Head over to our T
Private Hospitals on public lands. Good Idea badly sold.
Read more about: Health, Progressive Democrats 
For a so called free-market party the PD’s are crap at marketing. Take the whole private hospitals on private lands policy. When you look at it, it actually makes alot of sense. But the left have spun it amazingly well to make look like they are giving fat cats money and come out with this ridiculous mantra of not for profit hospitals. But really it is not a bad idea.
Basically what it is this. At the moment about 2000 beds in public hospitals are all ready private beds. Where the consultants get paid extra to take care of these people from the likes of VHI. Now although the patient gets the benefit from such things as food, cleaning, heating, (possibly nurses not sure if they get paid extra for private patients doubt it though) and the actual bed they don’t pay for that. We the tax payer pays for that. The idea for private hospitals on public lands is that these patients will go across the car park into the private hospital and pay for the bed heating etc themselves. While the now vacated bed can be used by someone who has no health insurance and can avail of the circa 2,000 beds freed up. Or if the private hospital wants to pay to use a public machine more money for the public sector. Makes sense to me.
ALso another advantage of the hospitals on the same ground is that say for instance the public hospital patient needs to use something that the public hospital does not have but the private hospital has then instead of a.) doing without or b.) having to take an ambulance across town or the country. They can just go across the car park. This might even save the state money. Take the classic example of plastic surgery. The private hospital will have one for breast surgery etc. But when the hospital on (I guess) the rare occasion someone needs facial reconstruction after a fire etc they can just use this surgeon. Rather then paying another surgeon to sit around all day waiting for something to do or only have one in the country for this type of work they could just use the private guy in most regional centers.
As for not-for profit health. Does a person on a trolley give a shit about who gets paid. Does Labour’s Margert go Oh I hope no shareholders will get money. No they and she want to be treated with dignity. No one says nurse’s should not be paid for the service they provide. So why should the capitalist who builds a hospital provides staff and equipment not be also paid. Surely in health results are the most important thing not ideology.
But I think they have lost this argument, I guess the main reason being it is easier to spin out lines about not-for profit health etc then go to the trouble of explaining the above logic. It needs a slogan but alas it does not lend itself to one.
Where to begin.
Firstly, where do you get your figure of 2,000 beds? Harney herself as said she doesn’t have a notion how many beds are going to be freed up by this scheme. She has predicted 1,000 and 2,000 at various times and told the Dáil she now has no figures to back it up.
Secondly, I have no problem with private hospitals treating private patients. I just don’t see why the Irish people should subsidise it. Our money should go to pay for OUR health service, not to prop up a private healthcare system. At the moment, my taxes subsidise some lad who can skip me in the queue for healthcare because he’s private and I’m not.
Thirdly, Drumm said last week that he, head of the HSE, and Harney, Minister for Health, had never discussed this scheme. Not once. Ever. He was also completely unclear as to how many hospitals we were talking about, four, eight, ten. That’s not a good thing.
Maev-Ann Wren, in her recent book on the health service, demonstrated that the best value for money in health is through the public system. Harney wants 3,000 beds (Neither she nor Drumm are sure they need them)? Pay for them. Why give tax breaks to private hospitals to maintain the two-tier health system?
If, as you say, the most important thing is delivery not ideology, why support a proposal that is at very best to laymen like you and I, untested and dubious, and to healthcare professionals, analysts and academics bordering on the insane, when there is a tried, tested and successful alternative, invest public money in the public health system.
invest public money in the public health system
Who is saying that we should not invest public money in public health system?
We are actually not bad we are spending 8.9% of GNP on health same as OECD average (remember we have the youngest population so probably also one the healthiest). 80% is Government spending compared to OECD average of 73%. Highest level of capital spending as a % of GNP in OECD with Norway. (we would want to in fairness after the 80s)
(This is from PD website no time to source OECD data but if you can link)
How much of that 80% is going to fund private patients beds, heating etc that make up supposedly 50% of the population.
The opposition parties have no policy on how to stop public funding the private patients health. They just say the PD policy is wrong and that you can’t deny people beds. While they will still be investing public money in private beds.
another advantage of the hospitals on the same ground is that say for instance the public hospital patient needs to use something that the public hospital does not have but the private hospital has
In reality the opposite is happening. The private sector is cherry-picking the high markup/low cost and low-risk cases and off-loading the risky and high cost cases on the public sector. Co-locating private and public hospitals will make it more convenient for the private sector to take advantage of public facilities.
As for not-for profit health. Does a person on a trolley give a shit about who gets paid. Does Labour’s Margert go Oh I hope no shareholders will get money.
A company is required by law to act in the best interest of its shareholders. Very often these interests will not coincide with the interests of patients. A company may be unwilling to treat a high-risk high-cost patient because it affects the bottom line. They could be sued by their shareholders for taking on such cases.
The fundamental issue here is that the taxpayer should not be subsidizing private healthcare. I don’t see how the proposal to build private hospitals on public land will solve this. I think it’s a handy number for the private sector, they get a nice location plus the backuip of a public facility on their doorsteps.
A company may be unwilling to treat a high-risk high-cost patient because it affects the bottom line. They could be sued by their shareholders for taking on such cases.
Not sure what you are getting at here but if it is high cost then they would charge the VHI/Bupa a higher price.
Co-locating private and public hospitals will make it more convenient for the private sector to take advantage of public facilities.
As opposed to the current situation where they are already in the building?
And they are already subsidizing private health care including giving the land that the private patients occupy in public hospitals.
Not sure what you are getting at here but if it is high cost then they would charge the VHI/Bupa a higher price.
And that results in higher premiums which results in less perople taking out private health insurance which in turn increases the stress on the public system.
What tends to happen in the for-profit model is that you have more tests, more procedures and keeping people in longer as this means you can charge more. After all, you have to pay the big bonuses to the senior executives. Higher costs push up premiums which makes health insurance unaffordable and puts more people back on the public system.
Co-location in Australia led to longer waiting lists for patients in public hospitals after private hospitals were located on their grounds. Colocation sounds good in theory but in practice it doesn’t work out like that. The crux of the problem is that profit must come before patients.