Private hospital beds: *1100%* increase in cost on the way

Dostoevsky

According to the article below 'Private patients in public beds paid €75 but private patients in a semi-private bed paid up to €1,000.' Further, according to Minister for Health Reilly, "The cost of providing hospital services to private inpatients is at least €200 million more than the amount that public hospitals are currently allowed to charge."

As a result: 'Under the legislation patient costs will increase from €75 for an overnight hospital stay to €860, [over 1100% increase by my calculation] which Minister for Health James Reilly said was still well below the economic cost of those services.'

That's some increase. Now, charging €860-€1000 for a night in a hospital sounds like somewhere in the health system people are absolutely creaming it and surely they would make a good target for future cuts.

Big rise in private hospital bed charges moves closer

---

Do you agree with Reilly passing this cost on to private health companies/people with private health insurance, or should the state continue to subsidise it? The main disadvantage I see is that people will simply stop private health insurance and add to the burden that's already on the state's health system. On the other hand, the hundreds of millions this state transfers to private insurance companies could be used to get greater economies of scale out of the administration-heavy HSE. Overall, I think this is long overdue.

Fianna Fáil is, opportunistically enough, against it: 'Opposing the legislation, Fianna Fáil health spokesman Billy Kelleher said the Minister did not have a mandate to increase charges to fund the health service. He said it would have serious consequences for the health insurance industry.' How depressingly familiar to see them thinking of the private "health insurance industry" rather than the finances of the Irish state. Will that party ever learn?

SV

How in the name of god do they justify that?
ffs you wouldn't pay it to stay in some of the most expensive hotels in the world with your own personal butler.

seven_eleven

I feel like vomitting.

squod

No

VHI (for example) brought in €1.43 billion last year. Where do you imagine that money is going OP?

Fairly sure it's not going on hospital beds. Problem is we're working for VHI and their ilk. They should be working for us, their customers.

Geuze

Healthcare is expensive, and won't get cheaper, for various reasons.

Hosps are costly. 15 years ago, UCHG cost 1m IRL pounds per week to run - and that's 15 years ago.

Lots of staff, and lots of high wage staff.

Should the owner of the hosp undercharge the insurer for the bed/service provided?

Geuze

squod wrote: »

VHI (for example) brought in €1.43 billion last year. Where do you imagine that money is going OP?

Fairly sure it's not going on hospital beds.

Claims payments are made to hosps and to doctors.

So, yes, a large chunk of claim payments does go to hosps for services provided.

Anita Blow

No

SV wrote: »

How in the name of god do they justify that?
ffs you wouldn't pay it to stay in some of the most expensive hotels in the world with your own personal butler.

€860 doesn't even cover the cost of giving a patient full care in a hospital.
ICU alone runs into around €9000 per night.

If private health insurers want to use beds in public hospitals there is no reason why they shouldn't pay for them.

HollyB

I think that the cost of a private hospital bed should certainly be passed on to the health insurance companies but that if a person is occupying a public bed, funded by taxes they are required to pay, the fact that they have private health insurance should not lead to a higher charge being levied than somebody without private health insurance would be charged for the use of a public bed.

If they are funding the public health service through their taxes, they should have the same right to access those services as any member of the public, at the same cost. If they choose to opt for private care, they should pay for it.

One thing that interests me is that this policy could potentially incentivise hospitals to prioritise patients with private health insurance when it comes to the allocation of public beds. The hospital would get nearly €800 extra per patient per night.

Iwasfrozen

No

I support it. If a person wants to go private they should pay the full cost of doing so. Otherwise you're giving the middle class a state subsidised advantage over the lower classes which is neither morally or economically sound.

Del2005

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support it. If a person wants to go private they should pay the full cost of doing so. Otherwise you're giving the middle class a state subsidised advantage over the lower classes which is neither morally or economically sound.

So if a a person has medical insurance they have to pay twice to lie next to someone who doesn't they also pay taxes and unless they get a private room shouldn't be charged at the private rate.

All that this will do is lead more people to drop their insurance and but an even bigger strain onto the public system.

Falthyron

All of this seems kind of redundant when we don't have enough beds as it is, regardless if you have private health insurance. Build more hospitals, improve the general service, then we can decide who pays what when we have the facilities to begin with.

HollyB

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support it. If a person wants to go private they should pay the full cost of doing so.

They won't be going private. They'll be utilising the public health service, which they are funding as taxpayers, and being charged extra for doing so.

the_syco

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support it. If a person wants to go private they should pay the full cost of doing so. Otherwise you're giving the middle class a state subsidised advantage over the lower classes which is neither morally or economically sound.

So, even though I pay the same taxes as the person to my right, if I have a private medical insurance and they don't, I should automatically pay more?

Thus those not paying for their medical insurance get a cheaper deal?

Geuze

HollyB wrote: »

I think that the cost of a private hospital bed should certainly be passed on to the health insurance companies but that if a person is occupying a public bed, funded by taxes they are required to pay, the fact that they have private health insurance should not lead to a higher charge being levied than somebody without private health insurance would be charged for the use of a public bed.

If they are funding the public health service through their taxes, they should have the same right to access those services as any member of the public, at the same cost. If they choose to opt for private care, they should pay for it.

One thing that interests me is that this policy could potentially incentivise hospitals to prioritise patients with private health insurance when it comes to the allocation of public beds. The hospital would get nearly €800 extra per patient per night.

Currently maybe 20% of beds overall in public hosps are designated as private beds. Patients in these beds are charged the full 900-1000 pn.

But, even if you have ins, and are a private patient, if you end up in a non-designated bed, outside the quota, then the hosp can't charge you the full 900-1000 rate.

Of course the consultant does charge your insurer no matter what type of bed you are in, but the hosp can't.

This is what is proposed to change.

Cookie_Monster

wasn't the way they worked out those charges shown to be completely ridiculous a year or so back. The cost bears no resemblance to what treatment or services you receive, just the overall cost of the hospital divided by bed numbers or something?

Geuze

HollyB wrote: »

One thing that interests me is that this policy could potentially incentivise hospitals to prioritise patients with private health insurance when it comes to the allocation of public beds. The hospital would get nearly €800 extra per patient per night.

This isn't new.

Imagine you are a hosp in receipt of a block grant of 100m from the Govt for the year.

Plus you can earn 1000 pn from insurers per patient per night.

Sure of course you have a huge incentive to get more private insured patients in the door.

Del2005

Geuze wrote: »

Currently maybe 20% of beds overall in public hosps are designated as private beds. Patients in these beds are charged the full 900-1000 pn.

But, even if you have ins, and are a private patient, if you end up in a non-designated bed, outside the quota, then the hosp can't charge you the full 900-1000 rate.

Of course the consultant does charge your insurer no matter what type of bed you are in, but the hosp can't.

This is what is proposed to change.

I heard on the radio a few days ago, no idea which but more than likely a Newstalk show, and IIRC when you enter hospital now you'll be asked are you going private or public. If you say private it's €0000 per night regardless of the bed you end up in.

But it still doesn't remove the fact that you've already paid for the bed with your taxes and now just because you have paid for insurance you have to pay twice for the same bed.

Elessar

They can charge what they like. The whole reason I have health insurance is so I can use private hospitals. Wouldn't be stepping foot in a public one if I could help it.

inocybe

No

HollyB wrote: »

They won't be going private. They'll be utilising the public health service, which they are funding as taxpayers, and being charged extra for doing so.

Yes but they're utilising the public system having skipped all the queues that public patients have to endure/survive. If you want what your taxes pay for then get in the queue.

Poll should just read 'have you got health insurance'. I wish they would do away with public/private and let everyone pay into the same system.

wandatowell

No

I got a bill in the door yesterday for €150 for a two night stay in Cork University Hospital last week.

Toby Take a Bow

the_syco wrote: »

So, even though I pay the same taxes as the person to my right, if I have a private medical insurance and they don't, I should automatically pay more?

Thus those not paying for their medical insurance get a cheaper deal?

So don't pay health insurance. Unless you're getting some sort of benefit, right? Is there no benefit? When are you cancelling your policy so?

Also, keep in mind that there is significant public funding of private health care, so you could also say that those of us without health insurance are also paying for those with health insurance.

fishy fishy

you would be better off committing a crime and getting sent to prison - cheaper all round.

fishy fishy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support it. If a person wants to go private they should pay the full cost of doing so. Otherwise you're giving the middle class a state subsidised advantage over the lower classes which is neither morally or economically sound.

thats a ridiculous statement to be honest - some people HAVE to have health insurance. They put this as their priority, they may not be able to afford much else including buying house, car, etc because of their situation and because they are being screwed by their health insurance. To say that they are middle class and have an advantage is a bit green of you.

It's like saying let the public patients sell their car and house for health care.

Capt'n Midnight

It used to be the case that 1/3 of the population had medical card, 1/3 had health in insurance and 1/3 didn't have either.

I fear this will raise health insurance costs and so more people will be driven into the gap. And it will be the healthy who are more likely to cut back so raising premiums further.

TBH most of what is called health "insurence" is more like health assurance. A sickly person will break even on their premium with all the visits, checkups and bits and pieces.

We need proper health insurance in this country. Like car or house insurance with a decent excess. So they don't pay out for procedures less than the premium, it's only for big stuff , you know the kind that where you'd have to mortgage your house to cover.

VHI had a policy where they'd pay out 80%. If you need something very expensive the 20% might still be out of reach so not that attractive.

john hanrahan

The hospitals are charging private patients private rates no matter what bed they are in. I have been in a few times this year and uchg charged 753 per night for a public bed.

It has been going on for 12 months now, previously I would have been charged 75 if in public bed.

The only issue I have with it, is that it is driving up the price of insurance, and for people who have health problems insurance is vital.

the_syco

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So don't pay health insurance. Unless you're getting some sort of benefit, right? Is there no benefit? When are you cancelling your policy so?

Went to a cheaper policy some time last year. I can see women being hit by this the most, when they get pregnant.

mitosis

My insurance paid €450 for two hours use of the closet beside a bed a few months ago. I bet that bed/closet got billed four/five times that day. Minister is trying to force us all to have private insurance and at the same time making sure no-one can afford it

General General

We need mandatory health insurance & a lower PRSI rate.

General General

mitosis wrote: »

My insurance paid €450 for two hours use of the closet beside a bed a few months ago. I bet that bed/closet got billed four/five times that day. Minister is trying to force us all to have private insurance and at the same time making sure no-one can afford it

That is a f`cking joke. Seriously? They billed the insurance 450 quid for 2 hours use of a closet? Was there a hooker in it?

General General

General General wrote: »

We need mandatory health insurance & a lower PRSI rate.

Mandatory health insurance would surely drive the prices up

amen

No

ICU alone runs into around €9000 per night.

figures to back this up ?

That seems very very high. What could cost €9000 a night ?

padi89

General General wrote: »

That is a f`cking joke. Seriously? They billed the insurance 450 quid for 2 hours use of a closet? Was there a hooker in it?

I'd say he/she was charged for the bed even if he didn't use it. I've had procedures done before where i never even sat on the bed but was charged for it. I presume the bed is there that if something goes wrong or you have difficulties during the procedure your not left sitting on a chair.

Floppybits

padi89 wrote: »

I'd say he/she was charged for the bed even if he didn't use it. I've had procedures done before where i never even sat on the bed but was charged for it. I presume the bed is there that if something goes wrong or you have difficulties during the procedure your not left sitting on a chair.

Public hospitals will charge the insurer for the bed use even if you dont get a bed. Think newstalk had it on that people were sent bills where they were charged for a bed but had infact spent the time sitting on a chair.

SV

Anita Blow wrote: »

€860 doesn't even cover the cost of giving a patient full care in a hospital.
ICU alone runs into around €9000 per night.

If private health insurers want to use beds in public hospitals there is no reason why they shouldn't pay for them.

IF it's full care and IF it's ICU then yes, that'd make sense.


however if I get brought in to hospital and kept overnight with slight breathing difficulties and need a nebulizer for about a half hour, please don't try and tell me it costs anywhere near €860.

Yitzhak Rabin

People who pay for private healthcare also pay taxes.

In fact people who pay private healthcare generally pay higher taxes because they're the ones working and supporting the social welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't they receive subsidised healthcare?

krudler

SV wrote: »

IF it's full care and IF it's ICU then yes, that'd make sense.


however if I get brought in to hospital and kept overnight with slight breathing difficulties and need a nebulizer for about a half hour, please don't try and tell me it costs anywhere near €860.

There's probably a consultant who glances at a form and earns themselves a grand for doing so.

Jimoslimos

Private patients in public hospitals is a disaster, ideally there should be dedicated private hospitals for private patients. Health insurers would then have an incentive to increase the standard of care rather than push the blame on the public sector.

In the absence of this a mandatory health insurance OR increased tax on wages should be applied, you can choose whichever one suits you better. The Australian health system works similar. Not perfect but far better than the current mess we have here

Lenin Skynard

No

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

People who pay for private healthcare also pay taxes.

In fact people who pay private healthcare generally pay higher taxes because they're the ones working and supporting the social welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't they receive subsidised healthcare?

Why should those who aren't sick subsidise those who are? Those who aren't sick are paying more taxes than those who are because they're at work and not in hospital. Surely this is the continuation of your line of logic.

Rasheed

SV wrote: »

IF it's full care and IF it's ICU then yes, that'd make sense.


however if I get brought in to hospital and kept overnight with slight breathing difficulties and need a nebulizer for about a half hour, please don't try and tell me it costs anywhere near €860.

If you're taking a bed in a medical hospital ward, whether you're highly dependent or just kept in for observation, you cost the same. There will be the same compliment of nurses, cleaners, administration work and medical staff for you as for the person who needs much more care.

As regards the cost of the ICU bed, it was €7,500 when I was in college so it probably had gone up to €9,000 at night for a bed.

looking_around

No

fishy fishy wrote: »

thats a ridiculous statement to be honest - some people HAVE to have health insurance. They put this as their priority, they may not be able to afford much else including buying house, car, etc because of their situation and because they are being screwed by their health insurance. To say that they are middle class and have an advantage is a bit green of you.

It's like saying let the public patients sell their car and house for health care.

What people in this country HAVE to have health insurance?
__

There are only a few countries with 'free' healthcare. Where the money we pay in is no where near the cost of the actual care.
Your taxes...add up all of it spent..will NOT pay for all your care.

Idk, it's a big drain on government spending.
__
I do think however that they need to have more private beds/rooms.
Make them somewhat better/nicer tvs-channels/ tv on each bed maybe? ..better beds..something to make it fair that they're paying 850 a night where as public patients receiving same treatment don't have to pay..So I do think they have to do something with that.

Jimoslimos

looking_around wrote: »

I do think however that they need to have more private beds/rooms.
Make them somewhat better/nicer tvs-channels/ tv on each bed maybe? ..better beds..something to make it fair that they're paying 850 a night where as public patients receiving same treatment don't have to pay..So I do think they have to do something with that.

People are obsessed with comparing hospital treatment to hotel rooms, especially the bizarre fascination with "beds". It's the other costs, staff, equipment, laboratory tests, etc that contribute towards the high cost of healthcare.

john hanrahan

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Private patients in public hospitals is a disaster, ideally there should be dedicated private hospitals for private patients. Health insurers would then have an incentive to increase the standard of care rather than push the blame on the public sector.

In the absence of this a mandatory health insurance OR increased tax on wages should be applied, you can choose whichever one suits you better. The Australian health system works similar. Not perfect but far better than the current mess we have here

i think we need to be careful about what we believe about other countries healthcare systems, a hospital in melbourne has been accused of fishing for patients with health ins , this includes the a mc millan cancer nurse telling patients to use there insurance or they will be further back the list and be seen by lowly members of the consultants team.

i don't have a link to the article but it was within the last 2 weeks.
i do have experience of the australian system and it is very good but it appears that hospitals need to make money and its the insured patients that is paying.

Doom

Time for everyone to dump health insurance, the quicker this is done the better for us.

Lenin Skynard

No

looking_around wrote: »

I do think however that they need to have more private beds/rooms.Make them somewhat better/nicer tvs-channels/ tv on each bed maybe? ..better beds..something to make it fair that they're paying 850 a night

Lack of fluffy mattresses and sky tv is where our health system is going wrong so.

Del2005

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

Why should those who aren't sick subsidise those who are? Those who aren't sick are paying more taxes than those who are because they're at work and not in hospital. Surely this is the continuation of your line of logic.

That's how health insurance is supposed to work, and our group rating takes it to the extreme. But with the new measures being introduced it'll force more people to ditch health insurance and therefore increase the pressure on the public side, which is what this measure is supposed to try and resolve!!

Rasheed wrote: »

If you're taking a bed in a medical hospital ward, whether you're highly dependent or just kept in for observation, you cost the same. There will be the same compliment of nurses, cleaners, administration work and medical staff for you as for the person who needs much more care.

There costs are the same if there's a patient in the bed or not so it can't be a cost to for the bed it's a cost to the country. Granted our health service is so inefficient that there's rarely an empty bed.

If one patient goes in for a half hour on a nebulizer and stay overnight, on private health insurance, and a different patient, without insurance, has to be checked every 10 minutes who costs more in resources? Yet the one patient is being charged multiple times more for less resources used.