-2012 2:06pm

Leaving this thread as the brain dead have taken over.

Zulu · 17-12-2012 2:08pm

I take it you mean "thread". It seems to be catching

donalg1 · 17-12-2012 2:10pm

Surely its reasonable to ask people to pay up front for a service, bearing in mind the service being provided most likely costs a lot more than the €75. Now if they are giving this service to people and never being paid for it then its those that will pay that will end up paying more, yes it could be €75 now but if only 50% of those billed afterwards paid it then it would most likely be €150 next year, so those that pay would be asked to pay more for those that refuse to pay, which to me is more unfair.

Zulu · 17-12-2012 2:12pm

donalg1 wrote: »

Surely its reasonable to ask people to pay up front for a service, bearing in mind the service being provided most likely costs a lot more than the €75.

What if they have no income due to the treatment?

... but if only 50% of those billed afterwards paid it

Where did you get this stat from (out of interest)?

Ghandee · 17-12-2012 2:14pm

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah but its such an easy gripe to throw out there. Most people who complain about increments just don't understand the pay structures in the public service.

To quote some of the govt fan boys, of which there are many on this site.

"you know about the deficit right?"

Ooh, and "you realise the govt are borrowing this cash to fund theses services?"

When things got tight in my job a few years ago, everyone was subject to an 18% cut in salary, overtime was banned, and expenses were cut to the absolute bare minimum.

I protested, my end of the business involves sales, i unsuccessfully argued that my sales figures were increasing, even through the recession, but I was told 'everybody is pissing in the one pot'.

Some in our over protected sector need to wake up to the fact that what used to be there, isn't there any longer.

Odysseus · 17-12-2012 2:18pm

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

The point which you've sadly missed is that if somebody is diagnosed with cancer and they can't afford a paltry €75 per chemo session (which is a drop in the ocean compared to actual cost) then they should seriously question how they've managed they're lives till then. I always hear this mantra "Everybody is entitled to free health care" which is rubbish. Nothing is free in this world. If you can't contibute this small sum you should not be treated.

No hospital should be turning away any patient because they cannot pay for treatment. Things may be bad, but this is not the dark ages.

Anyway, I will wait until I see a patient denied treatment, before I will get on my high horse. There should be access to other options if the person cannot pay upfront.

Turn away people with terminal illness, FFS

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 2:19pm

Ghandee wrote: »

To quote some of the govt fan boys, of which there are many on this site.

"you know about the deficit right?"

Ooh, and "you realise the govt are borrowing this cash to fund theses services?"

When things got tight in my job a few years ago, everyone was subject to an 18% cut in salary, overtime was banned, and expenses were cut to the absolute bare minimum.

I protested, my end of the business involves sales, i unsuccessfully argued that my sales figures were increasing, even through the recession, but I was told 'everybody is pissing in the one pot'.

Some in our over protected sector need to wake up to the fact that what used to be there, isn't there any longer.

You'll attract the 'we took a 15% pay cut crowd' (includes the UPC), while they conveniently forget with the other hand the are receiving increments.................but then you probably wouldn't understand the pay structures:D

ShiverinEskimo · 17-12-2012 2:20pm

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

The point which you've sadly missed is that if somebody is diagnosed with cancer and they can't afford a paltry €75 per chemo session (which is a drop in the ocean compared to actual cost) then they should seriously question how they've managed they're lives till then. I always hear this mantra "Everybody is entitled to free health care" which is rubbish. Nothing is free in this world. If you can't contibute this small sum you should not be treated.

You realise you typically get more than one chemo session right?

I'm fairly sure most probably do have it early on. But after 4 or 6 or 12 months of chemo and no work financial situations can and will change. 300 quid a month just to get the the door of a cancer ward for treatment is a lot. Maybe not to an obviously rich, sheltered, healthy person like you though.

Your last line is simply disgusting and spoken like someone who has likely never so much as seen a cancer patient let alone be one.

donalg1 · 17-12-2012 2:20pm

Zulu wrote: »

What if they have no income due to the treatment?

Well if they have no income they wont pay and therein lies the problem, I would imagine this is why they are charging up front for the treatment now. I mean would you let a family member go untreated if they couldnt get €75 for the treatment?

Where did you get this stat from (out of interest)?

Its clearly a hypothetical stat used for example purposes hence the "if"

donalg1 · 17-12-2012 2:21pm

Boombastic wrote: »

You'll attract the 'we took a 15% pay cut crowd' (includes the UPC), while they conveniently forget with the other hand the are receiving increments.................but then you probably wouldn't understand the pay structures:D

And all this is related to the topic how?

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 2:24pm

donalg1 wrote: »

And all this is related to the topic how?

Don't worry you head about it, it wasn't in response to you

donalg1 · 17-12-2012 2:27pm

Boombastic wrote: »

Don't worry you head about it, it wasn't in response to you

Unfortunately though I read it thinking it was related to the actual topic and wasnt some off topic rambling.

Boombastic · 17-12-2012 2:29pm

Odysseus wrote: »

What is the next thread? Outrage at staff being paid their wage?

I see/work with people who are in a world of pain, some won't be here next year. Don't try tell me about the real world.

Now my break is up, I'm off to do something useful, see my next patient for which I get paid for, shocking isn't it.

Odysseus wrote: »

No hospital should be turning away any patient because they cannot pay for treatment. Things may be bad, but this is not the dark ages.

Anyway, I will wait until I see a patient denied treatment, before I will get on my high horse. There should be access to other options if the person cannot pay upfront.

Turn away people with terminal illness, FFS

Having another break are you. Your last one only finished an hour ago. Is this indicative of work practices across the HSE?

Zulu · 17-12-2012 2:29pm

donalg1 wrote: »

Well if they have no income they wont pay and therein lies the problem, I would imagine this is why they are charging up front for the treatment now.

Ah right, so you didn't read my other posts.
When you are getting treatment, you are sick, and not working. When you are not working you are not getting paid.
When you are finished your treatment, you go back to work. You start earning. And then you can repay.

I mean would you let a family member go untreated if they couldnt get €75 for the treatment?

I wouldn't have asked my family for help. I wouldn't want to have burdened them. You are also presupposing that the patient has a family.

Its clearly a hypothetical stat used for example purposes hence the "if"

...so out of your ar$e then! Why not use 0.5% instead of 50%? (seeing as we're making up figures)

HSE stoops to an new low.

Comments