We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
OVER 700 PATIENTS have referred to the National Treatment Purchase Fund by medical consultants in the last three years – only to end up being treated by the same consultants on a private basis.
Details supplied to the Medical Independent newspaper indicate that 714 patients were treated by the same consultant twice – first in the public health system, and again after being referred to the NTPF by that consultant.
Over 450 of those instances came in 2009, according to documents supplied under the Freedom of Information Act. The number of patients seen by the same consultant accounted for around 2 per cent of all NTPF referrals in 2009.
The double referrals come despite the fund’s policy that patients should not be treated by the same consultant who referred them.
The fund, which stopped accepting patients earlier this year, was established in 2002 to buy treatment in private hospitals for patients who have been on public waiting lists for a certain period of time.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Firstly, the consultants are not paid for seeing the patient originally in an isolated episode. The consultant would be paid their salary for seeing the patient in question along with many tens of thousands that year.
Secondly, they only can refer the patient to the treatment purchase scheme under strict guidelines on waiting list etc. With ward and theatre closures etc. it’s not the consultants fault the public system is not able to facilitate the work they want to do.
The headline is misleading to say the least but fulfills the theme that is a crowd pleaser.
The headline wasn’t intended to mislead, apologies if it did – it’s been changed now.
Altered headline or not, the article still gives the distinct impression that this is a problem of the consultants’ making, and that they are somehow manipulating the system.
If these patients weren’t referred, the story would be “consultants leave patients to rot instead of referring them to NTPF”, blaming them for that too.
@Eoghan – If you can suggest alternative language for any part in the piece which unfairly blames one group over another, I’ll happily change it.
Isn’t it also the case that the HSE didn’t spend all of the NTF, effectively leaving patients untreated, due to bureaucratic inaction?
@Gavan – perhaps pointing out the political failure to provide sufficient public capacity would be a start.
Or point out that these patients would otherwise potentially still be waiting for procedures.
Or maybe, just for the craic, congratulate the attempt by the health service to address the problem of waiting lists with a flexible approach.
Eoghan – I appreciate your meaning, but including pieces like that would turn a short fact-only piece into a critique, which is beyond our impartial editorial policy for individual news pieces.
Casting the article as it is quite clearly demonstrates anything but impartiality. As you well know, the way you say something is at least as important as what you actually say in terms of overall meaning.
The consultants are the goodies, and yet again they are portrayed by a Journal piece as shifty characters in black hats.
@jumpthecat Have you read the original headline in the original article in Medical Independent?
“Consultants paid double for seeing same patients” , which is, essentially, the story.
And your point is? That still doesn’t make the headline accurate whatever rag reports on it!
Or go-boys in dicky bows Eoghan!
If I remember correctly they don’t like their pockets being pinched in the interest of the common good and if any opportunity presents itself within the shambles of the health service to suit their own ends they will grasp it with vigour.
Two-tier health system, anyone?
The hospitals refer patients to the NTPF to move them off their budgets, which are over target. It’s moving patients from one side of the balance sheet to the other, an accounting exercise, and consultants I know think it’s as stupid as we do.
Never mind the headline, a messed up Health system, with fat cat consultants living it large. I know personally, that they’re now ‘feeling the pinch’. But this is unfortunately the direction of Health in Ireland, Private Care.
I got a called for an specialist examination yesterday, not bad publicly 17 months later !
Only in Ireland …………………
The discussion here and three interventions by the Journal’a author simply hardens my opinion that lynch mob journalism is being incited here quite frequently.
Why would anyone want to serve their country as a public representative given the extreme left wing abuse they get.
Why would anyone wish to work as a medical specialist in Ireland given the appalling abuse they receive the same mob!
Again – and I’m genuinely curious – can someone point to a piece in the article which they feel victimises consultants? The only instances in which they’re mentioned is – in the headline and first paragraph – refer to them merely because they are an operative part of a chain of succession (as in, part of an A-to-B-to-C sequence).
Apologies if this comes across as curt but, as someone who’s trying to be a fair news reporter, I’m very uneasy with any perception that I’m unfair to a particular group and I’m honestly flummoxed as to where this perception comes across in this piece.
@Gavan – From the original article: “There were limited and controlled circumstances where an exemption from this policy was allowed…for example with some paediatric or very specialised surgery…The majority of these referrals relate to paediatric out-patient and in-patient cardiology cases, as well as a small number of neurology cases”.
Which is to say, the ‘double referrals’ primarily occurred in specialties where oftentimes there isn’t any other consultant to refer to.
Omitting that snippet from the Journal’s rehash quite clearly changes the tone of the overall story. Impartial my eye.
Eoghan – with respect, we’re caught in a bind for examples like this, because when we’re covering a story which is someone else’s exclusive, we have to try and leave some of the content out of our version so that there’s a reason for the person to click through and read the original. Including every clause and explanation would mean we would be doing a wholesale re-write and rehash of someone else’s piece, with no reason for a reader to go through to the original.
And, consultants in a public capacity dont get paid for individual consults.
Cha Ching!
The whole system is open to abuse. Four years ago I became quite ill, one doctor referred me to a surgeon and both felt I needed a surgical procedure so I was put on the list, ok so far, I waited. By the time I was referred to the NTPF I had a serious infection but nevertheless the consultant in the hospital I was sent to called me back 5 times for “consultations”. He never operated and another 18 months went by, I saw the original surgeon who assumed I had my operation at this stage and when he looked into it he found out the NTPF surgeon wasn’t going “to touch me” as I had a “super bug”, yet he was happy to see me 5 times and presumably get paid each time. I eventually got rid of that bug… and caught another one, and my original condition has deteriorated to such a degree that its now unlikely I’ll ever be able to have the operation.
I have great respect for most doctors, I’d be dead without them, but there are those who know how to milk a system and abuse it to their advantage.
You cannot operate on so do somebody with an infection electively.
The surgeon would not have been paid extra for seeing you more than once.
Seeing you five times was actually quite generous given he had taken the decision that not operating was the Best thing for YOU.
What’s this!!! Mark going private, never
Particularly if he was seeing you in a public clinic…NTPF are now defunct anyway.gone….
Try picking on the Catholic Church with the rest of us Gavin. They don’t say much!
What hardens my view is a mail from the author that is not published to all on the website………………..what is going on or do I need treatment for paranoia?
Mark – I’m not sure what you’re referring to. You’re commenting using a Twitter account, which doesn’t give us your personal data, so I don’t have an email address to contact you with.
Gavan my two comments were made within milliseconds of each other but the time difference on your site shows some degree of manipulation .My second comment resulted in direct notification of your own comments to my website address…………and I’m the one with paranoia?.
Which two comments, Mark? Email me at gavan@thejournal.ie if you’d rather discuss this in private.
have your say