Student Medical Center to Start Charging

And it's on the front page of An Focal as well.

Currently, I don't see an issue with it because it is still much cheaper than visiting a GP outside of the college.

Aoife Kenny said it quite right in an focal when she said the time of getting things free is over and if the service wants to be maintained these things have to happen.

People just got too comfortable over the golden years, too used to things for free, when in reality we were probably just setting ourselves up for a big fall.

I would be interested in seeing figures on how often the health centre is used for and for what purposes as well (each of the headings described in the pricing).

Adam_M wrote: »

I think people are more upset and outraged by the fact this is being announced in week 11, Semester 2, with no significant prior mention of it. I can see a huge amount of people moving their business elsewhere - either to their own GP or a doctor in the local area where the standard is better, waiting lists for an appointment aren't as bad (This will reduce in UL due to the costs being introduced) and where they won't feel like they are being rushed due to the fact the doctor/nurse wants to see the next patient. I have never been in there longer than 10 minutes and even that was at a push.

At that is the case, but that is separate issue to the prices themselves.

I've never used the health centre, except on one occasion and when I couldn't get in I went to a GP off campus. That may be true about the nurse/doctor but it is still cheaper than off campus.

The reason I wanted to see figures of usage is to see where the main traffic is and from there work upon getting individual things cheaper. It would also given an indication of the cost it is actually putting on the University.

Currently based off the info I have I don't have a problem with it. While I understand this could effect some students it is no longer realistic to think everything can be gotten for free.

Why should the University fund our medical expenses, if an issue is going to be made of it then why not ask the government to make all GP visits free for students, because in reality that is what everyone wants.

As I said however, my initial reaction is no problem with the change itself. Problem with how we were told about it on short notice and how it was "too sensitive" to release before hand because that is tripe, and a problem with the lack of students involvement in it, however I imagine that even if there was, it would still have just been "keep it free".

Perhaps it could get cheaper who knows. All I remember is paying 60 euro for my last GP visit, so in my eyes UL is still doing alright. The level of service I've always heard mixed reactions about, so maybe that is something that should be tackled in conjunction with it.

It'll be interesting to see how this affects those that need to get I-Grades ratified..

It's also poor form that the medical card holders must pay up front as well. There are already processes in place where medical centres get paid from the health boards, without the card holder having to pay anything.

What next, charging for the library?

This is a disgrace, how long did the sabbats know about this? Why did they do to stop this? What did the SU get for getting rid of RAG week and replacing it with charity week?

1/3rd of a page which affects 9,000 to 12,000 students is a disgrace, it deserves a lot more time and attention as it effects a high portion of the student body.

This is a service which is still being advertised as being free. So when is this coming into force? Is it already in force?

They should allow 1 free visit a semester. If someone has frequent visits then maybe they should be charged.

It makes no sence to say that you have to start charging because it is losing money BUT at the same time say you will increase opening hours and build a new student medical centre (increasing expenditure). This sounds more like they want a new medical centre and want the students to pay for it.

I say keep the existing one, make the new medical centre in the new SU and don't charge students.

reunion wrote: »

What next, charging for the library?

Yes because charging for the library and charging for medical expenses are exactly the same........

I have no idea surrounding plans for new medical centre etc and all that, but I don't understand why a medical service should be provided completely for free by a University.

What people seem to be asking for is free medical expenses for students. Take it to the government then. This isn't an issue that can be kept in a little nutshell in UL.

One free visit a semester isn't a bad idea, but again I would like to see figures. I have no idea where they can be got, but figures detailing how much its costs the University along with how often the service is used need to gotten before anyone can get a clear grasp of this.

"rabble rabble free rabble rabble" is not going to get anyone anywhere. The costs I imagine are there to stay for the time being, so it's time to come up with some reasonable solutions.

reunion wrote: »

It makes no sence to say that you have to start charging because it is losing money BUT at the same time say you will increase opening hours and build a new student medical centre (increasing expenditure). This sounds more like they want a new medical centre and want the students to pay for it.

I say keep the existing one, make the new medical centre in the new SU and don't charge students.

Your assuming your correct about the intention behind the introduction of a fee. I think it sounds more like, the University budget is screwed across all areas, money must be saved, therefore instead of providing free healthcare, they provide healthcare (whatever about the standard of service), for cheaper than you would get for the most part anywhere else.

You making it sound like a conspiracy.

Ginge Young wrote: »

Yes because charging for the library and charging for medical expenses are exactly the same........

They have to pay someone to allow students to rent out books and they have to get new books in.

Ginge Young wrote: »

I have no idea surrounding plans for new medical centre etc and all that, but I don't understand why a medical service should be provided completely for free by a University.

I agree with the medical service having a potential charge, but a Psychiatric Consultation costing €25? is this seperate to the student couselling service?

Ginge Young wrote: »

What people seem to be asking for is free medical expenses for students. Take it to the government then. This isn't an issue that can be kept in a little nutshell in UL.

Free consultation is not free medical expenses, they recommend further action, be it to see your local GP or some medication. They don't pay a students medical expenses for a lung transplant.

How long has this service been in place for?

Ginge Young wrote: »

One free visit a semester isn't a bad idea, but again I would like to see figures. I have no idea where they can be got, but figures detailing how much its costs the University along with how often the service is used need to gotten before anyone can get a clear grasp of this.

These figures should have been given along with the justification for charging.

I can think of a few things that could be done.

1. charge people who abuse the use of the free service

2. reduce the hours during non-exam time but keep the exisiting opening times from Week 12 onwards.

3. 1st visit free per semester.

4. include it the registration fees

If all else fails we have a backup option that requires a bit of effort.

Welcome to real world economics folks. It's unfortunate that fees are being introduced, but budgets are being slashed left, right and centre so something has to give.

If you look at the list of staff employed by the medical centre (http://www2.ul.ie/web/WWW/Services/Student_Affairs/Student_Supports/Student_Health_Centre) you're looking at a very large wage bill. (I'd guess a conservative estimate might be €500 000)

It's also presuming a lot IMO to say that someone will be charged twice for seeing the nurse before the doctor. There's nothing in the article saying that's how it'll be. It's at least equally likely that you'll pay the fee for the highest level of care you receive at the time e.g. if you end up seeing the doctor you get charged €25, but if you're ok just seeing the nurse, then it's €10. This makes more sense to me particularly if seeing the nurse is a condition of seeing the doctor.

not surprised by the fees, too good of a deal to last and since my local GP is 40, even seeing a nurse and doctor is still cheaper (although with a 5er difference, ill go to my own if possible)

disgraceful way to announce it and imo, shows a real lack of respect

munchkin_utd wrote: »

WHAT?
the university was giving free medical care out of their own pockets?
Truely boom time economics there that they have so much cash floating around that expensive perks for students could be funded.

It wasn't free, rather it's paid for out of (hefty) registration fees.

IsaacWunder wrote: »

It wasn't free, rather it's paid for out of (hefty) registration fees.

With all due respect, have you looked at what people pay in other countries? It is incredibly cheap to go to college here in respect of other places, with students in many countries graduating 5 to 6 figure sums in debt.

I will never accept anyone calling the fees here hefty, they are light, people just need to accept they need to work, maybe drink less or maybe take out a student loan.

yekahS wrote: »

On the issue of the medical centre. Shouldn't be funded by the university. Universities are there to educate, not look after the health of the students. That's the remit of the HSE, and students should be part of the public system like anyone else, and if they want to go the private route, then off with them, but I shouldn't have to pay it.

Per that logic, we should start charging for student counciling.

yekahS wrote: »

Typical anti-student bias and stereotypes.

With respect, get real. Those that treat college like a holiday camp as you put it rarely last more than a year. You clearly understand nothing about what it's actually like to go to college in a lower-middle income family. If you want to bitch about students, you chose the wrong forum. I suggest you head over here and start a thread about "The Entitled Attitude of Today's Youth" and let those of us that this actually affects discuss the issue in a mature manner.


The charges for doctor/physio/nurse are unfortunate, but I wouldn't personally have a problem with them provided the service is of a high standard. (Fortunately haven't had to use the Medicentre yet, so not sure of it's standard of service)

The charge for STI clinic and Contraceptive Consultation though are pretty disgraceful. Sure, it's only €10, but that could easily be a factor in causing someone to put off going in straight away. I think it's a regressive step in the promotion of sexual health on campus and would really like to know what the SU tried to do to keep these services free.

From the quotes in the article it seems as though they were resigned to the fact that charges were coming in from the outset. Did any negotiations take place whatsoever?

yekahS wrote: »

freyners wrote: »

disgraceful way to announce it and imo, shows a real lack of respect

How is it a lack of respect?

You should be thanking the university for providing a free service for years. They're still subsidising the cost of seeing a physician for you.

In my opinion the university shouldn't be providing these services at all. Waste of taxpayers money. There are plenty of students with rich mammies and daddies who should be footing the bill when Tommy has a hangover and wants some pills, or when Mary wants to get the morning after pill after a drunken night in the lodge.

Get real folks, the days of the state funding the extravagant lifestyles of pampered students are over.

Next time you try to get all self righteous and start the usual 'pampered students' try to read the full post first.

Because if you had bothered you would see im not bothered about the charge, im concerned about the way it was announced. No discussion, no warning.

A few things. Some of them blunt, some of them sharp.

Firstly, it's worth noting that the practice of not charging for visits to the medical centre wasn't introduced in the, er, boom times. It was in place significantly before anyone even thought that the country was undergoing a boom. While I don't know when the medical centre was first opened, it was presumably opened either when or before students lost the automatic right to medical cards, which if memory serves was in 1986 or so. To my knowledge, there has hitherto never been a charge for using the service.

Secondly, this should have been announced to the student body by hook or by crook as soon as it was decided. It must have been decided by last week at the latest. It may have been decided before then. As an issue which affects every student who has ever used or may use the services of the medical centre, waiting on a print delivery to announce it to students is not the way to make such an announcement. The reaction from student representatives (and other, non-elected students) still makes it a good front page and, arguably, a better one. But it should have been announced as soon as the decision was made. It should probably have been announced as soon as it became a possibility.

Thirdly, given that student health should be a concern of the university, any response of "the good times are over" and so forth as a fait accompli justification is a really poor response. The SU may have argued against the introduction of these charges. It may not have. It certainly has in the past when such charges were mooted. Whichever is the case, it should be made clear which was the case and why. That may well be a starting point for some disagreement but that's modern society for you - we got to where we are as a modern society based on disagreements over time and that's why discussion and disagreement are good things.

Fourthly, it is possible that the agreement with student representatives (if there was such an agreement made) to introduce the listed fees for the medical centre was made in a quid pro quo to avoid the alternative of introducing fees for the counselling service. If this is the case, it would be good to have this made clear.

As a corollary to the above, it would be good to know whether or not there are still proposals to introduce fees for the counselling service as a second part to the introduction of fees for the medical service or whether there is a guarantee that these won't be introduced.

Fifthly, it would be quite interesting to know the position of all currently elected SU officers on the introduction of these fees.

Sixthly, it would be even more interesting to know the position of the officers elected for next year on the introduction of these fees. It tends to be a fact that "you agreed to it last year" is a reasonable shutdown defence that the university can offer if next year's officers are against it and that isn't said until next year. Fees introduced tend not to disappear. They tend to remain and to increase.

Seventhly, in 2011, even the long pretence that the student contribution to fees was a "registration charge" to cover core non-tuition expenses was abandoned when it was renamed the annual student contribution. Colleges merely ensure that the stated total costs of the vaguely-defined core services remain at or higher than the total amount received through the student contribution. Rather than being pigeon-holed into specific services, all income is pooled and budgets generated from that. It works that way in every university in Ireland and Ferdinand von Prondzynski explicitly said that in a blog of his from February 2010. Students have already been contributing directly to the costs of the service through the money they're paying annually.

Eightly, basing the logic to charge on the medical centre making an annual loss in recent years is a non-sequitur. A medical centre with associated costs but no specific appointment-related charge will always make a loss. That's a given. It's been so since the day it opened. It's not a new shocker.

Ninthly, it would be useful to know some details of the current operating costs of the medical centre, forecast income as a result of the introduction of the charges (current numbers of usage may or may not remain the same after their introduction but someone has a spreadsheet forecast somewhere in any case) and thence the justification for the particular charges chosen for each of the respective services. Some of these historical details are in the annual UL accounts, though some of those are folded into the financial details for Student Affairs as a whole, which makes them less useful in this case.

Tenthly, all of the above information should have been included with the announcement made to students about the introduction of the charges. It's up to you whether you believe that announcement should have been made by the SU or by the university.

All of the above applies whether or not you're personally in favour of or against the introduction of charges in general or these charges in particular. I haven't even gone near to expressing a view on that as that may be a tomorrow thing and all of the above issues stand separately to that. I'm not doing a "too long; didn't read" version of this post.