Health System

JD_PN17

The health system has got me thinking a lot lately. I was wondering just how many doctors and nurses does the HSE actually need and what subcategories of medical professionals are needed, eg. doctor = pediatrician/obstetrician-gynaecologist/gp/etc... nurse = midwife/clinical, etc.

Where are we under resourced with regards to medical specialists.

Sam_Doyle

Very good topic to think about

Geuze

Happy reading.............

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/sha/systemofhealthaccounts2015/

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

https://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-at-a-Glance-2015-Key-Findings-IRELAND.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-Policy-in-Ireland-February-2016.pdf

johnnyskeleton

Geuze wrote: »

Happy reading.............

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/sha/systemofhealthaccounts2015/

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

https://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-at-a-Glance-2015-Key-Findings-IRELAND.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-Policy-in-Ireland-February-2016.pdf

Mod note:

As per charter no news dumps. Please provide summary and your own views

James Brown

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.

Laura Magahy appointed executive director of Slaintecare
Former director of Temple Bar Properties was also involved with the ‘Bertie Bowl’

The Government has approved the appointment of Laura Magahy as executive director of the Slaintecare programme office.

Ms Magahy is a former director of Temple Bar Properties and former project manager of the Irish Film Institute. She also led the project to relocate Temple Street children’s hospital to the Mater hospital site.

After leaving Temple Bar in 2000, she won a lucrative contract to provide executive services for the ill-fated “Bertie Bowl” – named after former taoiseach Bertie Ahern – and Sports Campus Ireland at Abbotstown.

Her consortium won a similar contract to develop the Digital Hub in Dublin’s Liberties area.

It is understood Minister for Health Simon Harris sought approval from Cabinet on Thursday morning for the appointment.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/laura-magahy-appointed-executive-director-of-slaintecare-1.3562840

Nothing To See Here



This afternoon.

Government Buildings, Dublin 2

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Minister for Health launch the Sláintecare Report and announce the appointment of Laura Magahy, formerly of Temple Bar Properties, as Executive Director of Slaintecare and Tom Keane as chairman of the Slaintecare Advisory Council.

The report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Future of Healthcaret sets out a vision for the future of healthcare over a ten-year period.

But report author Social Democrat co-leader Roisin Shorthall said::

“Ms Laura Magahy is the managing director of a private sector company, and has been associated with a number of high profile and controversial projects.

It is also noteworthy that Ms Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services.

It is important that the Government now clarify how these commercial interests can be reconciled with Ms Magahy’s new role with Sláintecare and what her relationship with M.CO Projects will be.”

Of today’s launch. Ms Shorthall added:

“We are still waiting on the Government to agree their official response to the plan, despite it being promised before last Christmas”

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/07/12/nothing-to-see-here-41/

I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.





I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

You would be Matt.
Like everything else its a wonder you didn't suggest nama monies be reinvested in health after giving out about all the secret dodgy deals and favouritism for cronies from it.
Basically its like everything else IMO, the money needed just isn't there to get to the crux of the problems in the service.
A lot of it is top heavy management, unions making reform and restructuring virtually impossible and an organisation that has too much power now, virtually gone beyond political accountability except to lay blame for its own misgivings.
I wish any minister and govt with responsibility for the biggest monster in Ireland at present luck with getting this house in order!

Wanderer78

Current health service issues are probably unresolvable no matter who's in government, hard to know what to do now with it

Red_Wake

Reduction of medical cards would reduce a lot of spurious pressure on the health system. At the very least make medical cards give subsidized healthcare rather than free healthcare. 


Massive amounts of appointments for medical card holders are wasted due to the patient not showing up. And they don't care at all because it doesn't cost them a penny.

Wanderer78

Red_Wake wrote: »

Reduction of medical cards would reduce a lot of spurious pressure on the health system. At the very least make medical cards give subsidized healthcare rather than free healthcare. 


Massive amounts of appointments for medical card holders are wasted due to the patient not showing up. And they don't care at all because it doesn't cost them a penny.

of course this would help!:rolleyes:

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

You would be Matt.
Like everything else its a wonder you didn't suggest nama monies be reinvested in health after giving out about all the secret dodgy deals and favouritism for cronies from it.

Listen Ed, NAMA monies are to be loaned to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to offer. These are for private builds. I have issue with that and think the money could be used else where. Now that might be within the realms of tin foil hat or conspiracy theory for you for some reason, but I'll leave you ponder that one.

Edward M wrote: »

Basically its like everything else IMO, the money needed just isn't there to get to the crux of the problems in the service.
A lot of it is top heavy management, unions making reform and restructuring virtually impossible and an organisation that has too much power now, virtually gone beyond political accountability except to lay blame for its own misgivings.
I wish any minister and govt with responsibility for the biggest monster in Ireland at present luck with getting this house in order!

This is an empty vague comment, which like your comment above ignores my point of concern regarding vested private interest taking the reins on a relatively new health policy body. If you've no concern or comment, I'm not sure what your point really is.

It is also noteworthy that Ms Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services.

To me, bringing in private vested interests to over see tax payer money, is not a great idea and may lead to decisions being made not being in the best interest of the tax payer.

Wanderer78

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Listen Ed, NAMA monies are being loaned to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to offer. These are for private builds. I have issue with that and think the money could be used else where. Now that might be within the realms of tin foil hat or conspiracy theory for you for some reason, but I'll leave you ponder that one.



This is an empty vague comment, which like your comment above ignores my point of concern regarding vested private interest taking the reins on a relatively new health policy body. If you've no concern or comment, I'm not sure what your point really is.

To me, bringing in private vested interests to over see tax payer money, is not a great idea and may lead to decisions being made not being in the best interest of the tax payer.

the assets of nama should have been placed into a more publicly guaranteed fund such as a sovereign wealth fund but.....

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Reduction of medical cards would reduce a lot of spurious pressure on the health system. At the very least make medical cards give subsidized healthcare rather than free healthcare. 


Massive amounts of appointments for medical card holders are wasted due to the patient not showing up. And they don't care at all because it doesn't cost them a penny.

Too busy leaving their taps running? Any proof or just makey uppy?

Eric Cartman

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Current health service issues are probably unresolvable no matter who's in government, hard to know what to do now with it

move over to a private model where companies tender to operate hospitals at a fixed cost. Solves all the middle management bloat and ridiculous over bureaucratisation of the whole thing.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Listen Ed, NAMA monies are to be loaned to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to offer. These are for private builds. I have issue with that and think the money could be used else where. Now that might be within the realms of tin foil hat or conspiracy theory for you for some reason, but I'll leave you ponder that one.



This is an empty vague comment, which like your comment above ignores my point of concern regarding vested private interest taking the reins on a relatively new health policy body. If you've no concern or comment, I'm not sure what your point really is.



To me, bringing in private vested interests to over see tax payer money, is not a great idea and may lead to decisions being made not being in the best interest of the tax payer.

Fair enough.
Do you think the taxpayer is getting value for money now?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough.
Do you think the taxpayer is getting value for money now?

No.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

move over to a private model where companies tender to operate hospitals at a fixed cost. Solves all the middle management bloat and ridiculous over bureaucratisation of the whole thing.

But we already do. M.CO Projects ltd have been involved in consulting on numerous Hospital projects since before Kenny's tenure. Not putting blame at their door, but things have steadily worsened.
Then look at medical specialists/consultants, who cause long waiting lists by putting their private practise above the public.
We can't blame private business looking to further their private business.

The thing is none of the HSE problems are new. Are numerous governments unable or unwilling to tackle it? Shouldn't we look to getting in willing representation rather than the throw money at it and kick it down the road policy, before looking to self interested private parties? Which goes back to my concern all of this 'throw your hands up' at health is a move towards justifying privatisation, furthered by the appointments mentioned in the Slaintecare article quoted above.

Anita Blow

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Too busy leaving their taps running? Any proof or just makey uppy?

Based on a small Dublin-based study, 84% of DNAs (Didn't Attend) were medical card-holders. Anecdotally from my own experience in an outpatient department, most DNAs were also medical card holders.

I'm not at all using this a stick to beat medical card holders with, but it is a problem and we should try do something to fix it.

James Brown

Anita Blow wrote: »

Based on a small Dublin-based study, 84% of DNAs (Didn't Attend) were medical card-holders. Anecdotally from my own experience in an outpatient department, most DNAs were also medical card holders.

I'm not at all using this a stick to beat medical card holders with, but it is a problem and we should try do something to fix it.

So 84% of the 5.6% of patients who didn't turn up were Medical Card holders, in that clinic. Fair enough....

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jesus - yer man never shuts up about NAMA, but has yet to make a coherent point about it. What on Earth does NAMA have to do with the health system?

Agreed. Was not I. (FYI: my point on NAMA is laid out in the comment you quoted).

Edward M wrote: »

You would be Matt.
Like everything else its a wonder you didn't suggest nama monies be reinvested in health ...

So Freud, what's your take on "...Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services."? Same company involved in the Bertie Bowl. Does it look more like a move towards privatising?

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. Was not I. (FYI: my point on NAMA is laid out in the comment you quoted).



So Freud, what's your take on "...Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services."? Same company involved in the Bertie Bowl. Does it look more like a move towards privatising?

If you look at our 2 tier health service, its already semi private anyway IMO unless you have a medical card.
I pay for any medical services I require, thankfully not a lot so far.
I think if you look at what you're posting, if anything could be made of it, then perhaps cronyism or favouritism is what the case could be made for.
No govt here would plan to privatise the health service, like the water charges but maybe even worse would be the outcome I think.
I think personally you are reading too much into this appointment.

Miina

Brilliant two part documentary on BBC recently celebrities do the NHS, worth a watch on this topic. Ireland has always followed the English health system.

Nitrogan

There's too few people paying for too many, like most things.

It's a bit of a myth I'm sure but the notion that generations of families could live more comfortably than 99% of the world's population, on welfare in Ireland, without ever even trying to contribute to society is entirely plausible.

The population is aging. The burden on tax payers is growing but the demand for broader and more expensive health care grows at an even greater rate.

Apart from letting too many people gouge the system if we spend too much of our limited resources saving unhealthy non-contributing citizens for a few years until their next medical episode, we'll run out of money needed to invest in future taxpayers.

That is a callous way of putting it but we're getting to the stage that with enough effort/expenditure you can prolong a life by years even if the quality of it is terrible.

This is not an easy thing to say because like everyone I have people close to me who depend on these resources, and I'll be there myself someday.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

If you look at our 2 tier health service, its already semi private anyway IMO unless you have a medical card.
I pay for any medical services I require, thankfully not a lot so far.
I think if you look at what you're posting, if anything could be made of it, then perhaps cronyism or favouritism is what the case could be made for.
No govt here would plan to privatise the health service, like the water charges but maybe even worse would be the outcome I think.
I think personally you are reading too much into this appointment.

You contradict yourself a little here.
I think the current move could be used to cut out the middleman, customer model.
If privatised there would need to be concessions made for the poor, (I'm including working tax payers on low income). So why not chip away at various areas until it's essentially semi private? Unlike IW, instead of a charge, simply use tax monies and pay private concerns to run it. This gives government someone to point a finger at if anything goes awry or things become worse and bypasses the user pays model. Just a thought.

Personally, we need to have politicians and their underlings held 100% accountable. Bringing in private concerns with private objectives may not be in the public interest.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.





I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

Let me see. You believe that the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health, and you evidence is one appointment of one person to one position.

Right. Is this a serious position you are putting forward?

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So Freud, what's your take on "...Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services."? Same company involved in the Bertie Bowl. Does it look more like a move towards privatising?

eh....not even remotely. It looks like a public body using a consultancy service which, I hate to break to you, is incredibly common.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You contradict yourself a little here.
I think the current move could be used to cut out the middleman, customer model.
If privatised there would need to be concessions made for the poor, (I'm including working tax payers on low income). So why not chip away at various areas until it's essentially semi private? Unlike IW, instead of a charge, simply use tax monies and pay private concerns to run it. This gives government someone to point a finger at if anything goes awry or things become worse and bypasses the user pays model. Just a thought.

Personally, we need to have politicians and their underlings held 100% accountable. Bringing in private concerns with private objectives may not be in the public interest.

I know, I did refer to a 2 tier service.
I don't know how to overcome this personally, but unless you completely nationalise health then it will continue.
I do see your point insofar as public health hospitals being used for private patients thus leaving less space for public patients and leaving longer waiting lists for treatments.
But I don't see an agenda of total privatisation of the,service though.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Let me see. You believe that the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health, and you evidence is one appointment of one person to one position.

Right. Is this a serious position you are putting forward?

No. Did you read my post?

This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise.

Hardly the level of ISIS scaremongering...

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

eh....not even remotely. It looks like a public body using a consultancy service which, I hate to break to you, is incredibly common.

Eh, I thought the idea was bringing in private consultants would help the health service the government is either unwilling or unable to tackle themselves? So eh, these folk have been involved for decades and I hear very common, so this doesn't seem to be working.
This particular lady has a private company that does business with the HSE, that's a conflict of interest right there IMO.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Eh, I thought the idea was bringing in private consultants would help the health service the government is either unwilling or unable to tackle themselves? So eh, these folk have been involved for decades and I hear very common, so this doesn't seem to be working.

I don't really understand this. My point was nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of these consultants. Your contention that the use of them has something to do with a path towards privatisation is flat out incorrect.

I'm not really seeing the conflict of interest angle either to be honest.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't really understand this. My point was nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of these consultants. Your contention that the use of them has something to do with a path towards privatisation is flat out incorrect.

I'm not really seeing the conflict of interest angle either to be honest.

Using private companies to oversee ever increasing sections of the health service is how one might go about privatisation.
As regards the conflict of interest, a private individual hired to assist in overseeing the roll out of health policy is also heavily involved with a company the health service has/does do business with. That's your conflict of interest right there.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Using private companies to oversee ever increasing sections of the health service is how one might go about privatisation.
As regards the conflict of interest, a private individual hired to assist in overseeing the roll out of health policy is also heavily involved with a company the health service has/does do business with. That's your conflict of interest right there.

Using consultancy services still has nothing to do with privatization though, which was your original assertion. All public bodies the world over use external expertise at times.

Why? Her company has provided consultancy services to the HSE in the past. So what? What exactly is the conflict that may arise from this? You haven't actually outlined any potential conflict whatsoever. Being in charge of selecting which consultancy service to use for a project when you also own a consultancy service is a conflict of interest. Having previously provided services to the HSE and then having a job in the HSE is not in and of itself a conflict. What scenario do you see where this conflict will arise?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Did you read my post?

Hardly the level of ISIS scaremongering...

I did read your post, and there was nothing substantive to it. You were suggesting because one private company had won one contract, that there was a secret agenda to privatise the health service. Did I miss something?