Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 29 Sep 2011

HSE Annual Report and Financial Statements 2010

Mr. Cathal Magee (Chief Executive, Health Service Executive) called and examined.

I remind members and those in attendance to switch off mobile telephones as they interfere with the transmission of the meeting. I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members are reminded of the provision within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

I welcome Mr. Cathal Magee, chief executive of the Health Service Executive, and ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Cathal Magee

The senior management members with me are: Mr. Liam Woods, national director, finance; Ms Laverne McGuinness, national director, integrated services directorate; Mr. Brian Gilroy, national director, commercial and support services; and Mr. Sean McGrath, national director, human resources. I am also joined by Dr. Susan O'Reilly, national director of the national cancer control programme, who is available to the committee if required.

I welcome the official from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Mr. Tom Heffernan

I am a principal officer in the sectoral policy section.

I welcome the official from the Department of Health.

Mr. Paul Barron

I am assistant secretary.

We do not have a representative from the Department of Finance.

Mr. Paul Barron

The function in relation to public expenditure is normally performed by the Department of Pubic Expenditure and Reform.

If queries related to the Department of Finance are raised, as occurred on the previous occasion representatives of the Health Service Executive appeared before the committee, will Mr. Barron take responsibility for answering them?

Mr. Paul Barron

If queries are raised in relation to finance today, I will certainly bring them to the attention of the Department of Finance. If there is an issue about Department of Finance representation, I will also bring that to the attention of the Department.

I ask Mr. Barron to consider whether a representative of the Department should be present to prevent a merry-go-round whereby issues are passed from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to the Department of Finance to the Department of Health. If a departmental official was here and a question was asked similar to that which was asked at our previous meeting with the HSE, we would be able to have it answered directly. This is important given that we are entering a new period in which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has assumed responsibility for expenditure by Departments. I suggest the Department consider encouraging the Department of Finance to have officials represented at these meetings.

Mr. Paul Barron

I will bring the Chairman's view to the attention of the Department of Finance. While I cannot speak for the Department, I will relay the Chairman's view to it.

I ask Mr. Buckley to commence. The full text of Chapters 38 to 45 inclusive can be found in the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the website of the Comptroller and Auditor General at www.audgov.gov.ie.

Mr. John Buckley

The Health Service Executive spent €14.7 billion on health and social care services in 2009. In addition, it spent €414 million on capital projects, of which €124 million was applied within agencies that provide services to the HSE. Its funding came from voted funds to the extent of €11.9 billion, €1.8 billion was raised by way of health contributions and the balance came from other income.

My annual report for 2009 includes eight chapters on health. I will mention some of the main findings briefly. On property management, the assets of the HSE have a historic cost value of €4.3 billion. A complete and accurate property database would be essential in managing assets because property is a key facilitator in the delivery of all services and the HSE's capacity to match property solutions to the objectives of component parts of the service is essential in the planning of its operations. The audit found that the content of the database that had been compiled remained invalidated and there were differences between the assets as recorded by the Property Registration Authority and HSE and as between the assets as recorded by the two different functions with responsibility for this area within the HSE, namely, its property and finance functions.

At the time of the report, there was limited information on building condition, maintenance costs, functional suitability and utilisation of property. The information system that had been created was not being used by most estate managers. We recommended that to obtain value from the investment that had been made in compiling the database, the HSE needed to validate the content, integrate it into the work of its staff, use it in service planning and ensure the database agreed with its financial records.

More generally, information is an essential resource in managing service delivery. It is important that this information be provided to managers in a timely and accessible form. In this regard, the HSE plans to improve information through projects designed to manage its accounting and procurement functions; improve radiology imaging processes; manage patient administration, including medical records management; and assist in managing laboratory test results. Progress in these areas has been slow. The chapter noted the need to manage the systems development through a structured process and ensure the associated business change that was to accompany the developments was fully taken into account. In this respect, our major concern was that the HSE did not have an overall information and communications technology, ICT, strategy and there was no functioning ICT steering committee at that point.

The HSE's cashflow is affected by delays in collecting income from private patients. Treatment of patients on a private basis in excess of the intended quota also has implications for equality of access. Chapter 44 reviewed the progress in implementing the limits on private practice by consultants that were agreed under the consultant contract 2008. The arrangements put in place by the HSE envisaged the payment by the consultant of excess fees for private practice into a research and study fund. The monitoring was very much in arrears at the point at which we examined the issue and no financial adjustments had been effected at the time of the report.

At the same time, the HSE is facilitating claims against insurers by consultants in respect of private work at public hospitals. These claims are processed in conjunction with its own claims for maintenance charges. In 2009, it was taking on average more than five months to collect maintenance charges for those persons who had been accommodated in designated private beds. Part of the delay is due to the requirement to have the entire claim signed off by a consultant. The report outlines a set of measures the HSE proposed to address the delays, including establishing targets for claim completion in each hospital; submitting claims more frequently - they were previously submitted monthly; movement to electronic processing; and centralisation of billing. The impact achieved to date has been low.

Chapter 42 outlines the progress in introducing cancer screening. It also notes some issues in regard to the funding and accounting for capital grants made available by the Department. The background to the accounting issues is that in 2007 the National Cancer Screening Service Board drew down funding in instances where the liability had not matured because the associated goods had not been delivered. It also charged a set of related invoices to its account and showed the liability under those invoices as having been discharged. This was achieved by moving the funds into an escrow account. The accounting for the matter was rectified in the 2008 financial statements. Overall, it must be said the funds were applied for the purposes intended. The chapter also reports that reasonable progress has been made on introducing the screening programmes.

Chapter 43 reviewed the comparative cost of agency staff, overtime and internal nurse banks which are managed internally by hospitals. At the point we reported, the cost of agency staff was higher than that of HSE staff and the cost of procurement of agency staff varied, due to the absence of a standard administration charge payable to agencies. There appears to be merit in evaluating options in light of relative costs as market conditions change, so as to enable the service to choose the optimum staffing solution.

Building on previous reports, chapter 45 explored the possibility of using service related information to inform decisions on the allocation of funding to voluntary bodies in the area of disabilities. The HSE had begun to seek additional information, but the audit found that the intensity of support needed by individuals with disabilities was not captured, either within the bodies themselves or by the HSE and the quality of the data currently being submitted needed to be validated in order to ensure its consistency across the system. In this respect, a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disability services was being conducted at the time of reporting. I understand the HSE has updated the committee on developments in all of these areas since.

I now invite Mr. Magee to make his opening statement.

Mr. Cathal Magee

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today's meeting. I have already introduced my colleagues.

There are a number of chapters in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report for examination today. On Friday, 23 September we submitted an updated position and response on a range of the matters raised in the report. As a consequence, I do not propose to comment on all of the chapters today, but will comment on two in particular.

First of these is the financial control system. Maintaining a strong system of internal financial control is a continuous process and procedures are in place to monitor its effectiveness. The published HSE annual report and financial statements for 2010, which are available on our website, set out in detail the processes and procedures that have been carried out to both evaluate and improve control systems. The HSE's system of internal financial control is supported by a detailed framework for corporate and financial governance and a comprehensive suite of national financial regulations.

Chapter 40 dealt with patient income. The 2009 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General identified collection of private income as a key issue for the HSE. There remain unacceptably long delays in the collection of income for private treatment. The difficulty in collection arises from the fact that for many years the collection of hospital private accommodation charges has been linked to the completion of a full claim, as determined by insurers, including the completion of the consultants' portion of the claim. The debt outstanding relating to private charges for all hospitals in the public system was €202 million at 30 June 2011. This compares with €175 million in 2009 and the increase is largely explained by the 21% increase in charges introduced on 1 January 2011. This debt is 175 days old. If the HSE and voluntary hospitals were paid on normal commercial terms of 30 days, there would be a once-off cash benefit of up to €162 million to the HSE.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report referred to the decoupling of the collection of the hospital charge for accommodation from the consultant fee. This would allow the hospitals to bill insurers directly and thus accelerate income collection. During the course of 2011, the HSE sought to collect the statutory charge from health insurers independently of the consultants' private fee income, prior to sign-off of the entire claim by the consultant. This change to the claims process, which was instigated by the HSE in February 2011, has not been facilitated by the private health insurers. The HSE has escalated this for the attention of the Department of Health. We have been in discussion with the Department since October 2010 on this issue, following my appointment, and there is recognition of the need to fundamentally change the payment process. The Department recommended, in its value for money and performance report, published in December 2010, the decoupling of private accommodation charges from consultants' private fees. This needs to be enabled as a matter of urgency.

Chapter 44 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report covers consultants' private practice. The focus of the comptroller's audit was to update previous reporting and ascertain the extent to which the HSE had put arrangements in place to enable it to implement provisions of the consultant contract, 2008, that provide for excess income from private practice to be remitted to a special research fund. Nationally, the proportion of private patients treated in public hospitals and facilities has continued to fall since 2009, from 25.9% to 22.3%, while the proportion of public patients has risen. This indicates an improving trend towards compliance with the provisions of the consultant contract, 2008. Some 97% of consultants are now in compliance with their contracted public-private ratios.

The engagement with the medical unions on measures which result in sanctions for those consultants in breach of their contracted ratio has been protracted, difficult and without agreement. The HSE was in a formal process with 70 consultants who were identified as engaging in levels of private practice in excess of their private practice ratios and significant progress has been made. As of 15 September, the HSE has required a small number of consultants to cease private practice, in accordance with the provisions of the consultants contract 2008. Equity in the treatment of public and private patients and the implementation of the consultant contract, 2008, remain a key priority for the HSE.

May we publish that statement and the further information provided to the committee?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

I welcome Mr. Magee and his team. One wonders who is holding the fort in his office.

I would like to begin with some questions on consultants contracts to the Accounting Officer, Mr. Magee. I welcome the fact that some 97% of consultants are in compliance with the contract. In the update sent to the committee, Mr. Magee said that in February of 2011 some 12 consultants were in excess of 50% and that he had begun writing letters and issuing disciplinary proceedings and had set a nine-month deadline for the remittance of funds. He threatened withdrawal of private practice rights and that happened in two cases. What about the other ten people to whom Mr. Magee wrote. Are they all in compliance now?

Mr. Cathal Magee

No, there is a process under way. The social research institute has a HIPE system in place and that measures the data on which we base the calculation of the consultants' private practice. Discussion takes place with the individual consultants about any issues that arise and about variations which are allowed under the contract and other arrangements and moderation of that data. There is a process under way with all the consultants to validate data, ensure the measurements are correct and there are no issues outstanding. That process is under way.

Is it correct that the HSE has reached a conclusion with two consultants and is evaluating the data for the other ten?

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is right. We have reached a point with two consultants where we have gone through the process, they have refused to engage and we have moved to cease their private practice. With all the other consultants we are at different stages of dialogue and are dealing with the issues around their individual private practices. Initially, we felt there were 70 consultants over their private practice ratios in a significant way. This is all part of the work we have been doing over the past 12 months.

Are these 12 from that 70 or in addition to the 70?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes, they are from that 70.

How many consultants asked to remit excess income have done so?

Mr. Cathal Magee

None yet.

Am I correct that the HSE wrote to 12 consultants asking them to remit excess income, but that none of them have done so?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

Mr. Magee has indicated that the private practice of some 70 consultants is in excess by 40% or 50%. The HSE has resolved the issues with regard to nine of the 20 consultants in excess by 50%. What about the 50 who are in excess by 40%, are they involved in this process also?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report of July 2010 found that 33% of consultants were in breach of the 2008 contract. Can you say how you calculated the figure of 97% compliance?

Mr. Cathal Magee

The data is based on HIPE data and the information on the full consultant population. There are 2,500 consultants who are employed in our system and the number of people who are not compliant is calculated based on those who are outstanding in the HIPE data.

You have a figure of 70 for non-compliance.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes.

Surely you are comparing apples and oranges. You are saying that 70 are not compliant, but you are including the consultants who work exclusively for public contracts among compliant consultants. You are saying the rest are compliant with their public-private ratio, but if some of them are working 100% for public contracts, you are diluting the figures a little.

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is a fair point. The 97% figure is based on the total consultant population. One could disaggregate across the A contracts, B contracts and C contracts and determine the compliance within each category. We would be happy to make that information available to the committee. The figure of 97% reflects the fact that across the total population of consultants we have significant compliance. It is important to say that the majority of consultants are in compliance with their contracts, but there are between 3% and 5% who are not in compliance with the required ratios and have not engaged effectively with us in accordance with the terms of their contracts. That is the process that has been under way for the last 12 months.

Page 36 of the update states there are 396 who are on different contracts, so they are obviously to be excluded from the figure as well. We are down to the B contract, because there is nobody on the C contract. It is really 70 out of 1,500.

Mr. Cathal Magee

The B contracts are also for people who have their original contracts.

I do not think the 97% figure is accurate, to be honest.

Mr. Cathal Magee

The Deputy is making a fair point. We are happy to disaggregate the data on the basis of the individual contracts. Mr. Brian Gilroy is chairman of the implementation group for consultants' contracts. Maybe he would like to comment.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The point is about compliance with the contract, as opposed to just the public-private ratio, because there is an awful lot more to the contract. Those 498 A consultants are on the 2008 contracts, so that is where the figure comes from.

You say in your report that 97% of consultants are in compliance with their contracted public-private ratios, not with their contracts.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

If you correct the figures to include only B and B* contracts, the figure ends up at 95.5% rather than 97%. We are happy to adjust it to 95.5%.

The 70 people mentioned as being outside the terms of their contracts have a private case ratio either above 40% or above 50%, but the contract states that the maximum a consultant can do is 30%. How many are in the category between 30% and 40%, who are also surely in breach of their contracts?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

This may inform the Deputy's earlier question about reconciliation with the chapter of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. There are two stages to the process. The first is a HIPE report, the case-mix report that is run by the ESRI on behalf of the HSE. That is the system that is in the contract. However, it also states in the contract that due cognisance is taken of complexity, and there are other rule sets in the contract. This means that a consultant on a 30% contract may have a HIPE figure of 34% and still be compliant. The reason is that it is built into the contract that there can be team-based aggregation, so that while a group of consultants working within one team must stay within their contract limit, individuals may be over. Such individuals then become compliant. Similarly, there is the issue of small volumes. A consultant may see only three patients within the HIPE system, of whom two happen to be private and one public; that consultant is then non-compliant. There is a rule set that has been in place for the last two years. Assessment of compliance is a two-stage process. The figures of 40% and 50% are based on the raw HIPE data, and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report works off the raw HIPE data for the 33%. However, when you apply the rule set within the contract, many of these figures come down. All of the 50% people, for example, ended up dropping down to 30% plus after the rule set correction, while many of the 40% people came into compliance.

So nobody who came out between 30% and 40% in the raw data is in breach of his or her contract.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No. When you apply all the corrections, they come back within the terms of the contract.

Is that every one of them? If a person is on 39%, would he or she come back down to within the prescribed limit?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Thirty percent in the raw HIPE data. The point is that this is all in the contract; I am not re-doing the figures retrospectively. There is an allowance for team-based activity and also for multi-site aggregation. A consultant may have a very high private practice ratio in a private hospital, for example, but may do many sessions in a public hospital also, and the ratio must be aggregated across two or three hospitals.

I find it a little strange that if someone has a 40% private case load he or she is definitely outside the terms of the contract but if he or she has a 39% private case load it is definitely within the terms of the contract. It seems quite an arbitrary figure.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No, it is not. For example, the Deputy mentioned earlier the initial group of people who were written to with regard to the withdrawal on 15 September. Many of those people adjusted their private practice case loads downwards, and when the rule set was applied, came within compliance. There are historical issues with some, but many of the consultants have adjusted their practices and come within compliance, and we are reviewing the possibility of parking the outstanding money for them as long as they remain in compliance. The figure of 40% is not an arbitrary one. We know that many of those on 40%, when adjusted, come back within compliance as well.

All right. We have 70 consultants who are in breach of their contracts-----

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Who were, yes.

-----12 of whom have been written to and asked to cease and to remit money, and none of these has remitted any money.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Many of the others have been written to as well about their practices. Many of the balance of the 70 consultants are at various stages at which they have been written to and asked to remit money. The process in the contract is quite convoluted. The measure is taken and there are nine months in which to make corrections. At the end of the nine months, if this has not been done, the employer informs the consultant that he or she remains in breach of the contract, and the consultant is afforded an opportunity to outline the income he or she received due to the breach. Thus, if a consultant is on a 20% contract but has a private case load of 24%, he or she is given a couple of months to declare the value of the extra 4%. If that declaration is not forthcoming, the employer has the right to estimate the value of the extra 4%. This is one of the reasons the process has been so prolonged. The estimation takes place and, after that, the consultant is presented with an invoice to remit the outstanding moneys to the research fund. He or she is given an opportunity either to pay or correct the estimate to the actual figure. Only at that point, if the money has not been surrendered after a number of months, do we take the action of withdrawal of his or her private practice.

This was designed as a way of policing the contracts so that if people did breach them there was a way of getting money back. It was a stick to use in cases of breach of contract, and it has never been implemented. Many people would see the situation in another way: there are 70 consultants in the public service who are being overpaid for work they are not doing. They are not complying with their contracts under which we pay them to work with public patients at a ratio of 70%. As they are doing less than that, they are being overpaid. If a person receives a social welfare overpayment, he or she does not get nine months to come back with a proposal for improving the situation; the extra money is deducted from his or her allowances snappily, and he or she is treated rather harshly. Yet we have a much softer approach when it comes to consultants - we write to them, ask them and plead with them and, ultimately, no one is sanctioned.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

I do not think it is a softer approach; it is the approach that was negotiated in the contract. I cannot reverse the 2008 contract. All we can do is to implement it. They are all the processes within it.

The purpose of the limit on the public-private ratio was not as a stick to beat people with or the basis for a witch-hunt; it was to create equity of access, and there is much more to the contract that does deliver that. We have common waiting lists, for example, in all the public hospitals. It has removed the incentive for any consultant to prioritise a private patient over a public patient based merely on his or her ability to pay rather than on clinical need.

I note from the report that engagement with consultants has been difficult. It basically says they are not co-operating or complying. You do not say that lightly, I presume.

Mr. Cathal Magee

In the last 12 months, we have been active in working towards effective implementation of the contract. As the Deputy has pointed out, we have started at the outer edges. The engagement with the consultants' association has been protracted and difficult because of the complexity of the contract, the complexity of the measurement system, and the timeframes that are available. That is the key issue: it is complex and very technical, and the difficulties have been at an association level. At an individual level we are making significant progress with consultants where there is agreement about the extent of the excess of private to public ratio and a willingness by them to become compliant. The issue is to try to deal with the complexity of the contract, to implement it in an effective way and to get the consultants' association to be constructive about building a compliance culture around the contract. This is essential to underpin the sustainability of the public private mix and to make it work effectively in our system. That has been the dynamic during the past 12 months. We are at a point now where we are escalating into ceasing private practice in the areas where an individual consultant is not co-operating. We aim to reach that point and that will continue.

Am I right in saying the HSE agreed to a general process review of the public-private measurement system in August? Was it agreed to examine that again? Is that accurate?

Mr. Seán McGrath

No. We continue to ensure we capture as much of the clinical activity as possible and to consider our ability to capture it and ensure it is comparable. We put it to the associations that during the coming months we will continue to do that collectively and together if we can. It has been going on for three years and we want to show that we are measuring all of the clinical activity we possibly can. We will continue to do that with the associations without forgetting what we had done in the past.

It is a hell of a contract when one considers it. It took five years of negotiations before it was signed in 2008 and it is still up in the air and under negotiation some three years later.

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is a fair point. In fairness, there is a complexity around the measurement. The measurement system HIPE does not capture all the activity. Putting in the processes to recognise that and deal with that at an individual consultant and hospital level has been difficult. We are not saying the measurement system through HIPE is perfect. There are gaps with regard to capturing all the clinical activity. There are processes in various specialties to ensure it is complete. There is a situation where the HIPE data may suggest a consultant has 50% private practice, as Brian Gilroy stated. However, de facto when one considers the totality of clinical activity that may come right down. That has been an underpinning weakness in the proper execution of the contract implementation.

Is it the case that HIPE is basically the starting point and the HSE will work from that?

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is correct.

Has the HSE been able to put a cost or value on the lost hours to the HSE through consultants who are not working their contractual hours? Has the HSE been able to put a cost on the number of patients who have not been seen?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

There is no suggestion that any of the consultants are not working their contracted hours.

There is a contradiction there if they are not working the amount of public hours or seeing the level of public patients they are supposed to be seeing. If they are working excess private, they are working less public.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

They may be working less public off a higher number of hours in the week. A consultant could be doing 80 hours in a week and may be well in excess of his contractual obligations on the public side. This is done on a ratio basis not on an hourly basis. Of the two consultants who have now had their private rights withdrawn one in particular considerably exceeds any contractual obligation on the public side. It is not simply with regard to hours it is in regard to patients seen as well.

There is a health and safety issue if someone is working 80 or 90 hours per week. Surely it is not good to have a consultant working 80 or 90 hours per week. They end up dealing with people in critical situations. Is that an issue?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

One must consider the percentage but historically doctors, especially consultants, have always worked long hours. Many people on type A contracts who have nothing to do with private work still work long hours. Anyway, clinical governance oversees that.

Are they breaching that?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Not that I am aware of.

I will leave it. Page 39 of the report states that guidance was issued to the hospitals with regard to the measurement of private practice. One item related to whether the consultant charged the patient. How does that work in respect of calculating whether the work was done and in determining the public private mix?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

That dictates whether it is a private patient.

I understood it was to do with the timing of the charging.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

It relates to whether they were charged at all.

That is basic. The HSE is cleverer than I had thought. I want to move on to chapter 40 and the management of patient income. The HSE report states that the amount outstanding to the State in June 2011 is €202 million and it has been outstanding for six months. This was referred to again in the opening statement. This money has been paid by private patients, it has been supplemented by the State and is being recouped. In August 2011 the figure was €193 million. To break down the figure further, some €111 million of the €193 million has yet to be submitted. A total of €111 million has not been billed by the HSE as of August 2011. Of that, €85 million or 80% of the figure is due because consultants have not signed off on the package. Is that accurate?

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is correct. It is not necessarily signed off. They have not yet completed the full claim documentation. It could be at various stages. It may not have been started or it may be awaiting signature but the full claim documentation has not got to sign-off stage. That figure constitutes €85 million.

Of the multiple issues that can cause the delay, 80% are caused by the consultant issue.

Mr. Cathal Magee

It is the consultant's responsibility to get the claim to a point where it can be signed off.

By "responsibility", does Mr. Magee mean it is a part of their contract? Is there a contractual obligation to the HSE to implement a speedy signing off of their private work?

Mr. Cathal Magee

I am not sure of the contractual terms on that matter. I am not familiar with it. Anyway, the expectation is that it is a requirement of their private practice to complete it. I understand there are no contractual obligations on them other than the income they must collect, the clinical data they must report to the private insurer and that they must sign off the accommodation charge.

I examined the process. A good deal of work has been done on automating the process and bringing in electronic billing. The fundamental difficulty with accelerating income collection is that hospital accommodation charge, which is a statutory charge and which is income to the hospital and the State, should not necessarily have to wait for the process of the consultant billing his private income to the insurer. We have advocated that we should decouple it. Within five days of discharge we should be able to raise an invoice on the insurer for the number of days a patient was in the hospital and bill that separately, perhaps as a part A, but separately from the billing of the private consultants' fees. In a way that is a significant process change which we advocate strongly. We have discussed the matter with the Ministers and the Secretary General and we have written to the Department. We believe this is an immediate way of correcting a flawed process. There would be significant financial benefits to the hospital system and the HSE if we could do it this year and quickly. It is under review in the Department and may need some regulatory intervention but that is not for us to judge. Anyway, if we did that the hospital could bill its statutory income immediately and ensure prompt payment.

As Accounting Officer my view is that income should not be dependent on a consultant's private practice to be signed off. The Comptroller and Auditor General has recommended that this should be examined, the internal Department of Health value-for-money review group has recommended it and we advocate it strongly. We believe the disconnect should be rectified as a matter of urgency. If we do so then the consultant's private income, the collection of it and the management of it is a matter for the consultant.

I understand what Mr. Magee is saying. I examined the report. In fairness, the HSE has put a good deal of effort into trying to move this. I am aware of several pilot projects involving same-day issuing of documentation. However, all of it is to try to counteract the fact that the consultants simply will not sign off on the work. We are going to the Minister, changing policies and carrying out new pilot projects all because the consultants simply will not do their job or, as the HSE put it, carry out their responsibilities and sign off on their work. It is a vast amount of work for the HSE to go through and to change systems and processes simply because one cohort of workers will not play ball.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Actually, it is a simple change. The claims process is complex and involves a good deal of clinical data. There might be three or four consultants involved in a particular claim. The claims process is long and manual and involves a great deal of documentation. Our view is that one could make a simple change to the process. The insurers understand that if someone is in hospital for nine or ten days, for which there is a statutory rate, it is a valid claim. We should be able to raise an invoice, bill the insurance companies and get paid within the normal commercial terms of 30 days.

If a consultant chooses, in his or her private capacity, not to claim for six months it is a matter for him or her and the insurer. A very simple change in process would allow us to bill the statutory charges. In the early part of this year we went to each of the insurance companies, raised charges and billed them, but they would not pay. Unless we get support for a regulatory change the situation will not change.

As Accounting Officer, my view is that it is untenable and unacceptable that income to the State and health system is dependent on private contractors signing fees. The system can be changed simply. The Comptroller and Auditor General and departmental officials are supporters of the change. It would be a quick intervention which could also help to deal with the financial pressures we are under in the current year.

There is a benefit.

Mr. Cathal Magee

It is a once-off cash benefit but cash is the current problem. It would significantly improve cash-flow and the Vote performance of the health system, not alone in the current year but into next year. We would welcome support on that.

There is €202 million owed for six months, which is a basic accountancy procedure. If a private company does not get paid for six months it is effectively borrowing the money. In this instance, the State is borrowing the money for six months at 3%, the current benign interest rate. The cost to finance the fact we are not getting the information signed off on quickly is €3 million over six months

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is correct.

It costs €6 million a year, which means a significant amount of money being thrown out the window.

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is correct.

We are capitulating to a group of people who will not do their job quickly and timely. If we change the system it should be done as soon as possible, and I urge the Department to do so.

Mr. Magee mentioned the process of gathering data is labour intensive for the HSE. It is gathering information for private patients. Is it subsidising the work of private consultants by gathering all the information?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Data on the income from a bed or consultant is important, as is clinical data and it is important to capture it. It forms part the claims process and feeds into our information and understanding of health issues in the health system. The public health system has an obligation to capture clinical data, not just for public patients. There is an issue around the extent to which the public system is engaged in the administrative support process to private consultants. The execution in practice in many hospitals varies.

There is a subsidy.

Mr. Cathal Magee

There is a cost, yes.

Can Mr. Magee put a value on it?

Mr. Cathal Magee

I could not. I do not know whether Mr. Woods can.

Mr. Liam Woods

There are one or two people in each hospital working full time on income collection. Some of it relates to the HSE bill. We have to prorate costs on that basis. It is a proportion of the figure of 100 people.

It is not an insignificant amount.

Mr. Liam Woods

I should add that some consultants fill in their own documentation. Some use outside agents but the HSE fills in information for the majority. It is mixed.

I thank Mr. Magee.

Has the Department estimated how much the 12 consultants owe?

Mr. Cathal Magee

We have estimated it. The money owed goes into a research fund, it does not come directly to-----

How much do they owe?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

In most cases individual consultants owe less than €10,000.

That is €120,000.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

It is less than €100,000. It is a post-tax figure, therefore the figure is less than half because they are taxed on it.

Some €120,000 is owed by consultants and their systems within hospitals are being supported by staff paid for by the HSE, but they still cannot invoice and do their business properly. That is the kernel of the problem. To have such an amount of money outstanding would not be tolerated in private practice, yet the HSE continues to tolerate what it said is a complex system of measurement and so on. A significant amount of money is outstanding to the State at a time when services are being closed in hospitals. That would be the argument of the public.

Mr. Cathal Magee

We have done an enormous amount of work this year and have had significant engagement with the industry, the Department and various Ministers internally with a view to sorting out the process. Debtor days of 175 are unacceptable metrics for income collection, therefore something has to give. The issue of decoupling also has support in the private system because it also has issues with submitting its claims. Consultants can also be independent of private hospitals. There are issues across the system but we have a much more significant problem. We are determined to resolve it.

The taxpayer has a significant problem. Deputy Nolan has calculated the cost, in terms of moneys not paid to the State. The taxpayer picks up that bill. The length of time it takes to sort out the problem would not be tolerated in private practice. The Committee of Public Accounts can only urge the HSE to highlight the length of time it is taking and the fact it is unacceptable.

The HSE agrees with decoupling, as it is described, and has suggested it to the Department. The Department official has agreed with it. The Comptroller and Auditor General has agreed with that. Like a lot of other things in the State, no decision has been made on it. In effect, the State is holding up the process of faster payment to it by people who owe it money.

Would the Department official like to comment on the state of play of the agreement between all parties that the decoupling method should be put in place? Where is the blockage and why has it not happened? It has been going on since 2010.

Mr. Paul Barron

The Department is anxious that these payments are made promptly. We have been working with the HSE, as has been described, over recent months to try to see if we can bring the issue forward. Ideally, as Deputy Nolan said, if all the claims were made in good time we would not have problem. We are conscious of the fact that the HSE has been working to try to address that.

On changes in the methodology, it is significant, as the CEO mentioned, that when the HSE spoke to insurers earlier this year they were not inclined to change the arrangements. It is important to bear in mind that the arrangements in place are not controlled by the State. Rather, the insurers pay out the money. A suggestion has been made that this is a statutory charge like a tax and should simply be paid on time. The situation is somewhat more complex than that.

There are a number of relationships. The patient has a contractual relationship with his or her consultant, private health insurer, assuming that he or she has one, and hospital. The charge in question is a maintenance charge which the Minister determines. It is true that it could be described as a statutory charge. The charge is payable by the patient. Most patients, for obvious reasons, have taken out private health insurance. There is a complex web of relationships. The insurers, for their purpose, over the years have set down the ground rules as to the terms and conditions on which they will pay. They seem to be quite complex and based on the insurers satisfying themselves that the consultant in question treated the patient in question, that the patient was in the hospital for a set number of days, that the patient received certain procedures and so on. I am not speaking on behalf of private health insurers, obviously, but their position seems to be that they will only pay when they have the full picture before them.

Ideally, we would want to decouple the maintenance charge due to the HSE from the consultant's portion. We have a difficulty in a situation where the private health insurers are not prepared to do that. We are actively looking at other possibilities, whether a regulatory change or otherwise.

It is wrong, therefore, to say the Department would support decoupling, which has been suggested. It was suggested by Mr. Magee that the Department agrees with the decoupling, which the Comptroller and Auditor General has suggested and also agrees with. You say, Mr. Barron, that decoupling cannot be achieved because of the complex nature of the relationships among all concerned.

Mr. Paul Barron

Chairman, I did not say that.

I am just suggesting to you that seems to be what I heard. That is why decoupling is not happening. If it is not happening the State is out of pocket because it is not being paid promptly. It seems that you are on a different course from Mr. Magee. If that is where the problem lies and the taxpayer is caught in the middle and shouldering the burden, the parties to the issue, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the HSE, on foot on the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General, need to get their act together.

Mr. Paul Barron

There is no difference between the Department and the HSE on these two points. First, the ideal situation would be that claims be signed off promptly. If that happened overnight we would not have a problem. Second, where we do not have that, the next best situation would be decoupling. I attempted to point out the difficulties in achieving decoupling. It was described earlier as a simple change. I merely make the point that is not a simple change. We are researching decoupling at present. The Minister has indicated that he is favourably disposed to it. However, it is not a simple change. If it were simple we would proceed with it. It may require legislative change, and so forth. To describe it as a simple change is untrue. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Cathal Magee

The Department's own internal value for money review of December 2010 recommended this. I have been in discussions with the Department on this issue since October 2010. The Minister has been very supportive of separation and decoupling because of the financial value it represents and he recently made some public statements on the matter.

There may be technical issue regarding how to effect decoupling. The maintenance charge is a statutory charge and there is a weakness if we cannot claim it from the insurers. Of course we could bill the patient. We think that is an unacceptable way to go because it further complicates the whole process. We think that would be the worst possible outcome for this problem. The alternative is to effect decoupling. If the public system is providing private healthcare that is funded through the private insurance industry, the industry also has obligations to the public system regarding the manner in which its income is collected, and not merely to the individual consultant. We need to find a solution as to how that is best effected.

It would be interesting to know how private hospitals collect the money due to them.

I see a huge difference between what you have said, Mr. Magee, and what the Department is saying. It is a question of willingness. If one does not want to do something one sees all the obstacles and reasons for not doing it. If, like you, one sees the reason for collecting the payment directly rather than from the patient, there is every reason to do it. In the interest of the taxpayer and of prompt payment, it should be done. Perhaps we can pursue this on another day. We are not going to come to a conclusion today.

Mr. Paul Barron

My understanding is that the private hospitals have similar problems. They are not of the same scale because they operate on a smaller scale.

Or because of their determination to get paid.

Mr. Paul Barron

My understanding is that private hospitals face a similar issue. When they seek to effect payments from a private insurer they are required to submit an entire claim. Private hospitals have been in touch with the Department to say that if we go the legislative route they would like to be part of that legislative solution.

It would be interesting to compare how long the private hospitals and public hospitals take to be paid. The route has to be towards getting paid promptly. We must take the obstacles out of the way rather than say why it cannot be done.

I would like to ask some questions about property management, which is dealt with in Chapter 38. Before I come to that I will go back to something Deputy Nolan raised earlier about public-private measurement systems. Mr. Gilroy said the HIPE report is a starting point for the measurement process that is evolving. Does that mean questions arise over the measurement system in place at present?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The contract was explicit that it would be a case-mix based system, which is the HIPE system, and about the rules that would apply to it. There is no question over that. Some questions were raised by representative bodies and a comprehensive response was provided by the ESRI regarding the robustness of the data within HIPE. There is no question mark over HIPE.

When we looked at the original 70 consultants, we might have received a report from the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, for example, that a consultant there had a 70% private practice, but the consultant might have been doing only two sessions per week there and also have sessions in St. James's Hospital and St. Vincent's University Hospital. We do not have a single automated system to combine the three sets of figures. A manual aggregation of the three centres would be required. Where his raw HIPE data might say that consultant was in breach in one of the hospitals, when the three sets of data were combined he would be shown to be in compliance. That was always going to be the case and will remain the case.

There were two cases where consultants had the right to private practice restricted. It is my understanding that in one of the cases the clinical director confirmed in writing that the consultant was fulfilling the requirements of the contract. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No. What happens is that the clinical director and CEO of the hospital will carry out a review. Within the contract, the clinical director can apply some discretion to the analysis. Our review of the consultant in question, after that discretion had been applied, was that there was a breach.

A clinical director, who is on the ground, can say a consultant is fulfilling the contract while the review, when the HSE uses its measurement system, will say that is not so.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

Where a conflict arises the measurement system is accepted and not the clinical director.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No, we apply some discretion. In the case the Deputy referred to, the consultant's inpatient activity was far in excess of compliance. In the review carried out by the clinical director and in the submission to which the Deputy referred no reference was made to any analysis of the inpatient activity. It remained far outside compliance.

In 2010, the Irish Hospital Consultants Association, IHCA, made a submission to this committee outlining significant shortcomings in the measurement system. The committee invited the HSE to reply to that submission but the HSE never did. Why was that?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The measurement system is the one the IHCA recommended its members to accept, within the contract.

Mr. Gilroy admits that the system is complex and is evolving. Last August, the HSE agreed to look at the process again to see where it can be refined.

The IHCA seemed to think the same in that it outlined a number of shortcomings and the HSE has not addressed them.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

I would not accept these are shortcomings. One can keep refining the system as we were doing with the HIPE system before the consultants' contract and we will continue to do so in any case. I refer to many cases of activity that are not captured in HIPE. For example, if an individual is undertaking 60% public work and 40% private work, for all their other pieces captured in HIPE, it is fairly likely that the activities not captured will have a similar ratio. It is not the case that large pieces of activity are missing. The important aspect is that the rules to do with the aggregation and the other piece of interrogation to do with the data is the important aspect which reflects that.

It is clearly a complex measurement system, as Mr. Gilroy has admitted and the committee wants to know more about it. In 2010 the committee asked the HSE to reply to the ITA submission about the shortcomings and it did not reply. Why was that?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

We do not think there is a shortcoming in the HIPE system.

With regard to the public-private measurement, the current system has been in place since August and the HSE has agreed to it being looked at again. There are shortcomings with that system.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Mr. Seán McGrath will speak about the August review. It is a case of being on an ongoing evolution. There are two different aspects. The HIPE was originally introduced as a method for funding hospitals. In the 2008 contract, it was agreed that this would be the methodology used. Therefore, as regards the contract implementation, that is the system for good or for ill which was agreed to and the rules set reflects the small nuances in it.

So what was agreed in August?

Mr. Seán McGrath

At that time we decided with the associations to continue to review it. We are now three years into this system. We have signed up to the system and the question is when does one stop. We are of the view that there was a number of specialties where we needed to ensure that everybody had a common view of what the rules set was for this particular specialty. We said to both representative bodies that we should aim to have this done by the end of the year so that we can begin 2012 rather than having an ongoing engagement which is going nowhere and, more important, that we were not implementing the contracts. It is an ongoing situation, not a start-stop situation and clearly we will have more engagement over 2012 and 2013.

It is important that the committee examines all the issues and that we have balance. The HSE has its opinion and the IHCA has an opinion. The IHCA wrote to the committee with its opinion and we asked the HSE to comment on that opinion but it did not do so. This makes it difficult for us to get a proper understanding of the situation with regard to the system and the effects in terms of money, efficiency or hospital management.

Mr. Seán McGrath

We can comment to the Deputy following this meeting. I am not aware of why we did not comment at the time.

I would appreciate a comment because the IHCA raised some interesting questions and I would like the HSE's opinion on them.

I refer to chapter 28, property management, and I thank the HSE for the update which has been very helpful. A total of 3,048 properties are contained in the HSE property portfolio, worth €4.3 billion. When was that valuation made?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The annual report outlines the basis of that valuation and Mr. Liam Woods may explain it further. A calculation of the replacement value of the estate would come out at closer to €10 billion. For example, there are 10,000 hospital beds and it costs approximately €0.75 million to replace each hospital bed. This means €0.75 billion before adding in community nursing units and all the various health centres. It is a figure closer to €10 billion. The €4 billion quoted is the book value sitting on the balance sheet and that is an application of standard Department of Finance and Department of Health rules as to how we treat the assets. Mr. Woods can speak in more detail in this regard.

Could the witness explain how that book value of €4.3 billion is arrived at?

Mr. Liam Woods

The HSE accounting standards and policy is set out in the financial statement page 95 of the annual report. We are booking buildings at cost and depreciating them. We comply with the accounting standards of the Department as set by the Minister so land is valued using criteria determined by the Minister and which includes values per hectare by type of location. This is the underlying basis of valuation which gives rise to the book figure of €4 billion.

How old is that land valuation? Does it date from 2009?

Mr. Liam Woods

Those values would need to be reviewed.

And they have not been reviewed as yet?

Mr. Liam Woods

No, not yet.

The figure of €4.3 billion is a finance figure and that is different.

Mr. Liam Woods

The replacement figure, to which Mr. Gilroy referred, is an average price of close to €1 million for replacement of a hospital bed. If the total number of hospital beds is multiplied then one would potentially get a higher figure.

When the HSE is looking at the management of the property portfolio it is looking at a different figure from the finance one. When the HSE looks at the assets in place and how to manage them and their value, is it using the finance figure from 2009, which is already probably incredibly inaccurate, or is it using this figure?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Most of that money is made up of acute hospitals stock and in that case we are not in a position to trade or dispose of it but rather it is added to. The value of it is current value. As that stock is replenished we work on current value.

Has an estimate been done regarding this book value from finance as to its current worth if that calculation derives from 2009 or 2008?

Mr. Liam Woods

I understand those values go back quite further than that. The point about reviewing the price per hectare and by geographic location of the land, is a point well made. It is part of our requirement under accounting standards to account that way but it is a matter that could be reviewed now.

So the €4.3 billion valuation might date from when?

Mr. Liam Woods

I am not sure of the date but I will revert to the Deputy.

And no one has looked at it recently?

Mr. Liam Woods

Not that I am aware of.

When the committee was provided with the update of 3,048 properties, this was a recent update on the 2009 figures. My understanding from the update we have been given is that the system the HSE was building in 2009, and which was criticised by the previous committee, has now come into effect and is working well.

Mr. Liam Woods

Yes.

If it is working well, should we not be able to determine, by looking at it, what the current value should be of those properties?

Mr. Liam Woods

One could use the database with the information on the 3,043 properties to estimate current values. We would need to work with the Department of Health, which determines our accounting rules, in order to change the valuations to match more recent land valuations.

Why would the accounting rules be changed now?

Mr. Liam Woods

We are bound. Our new financial statements comply with the existing rules within the accounting standards determined by the Minister. As the Deputy rightly says, a live database is now available to actively manage the property portfolio. This could be used to derive values and they could then be ascribed in our statements of account.

If this is a live and functioning database, how difficult would it be? We are not talking about a number of weeks to arrive at a valuation.

Mr. Liam Woods

There would be a lot of valuation and a lot of different kinds of settings so there would be-----

Mr. Brian Gilroy

It is important to understand the asset base. Approximately 30 to 40 large hospital campuses make up the great majority of that value. We do not intend to dispose of these. The exercise of taking a valuation on Beaumont Hospital or on Dooradoyle hospital is not one we pursue because it is of no value to us at the moment. However, we have close to 2,000 small premises all with values at less than €250,000. At present we have 38 of those type of premises on the market so they have all undergone valuations. Any new properties that have gone onto the register from about 2006 onwards would show the values, the purchase price. Many of those premises are legacy properties that have come from the health boards and, in many cases, from before the time of the health boards and county councils. These were never valued. It is only worth creating a valuation on them when we are deciding on disposal, otherwise it is a very costly exercise to undertake.

I wish to examine the figure of 3,048 referred to in order to see how it breaks down between buildings in use and not in use and those buildings which are leased. Were any properties acquired between 2002 and 2008?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

I presume their values have fallen since then.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

Has anyone estimated what they might have fallen by?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No. If we were minded to dispose of any of them that evaluation would be carried out.

Were loans used to acquire any of those properties?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No, we cannot take out loans.

Of the 3,048 properties how many are not in use?

Mr. Brian Gilroy: The register shows that, as of yesterday, 72 premises are not in use. The make-up of that 72 is that 12 are either sale agreed or sold, 38 are on the market - some of these have been to auction and failed to reach their reserve - six are currently under refurbishment or refurbishment has been completed and they are awaiting occupation and 16 have recently been vacated and are under review with regard to their future use. In respect of some of the latter premises, capital and revenue money may have been provided a couple of years ago to run services within them. In the changed environment, however, we are considering disposals in respect of some of these.

There must be an estimate available in respect of the value of those 72 properties.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

They are worth less than €20 million. A total of €5 million was realised in respect of the 12 that have been sold but one or two individual sales within that group of properties inflated this figure. The average sale price tends of be less than €250,000. They tend to be historical, dispensary-type health centres or even provincial centres. With the evolution of the new primary care programme, as new facilities open we are disposing of the old premises.

As Mr. Gilroy stated, in light of the changed climate in the market it may not be possible to sell some of those properties. Has consideration been given to other potential uses for them within the health sector?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes. In respect of the majority of the premises being disposed of, there would be very little value in the buildings themselves. Due to the age of most of these buildings, it would be cheaper to construct new ones. In most cases, therefore, it is more the site value that is reflected in the sale price. There is not an alternative use.

Do the 3,048 properties to which Mr. Gilroy referred include those which are leased?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

How many are leased?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Fewer than 1,200. As of last year and this year, we are actively targeting €5 million in our lease costs year on year. It appears that we will achieve that target this year.

What is the current cost relating to leased properties?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Over €32 million.

And the HSE is hoping to reduce this by €5 million-----

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Per year. That is our target for this year and we have a similar one for next year.

So the figure will be reduced to €22 million by 2014.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

How many of the leases have been renewed in the past two to three years? Are they renewed every year or on some other basis?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

In some instances, former health boards took on 60 year leases. In others, there is no break clause at all and, as a result, we cannot extract ourselves from the leases. Since mid-2009 and unless there are exceptional circumstances, we have been availing of every lease break that becomes available. Less than a handful of cases have involved exceptional circumstances. The position in respect of such cases would be where there might be a residential setting which, historically, was leased and where a new facility might be in the process of being acquired. This would give rise to the need to extend the lease for a year or two. In other instances, people have been on site for so long that in the context of the disturbance involved and the value clinically, moving them would not prove worthwhile.

So the policy is to avail of lease breaks where possible.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes, every break we can get. That is why we would spend a small amount of capital refurbishing some of the historical buildings - even those which are vacant - in order that we can extract ourselves from office-type leases. Basically, no office lease is renewed and we surrender them.

I am aware of anecdotal evidence that there are certain areas where the HSE might be leasing properties and where it owns nearby properties that are vacant.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

There may be some historical examples in this regard but the only instance where that would be happening at present is in the area of primary care. The cornerstone to date of our primary care strategy has been leasing. The reason for that does not relate purely to property decisions. The actual reason is that in order to achieve primary care teams, they need to be co-located with GPs. The co-location with GPs has been achieved through the leasing of the settings. In some cases we may still own a property but that will either be for disposal or refurbishment for another service. The purpose of the leasing is not a direct property play, it is as much about the need to co-locate with GPs.

So, as a result of the need to co-locate, the idea in respect of the primary care strategy is to lease properties.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes. However, we continue to build facilities in isolated rural areas and also deprived areas.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

If anything relating to the GP-GMS contract, in the context of the obligation to participate within centres and teams, changed, that is a policy we would then review.

In the context of the actual management of the portfolio and the people who are in place, there are nine estate area offices but 11 estate managers. In what type of work are the additional two managers involved?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The large part of the job of estate managers relates not to property but rather to the capital programme. The investment programme would comprise the bulk of their activity. We have six dedicated property managers who are spread across those areas. Three of these have formal property qualifications and the other three have worked in the area in the past. We do not have a huge number of staff who deal with property. The relevant chapter of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report lists the estate staff but a few hundred of these are maintenance people who work in large hospitals and, as such, they do not contribute to the management of the portfolio.

So when reference is made to property management personnel, this relates to those staff who come on site and maintain properties in addition to the people who are actually-----

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Those involved are the people who maintain the property register and deeds and who negotiate new projects and sales.

So they are the property management personnel.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes. There are six of them.

So there are six of them and 11 estate managers.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

Do these individuals account for the €26.8 million needed to run the estates directorate?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No. The vast majority of that money relates to maintenance personnel. The original chapter of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report indicates that there are a few hundred such people and most of them are maintenance staff who work in hospitals and community settings. Included among their number would be plasterers, electricians and carpenters.

I thank Mr. Magee and his officials for coming before the committee. The first matter with which I wish to deal relates to the primary care teams and primary care centres. I tabled parliamentary questions to the Department of Health during the past week or so and I received replies in respect of them from the HSE. I understand that it is planned to put 518 primary care teams in place. Some 386 of these have already commenced operation and the other 132 are yet to come on stream or are in various stages of development. The vast majority of the teams are in place but in County Meath only five out of 19 have commenced operation and in Laois-Offaly only nine out of 20 have done so. Why are these two areas so far behind everywhere else in the context of putting primary care teams in place?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

In County Meath there has been a difficulty in respect of GPs. Mr. Gilroy alluded to the fact that GPs are not actually compelled to be part of primary care teams. That is not part of their contracts. We engage with GPs as best we can in order to encourage them to become involved with primary care teams.

So it is voluntary.

Ms Laverne McGuinness

Yes. Participation in primary care teams is voluntary.

The reply to one of the parliamentary questions I tabled earlier this month indicates that 24 primary care centres are operating under leasing agreements and that 16 are being funded by the Exchequer. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report states that of the primary care centres being developed under lease, 14 are operational, 30 are under construction or agreement to lease, 83 are being planned or letters of intent have been issued in respect of them and negotiations have commenced in respect of a further 88. This means that some 215 centres are to be developed through the leasing arrangement with the private sector. I know I said earlier that we have only 17 but I have a concern about the target of 215 centres. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report states:

Legal commitments have been entered into for a substantial number of projects yet to be delivered based on prices prevailing in 2008 and 2009. So much has changed in the property development market since the commencement of the leasing programme that a mid-term review [must be developed to ensure value for money].

In terms of projects that will come on stream in 2012 or possibly 2013, is the Irish taxpayer funding them at the market rates that applied in 2008? That is what the Comptroller and Auditor General is saying. To be blunt, how many of those can the executive back out of at this stage in the interests of the taxpayer? Surely a letter of intent is not a formal legal contract. I hope some of those projects to which that applies can be withdrawn. On centres on which negotiations have commenced, I hope the executive can withdraw from them in terms of agreeing the 2008 and 2009 figures.

I will direct all the questions I have on this issue to one section, that of the primary care team. The Comptroller and Auditor General said the executive's focus on rental rates for the primary care centres, and these are the executive's instructions, include that a lease term is to be 15 to 35 years but the standard lease is 25 years and there is to be no break clause during the term of the lease except in circumstances where a GP practice breaks up or whatever. Rent reviews are based on a link to inflation, not on the value of the property. We are inflation-proofing lease agreements, built in at the height of the Celtic tiger, for the next 25 years on average. Even at the end of the 25 year term, as in the case of other public private partnerships, ownership of the property leased by the State can return to the State. There is a final buyout option, but I understand that in most of these cases the property will remain in the ownership of the private developer. Will Mr. Gilroy comment on the points I have made? It was hoped that many of the projects would have been developed within three years but most of them are taking a little longer than expected to complete. If I was a developer and knew I had an inflation-proofed contract from the executive based on 2008 prices, I would wait for construction costs to drop a little further, deliver the project in three years time and quote all sorts of reasons for not being able to complete it in the meantime. In 2008 we had some of the highest ever market rates. How many of these leases have downward rent review clauses and when will they come into play?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

On the question of when we can withdraw from an agreement, we cannot withdraw after signing an agreement to lease. That is a contractually binding point.

How many of them have been signed to date?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Fewer than 40 but some of them have tipped into leases. I can come back to the Deputy with an up to date figure on that.

On the question of the 2008 and 2009 figures, there were very few 2008 valuations - fewer than 20. They either progressed to agreement to lease or the letters of intent have been withdrawn. There is no 2008 price valuations left in the market.

They are completed.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

There is nobody, as the Deputy outlined, sitting on a 2008 offer. There are some 2009 offers. All those 2009 offers, as verified even in the report, were not at the market value; they had the market value less an 18% discount. An achievement was made in terms of value in that respect. However, many of the 2009 offers have been exercised through 2010, particularly the latter half of it. Any of the schemes and prices that were in place had dates such that the letters have been withdrawn. Many of those letters have been withdrawn since. The only ones where the values may have remained is where a project was either in construction or spending was under way. A view on it would have been taken at that time but that would involve a small amount, as reflected in the number of agreements to lease.

On the question of upward only rent reviews, the only ones are those that predated the scheme. That is made clear in the report. It might be a little confusing in the chapter but it states that of the ones looked at, some predated the policy and the legislation. Every agreement to lease signed post the legislation has both upward and downward provisions. There is a philosophical debate as to whether to run a rent review with reference to market rate or inflation. Historically, during the past 30 years, it would have been cheaper to have rent reviews based on inflation rather than on market rates because there is volatility in the market and it comes into play. Particularly in the current environment, where better people than me are trying to call the state of the market in terms of whether prices have reached the bottom or we are a year away from that, I hope we are close to the bottom of the market. If one is close to the bottom of the market, surely an indexation based on inflation, as opposed to market value, is better, because in five or ten years time when the market recovers one could face a 40% or 50% increase in values compared to an indexation based on inflation.

Of the 215 primary care centres that are operational, under construction, being planned or on which negotiations have commenced, Mr. Gilroy is saying that in the case of 40 of them irrevocable agreements have been signed-----

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

-----and some of them are in operation. What is the likelihood of the other 180 proceeding at this stage in light of the changed circumstances? If there are not agreements in place for those 180 centres at this stage, I expect it would be difficult to enter into new agreements at this stage given the executive's current financial constraints. Will the primary care centre and primary care team initiative stall because these 180 centres will not now proceed? What is Mr. Gilroy's estimate in this respect?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The primary care strategy has been in place for ten years and for the first eight years of that period fewer than ten centres were in place, but during the past three years the number increased and by the end of this year there will be more than 50 centres in place. Progress has been made and that took place mainly in the past three years in what was probably the worst possible financial environment. Even in terms of the private delivery, the ones that have been put in place is a positive. In any of the centres where we have got GP involvement, even at pre-agreement to lease stage, it is beneficial. This is less a property issue and more a GP involvement issue. The biggest issue for banking these centres is the fact that we can walk from the lease if the GPs are not there. We would continue to pursue any schemes in place that are viable and worthwhile considering. Having regard to the banking environment and the sense of uncertainty GPs have about their fee structures, there would be a hesitance on their part in some cases to be involved in centres in the immediate term.

Mr. Gilroy is saying that it will progress but that it may do so a little slowly.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

It will. It is something we review under the new programme for Government and we will keep it under review for the 2020 capital plan. The key to this is that if the GMS contract or the relationship with the GPs on the service side was to change to create a compulsion to operate within the teams and centre, we would carry out a full review of the scheme.

Based on the reference I read from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report this year on the prices prevailing in 2008 and 2009, I gather Mr. Gilroy thinks that comment is a little overstated relative to the number of cases there are. He said that this applies to only a few cases.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

That would be correct.

We will come back to that chapter in more detail.

Yes on another day.

I will move on as there has been a good deal of talk about emergency departments and other matters. I note that in 2007 the executive had 1.3 million admissions to emergency departments and the figure for last year was 1.1 million. What is the figure for this year and what is the projected figure for 2014? Through there being greater primary care centres or a charge for attending an accident and emergency department, the executive seems to be engineering matters to cut down the number of admissions. The number of admissions has fallen by 200,000 and our population is increasing. One would have thought the number of admissions might have increased. Am I correct in concluding that in the next few years we will require fewer emergency departments in the country based on the admission figures Mr. Gilroy would predict? What is the executive's target for emergency department admissions in the coming years given that the numbers has been decreasing consistently since 2007 and does it plan to have fewer emergency departments given that the number of admissions is decreasing?

Mr. Cathal Magee

There is no plan other than as we discussed at our previous meeting where, based on safety considerations and standards set by the HIQA, we have to reconfigure services in individual hospitals. In some hospitals there has been a reduction in emergency presentations. That trend may continue but there has been an increase in emergency admissions in a number of hospitals as well. In many ways the emergency service within our health system is still under significant challenge from a volume point of view and from a presentation point of view. That has to do with our ability to manage discharges and the discharge protocols, the availability of step-down facilities and the discharge management in hospitals over not just a five day but a seven day period.

There are no plans for consolidation of emergency departments other than the process that is under way in implementing the provisions of the quality standards set by the HIQA for smaller hospitals.

I thank Mr. Magee. He specifically referred to his visit on the previous occasion. He will be aware of the letter we received from Ms McGuinness following the HSE's previous appearance before the committee. The letter was dated 26 July and it was received on 28 July. The reference number is PAC R47 if people wish to see it. I found the letter useful and informative although it was a short one. There was a mountain of information on the 34 emergency departments around the country.

We are not medical people. Mr. Magee made extensive reference to "acute medical units" and "medical assessment units". There is reference in the letter from Ms McGuinness to a medical assessment unit in a model 2 local hospital to which a GP would refer medical patients who have a low risk of requiring full resuscitation. Will she explain what a medical assessment unit is? That is what is down on the list for Roscommon. Is that model the category of emergency department that will apply to the other areas that have been referred to as medical assessment units? Is Ms McGuinness familiar with the letter?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

I am familiar with the letter. There are various types of unit; an acute medical unit and a medical assessment unit. The medical assessment unit is what is in place in Roscommon hospital. What that means is that there are GP referred patients who come to be treated within the medical assessment unit. In other words, they have gone already through a triage system with the GP and they are streamed.

In a level 3 hospital or higher it is undifferentiated. People come with medical complaints directly.

They just show up. Is it the case that people cannot just show up at the door in Roscommon any more in the way they did previously?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

They go to the medical assessment unit. There are two options in Roscommon. There is also an urgent care centre to which people can go for a whole range of minor injuries which they sustain, but not for complex injuries. In addition, people with non-severe medical conditions that would not require resuscitation can be seen by their GP and be referred directly for treatment in Roscommon hospital.

Ms McGuinness indicated the medical assessment unit is appropriate for a model 2 hospital - the phrase was introduced in the correspondence. We hear of such phrases now. To my knowledge they come from the report of the national acute medicine programme which refers to what is contained in a range of hospital models. What is the status of the programme? Is it just a report for consideration or the template which the HSE is working towards? Reference is made in the correspondence to model 1, 2 and 3 hospitals. The HSE seems to be working on the basis of what is in the report. Is that the case?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

I compiled the response with the clinicians because the tool to which reference was made was carried out by a clinician at the time. The acute medicine programme is identifying and putting definitions together as to what should be in what is known as a model 2, model 3 and model 4 hospital. A lot of work has been carried out. The work is nearing completion but it is not fully completed at this point because while they have identified the services for medicine it is not fully complete in respect of surgery. We hope their guidance document will be finalised and then we can benchmark what should be in which hospital in the coming weeks.

Will that be on the website?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

The intention is that the information would be made available.

Will we have the final version of the report in the next few weeks?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

I am not sure about the report. We will certainly have definitions in terms of what is acute medicine and acute surgery provided in a level 2 or level 3 hospital. Having said that, the guidance is not definitive but, for example, in a level 3 hospital one would expect to find an emergency department that would be open 24-7. It might depend on the particular site in terms of how that will be resourced. By resourced I mean financed as well as staffed. There may be elements in a site that is particular to the location.

Ms McGuinness does refer to model 2 and model 3 hospitals in the letter. The HSE is working generally on what is in the pipeline even though the exact definition does not exist yet. Is my understanding correct that in the following hospitals - Ennis, Portlaoise, Nenagh, Navan, Roscommon, Loughlinstown, St. John's in Limerick and Dún Laoghaire - the emergency department will be a medical assessment unit and that they are either in place, in progress or in development?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

That is right.

Ms McGuinness indicated in her letter that a medical assessment unit will be located in a model 2 hospital. One would take it from the letter that those eight model 2 hospitals would have an emergency department based on the model of a medical assessment unit. Is that correct?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

Two issues arise. Work is ongoing on the definitions. Further discussions and consultations will take place with the clinicians and the Department to ensure we have a common definition that everyone can understand. In Roscommon, before one can get an urgent care centre, there are two options. The first is a local injuries unit where people turn up with grazes or a variety of injuries that can be treated there. A local injuries unit operates in tandem with a medical assessment unit and together they are known as an urgent care centre. One must have the two together before it is an urgent care centre. That is what Roscommon has.

In some hospitals there is reference to a medical assessment unit but there is no reference to a local injuries unit because the definitions are new and they are being refined currently. Even since we provided the documentation more refinement has taken place. The information received by the committee is correct in terms of what is currently in those hospitals.

Then there are also minor injuries units in Dundalk and Monaghan. Is that what is going into Roscommon or is it a different category again?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

It is in Roscommon. We are seeking to have a standard terminology because there are too many terms. There are minor injuries units, local injuries units, urgent care centres, medical assessment units and acute medical assessment units. Efforts are being made to compress them and come up with three or four definitions with three or four different aims so there will be common terminology. At the moment it is quite confusing.

One can understand why I am concerned at the categorisation of the emergency department in Portlaoise hospital with 41,000 admissions, which is higher than in most hospitals that are categorised for acute medical assessment units, in a list with other areas that have perhaps 11,000 to 18,000 admissions. Will Ms McGuinness come back to me with information on Portlaoise? I will not delay the meeting on it but I do not understand how such a busy emergency department has ended up on a list with seven other hospitals which have less than half the throughput.

There is a list of 15 hospitals with a higher grade of emergency department. I will not list the 15 but all bar one have less attendance. I ask Mr. Woods to come back to me with a note on that. I will not play games here in public; I will ask for correspondence.

I will briefly raise two other topics. On patient income, there was much talk here about how much money the Health Service Executive is owed, which I understand is from consultants, the VHI, Quinn Insurance, Aviva and so on. I am sure there are polite or perhaps tough conversations going on with those people about trying to speed up their operation but that is in marked contrast to the position of somebody sitting at home at 8 p.m. on a Friday evening who has received a letter from a debt collection agency in respect of their attendance at an emergency department. I understand the HSE has to collect the money but has Mr. Magee seen the actual letters that are sent to his customers? As a person running an operation he would be horrified to know what is contained in the letters from these debt collection agencies. I tabled a parliamentary question on this issue two weeks ago, 14 September, and people will be familiar with it.

These letters threaten the people to whom they are sent. I accept they owe the money, that they should be brought to court and should pay the fees but the letters currently state that the person's name will be placed on the credit bureau list for non-payment and their credit rating will be affected. After the letter arrives the people then get a call at home at night or on their mobile phone from these agencies. I tabled the parliamentary question to ask about the protocols that are in place regarding these agencies working on behalf of the Health Service Executive but I was somewhat concerned about the reply I got. It states:

The HSE employ the services of debt collection agencies in twenty three of its statutory acute hospitals. [Of these hospitals], sixteen notified the relevant debt collection agency ... The hospitals notify the debt collection agency on a daily basis if the bills are being paid. Four hospitals [notify] on a weekly basis and the remaining three hospitals notify the [debt collection] agency on a greater than weekly basis.

My complaint was that the person had got the call but had paid the bill a week earlier, and the debt collection agency had no knowledge of that. The parliamentary reply from the Minister two weeks ago confirmed this in that the final sentence states: "The HSE will direct all acute hospitals to update collection agents on a real time-daily basis". This is very unfair on people who have paid bills.

In terms of the effort the HSE puts in to collect money, it goes after the lad who broke his leg or twisted his ankle for €100. He may have even paid his bill but the debt collectors will telephone him at night and send him these vicious letters, some of which I have seen. They may even call later to the person's home - I do not know - but the HSE has not examined that aspect. The hospital may have been paid a week earlier but the system is not in place to inform the debt collection agency to call off the hounds. I see that the Minister is now saying that it must do that.

Mr. Magee might give us a list of those hospitals because the reply given to me states that 23 statutory hospitals are involved in this process. It also refers to debt collection agencies. Does the HSE have different agencies involved in debt collection? Why does it not use one agency? The reply refers to "agencies". Do they operate in a different way? I understand the HSE has to collect its debts and I do not mind it out-sourcing some of that type of work but there is an utter lack of consistency in approach, and some hospitals may not even be doing it. Mr. Magee might reply on that issue because the reply to the parliamentary question confirmed my worst fears in terms of what was happening.

Mr. Liam Woods

In terms of the updating, we are putting a protocol in place to make sure updating is done daily in the cases where it is not done. I will certainly provide listings of that for the Deputy as he has requested.

The time of call is related to when people are available typically, and that is a matter-----

Mr. Liam Woods

People who are available to take calls. Debt collection typically takes place outside normal working hours but on the point the Deputy raised about the protocol, we will put in a daily update in all our sites to make sure that is being dealt with.

That would work. The bill had been paid.

Mr. Liam Woods

I take the point.

I cannot understand how the HSE contracted out this service yet no arrangement was made for this. This used happen in another State agency that came before this committee some years ago. The Revenue would send a bill to the sheriff and when the person heard about the sheriff they would pay the Revenue. The sheriff comes along a month later to seize goods and the bill had been paid. We have gone back to that in this case. The bill had been paid and yet the HSE is threatening to blackmail this person by putting him on a credit bureau list, taking him to court and telephoning him at night.

Mr. Liam Woods

We put a protocol-----

I will say no more. I ask to be given a note on the position now and try to improve the process because people are very annoyed. The HSE says it is owed €202 million in patient charges. I suspect not too many of the people who owe the biggest amount of money are getting that kind of treatment. It seems that the little man who owes the HSE €100 is getting the brunt of the stick.

When the HSE is providing the information to Deputy Fleming-----

Through the committee, not personally to me.

The Deputy has asked for the information and therefore it will be provided to the committee. When doing that the HSE might tell the committee how many of the GPs who owe it €1.48 million in capitation payments for the treatment of medical card patients who had died got the types of letters described by Deputy Fleming.

Some years ago GPs were again found to have been paid a great deal of money regarding the treatment of medical card patients who had died. How much of that money was collected and how much is outstanding? A report on it was provided by the previous Comptroller and Auditor General. I ask Mr. Magee to answer that question first. I raise it now because it is relevant in terms of what Deputy Fleming said. I agree with all of what he said about the HSE having to collect money owed to it and so on but the same rule should apply across the board. In terms of their capitation payments, how much money is outstanding, relative to the previous Comptroller and Auditor General's report into the treatment of medical card patients who had died?

Mr. Cathal Magee

We note the Chairman's questions and will revert to him. I do not think we have that information with us.

You do not have the information with you. This is an old outstanding debt. One of the features of the meeting this morning, whether it is the 2010 report or a look-back on other chapters, is the fact that there is a serious lack of control in terms of moneys owed. The HSE seems to know how much money is owed to it but its ability to collect it is not matched. There is an outstanding debt going back eight years from GPs in terms of that capitation payment for medical card patients who had died. In 2010, that anomaly within the system, however one wants to describe it, resulted in the payment of €1.48 million. I will not go into it in detail but if I am correct in terms of the 2010 report, €16 million in payments were made to pharmacists in cases where patients' medical cards had expired. I relate that to the person who owes €100 and the case Deputy Fleming made. I would like to know how many of the 12 consultants, or the GPs from eight years ago, paid up. How many of them got those types of letters, and what is the HSE's approach to the debt collection at that level?

Mr. Liam Woods

In terms of the report going back eight years, we will look back on that. On the 2010 report, we have provided submissions, and I will look at the data, on both birth registration and death registration on the medical card register because there is a complexity around identification of both of those but we will look at it and give a report to the committee on both of those matters.

There may be a complexity around either Mr. Woods' measurement in the last discussion we had or how these are terminated and so on, and collection cannot be applied retrospectively. That may be an explanation but it is not acceptable that when we are dealing with taxpayers' money, the amount of money is paid out and not returned to the State. In spite of a previous Comptroller and Auditor General's report the system still allowed €1.48 million to be paid out and €16 million to be paid out to pharmacists. We will touch on that again in the chapter on the 2010 report. I respect the fact that Mr. Woods may not have been prepared for that question this morning but it brings into sharp focus the way the HSE treats others within the system who are much more vulnerable and far less well off.

I have seen those letters, they are outrageous. I would not mind if they were applied across the board, but that does not seem to be the case. If the witnesses want to return to this at the next meeting, they may do so.

Mr. Liam Woods

I will need to review the chapter. The €16 million for expired medical cards does not pertain to people who have died.

I was clear about that. I referred to patients whose medical cards have expired. It is still a system failure and a failure of system management. From 2002 to 2007, when I was an ordinary member of this committee, it was a case of human error, legacy issues and IT failure. I am hearing exactly the same reasons or excuses today.

Ms Laverne McGuinness

It might be relevant to point out that the system has changed in 2011 because, after 20 years, we have centralised the medical card and payments systems. We can see the payments that have been made nationally whereas, before now, there could have been duplication. The same applies to the GPs. We have linked in online to the death registers so we can see straight away who has died, and we are notified of the deaths. In addition, the GPs are hooked up online. They actually make amendments to the records if patients die who have been registered for cards. They can also enter births for additions. These are just some of the control processes we have put in place for 2011 as a result of being able to centralise the medical card system.

After how many years?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

It has taken us this number of years to get-----

It has taken 20 years. It has taken nine years to deal with the GP issue, and it was still emerging as an issue in 2010. In terms of the decoupling, if we are to take any indicators from those two issues, God knows when we will come to a conclusion on that.

I thank Mr. Magee and his colleagues. I want to touch on both national and local issues. With regard to the national issue, how much of the €202 million that is outstanding pertains to insurance companies and how much comprises moneys from private sources owed to the hospital?

Mr. Liam Woods

Substantially, it is all related to insurance companies.

Does the HSE record its income on a cash-receipts basis or on an accruals basis?

Mr. Liam Woods

An accruals basis. There is a policy stipulating that we have a duty to provide after 12 months what we record on an accruals basis.

If there were an influx of cash, would it enable the HSE to spend more money in the health budget or would it just pull back its overdraft facility?

Mr. Liam Woods

The HSE itself has no overdraft and no capacity to borrow. Therefore, there would be no impact in that sense. It would assist the Vote in that it would provide cash to the Vote of the HSE, which provides a once-off forever benefit once we maintain the same level of collection into the future.

If the HSE got in the €162 million, what would it provide in terms of day-to-day spending? If the insurance companies paid at the end of October, for example, what would this do for day-to-day health spending?

Mr. Liam Woods

That would improve the current Vote position of the HSE by €162 million because our collections would increase. They are within our appropriations-in-aid. A small technical point is that if we exceeded our appropriations-in-aid target, the money would return to the Exchequer. In effect, it provides for funding of the health Vote in the current year. We are behind in our collection target. That would bring us up to target and beyond our target.

What about on-the-ground spending?

Mr. Liam Woods

On the ground, it supports our cash position to the year end.

Mr. Woods is obviously aware a major issue is arising in Limerick Regional Hospital at present. I am an elected representative for Limerick City. There is over-expenditure of €16.2 million. If the insurance company money were collected for the mid-west region by the end of October, would it lower the figure of €16.2 million?

Mr. Liam Woods

It would not improve the book deficit but would enable the organisation to cash itself to the year end. The consequence of having a deficit is that it is seeking more cash from a central point in the HSE than is within its budget. If it collected the income that is outstanding, to which the Deputy is referring, then it would no longer seek the additional requirement.

What has been put down as the cost of the reconfiguration of the acute surgical services in the mid-west, for example? What costs were extended for that? There is generally a view in Limerick and the mid-west that the cost of reconfiguration that was under-funded is approximately €10 million, and that this went through in 2009.

Funding per capita for the mid-west appears to be well below the average. Average per capita funding in 2010 was approximately €2,830 whereas in the mid-west it was approximately €2,709, which is 5% below the average and 13% below the figure for HSE west. As a percentage of the total allocation in HSE west, the mid-west’s allocation has fallen by 6% since 2007, which is about 1.83% overall. That is a differential of roughly €38 million. Could the witnesses address that fact? The Mid-Western Regional Hospital is well behind University College Hospital, Galway, which is in the same area. The allocation for the former has decreased by approximately 7% below that for the latter since 2007. For every 1%, there is a differential of €2 million. That is a differential of approximately €17 million over the period.

What plans are in place to deal with the issues that have arisen in Limerick Regional Hospital? Is the HSE amenable to going to the Labour Court to resolve the problem? Issues arise in the hospital and there is over-expenditure. There is a capacity issue on the ground. This morning, there were 20 trolleys in the accident and emergency department, yet there were no beds in St. John's, Ennis and Nenagh. There was one in Croom and there were just beds up the ward. What I want to understand - this has not come up today - must take into account the financial circumstances we are in. What is the over-expenditure of the HSE nationally? How did we get to this point and did the expenditure figure arise? What was the overrun at the end of the first quarter? Where did the overrun happen? I want the witnesses to deal with it in the context of HSE mid-west.

I want to see my main objectives with a view to finding a solution realised, locally and nationally. We have issues. The facts do not lie in demonstrating reconfiguration was under-funded. Limerick Regional Hospital is under enormous pressure and has funding issues. Will the witnesses deal with those questions?

Mr. Cathal Magee

I will respond on the IR situation and ask Mr. Woods to respond on financial numbers. There is a difficult situation in Limerick.

The nurses are doing good work.

Mr. Cathal Magee

I understand the pressures in that system.

In regard to the question on the Labour Court, there are various channels available to deal with the industrial relations process and problems therewith. Conciliation conferences have taken place. We have two different levels of forums available within the Croke Park process - within the health system and nationally. Conscious of the pressures within the hospital, we think, none the less, that solutions must be worked through locally. The various forums that are available to help assist parties - unions and management - to come to a resolution should get worked through. We would encourage that.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Local management, both within the hospital and the region, is working intensely to try to deal with its deficit. The deficit has decreased. The forecasted deficit for Limerick at the end of July was approximately €14 million or €15 million. Its forecasted deficit for the end of the year is now approximately €9 million to €10 million. Moreover, there is significant outstanding private income within Limerick. Off the top of my head, I believe as much as €10 million to €12 million may be outstanding in Limerick. In such a situation, income also is part of the solution.

Mr. Magee has stated he expects the deficit to be in the order of €8 million to €9 million. Is it not interesting that this figure approximates to the figure for the under allocation of resources in 2009 in respect of reconfiguration? Does Mr. Magee accept this point?

Mr. Cathal Magee

The difficulty is that each individual hospital which is carrying a deficit or is struggling to meet its budget targets in the current year is a reflection of the fact that historically there was underfunding or that a particular project did not get funded in a particular way even though there was an expectation funding would be available. I meet this issue in almost every single hospital across the system and it is the opening discussion in every single hospital site. It is related to the fact that traditionally, when spending growth and increased funding took place on a year by year basis, local hospitals calendarised such increases. Even though they did not have funding for a full year, they would start a service on the basis that there would be development moneys in the following year etc., and consequently, rolling imbalances emerged. In addition, commitments were made whereby people started services or committed to various initiatives on the expectation that in time, funding would come.

That was in part a flaw within the HSE whereby they were encouraged if they did not spend-----

Mr. Cathal Magee

I will ask Mr. Brian Gilroy, who led the reconfiguration and is familiar with it, to comment. This is the most difficult issue we have had to share both with the team in Limerick, where I have met the management team on these issues earlier this year, and in other hospitals. In many ways, it is the wrong starting point in that we are where we are. We have significant financial constraints both at hospital level and at an overall system level. We need each local hospital and unit to engage in processes towards becoming more efficient and more effective, towards deploying resources much more effectively to deal with demands that arise, towards taking out high agency costs and overtime and basically towards becoming a more efficient and effective unit. This is the essence of what is required. The traditional expectation was that each problem and each solution required more money. The difficulty, even in the Labour Court conciliation process, is there is no money to put into solving these issues. We are strongly of the view that local engagement, working with the local management, dealing with some of the opportunities for saving costs and resolving the industrial relations issues within the various forums is how we will move forward.

Mr. Magee is available to meet in those forums.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes, there are good industrial relations processes within our system but demands now are being made. The expectation that more money is at the end of the solution is no longer there. The solution will no longer comprise greater resources, more people, more agency staff or more cash. For example, within a hospital itself, were significant progress to be made on collection of income, it would help in the period towards the end of the year. Were it possible to employ greater flexibility to take out high overtime costs and high agency costs, equally that would work. We are looking to individual hospital teams and hospital environments to come up with their own solutions to deal with the pressures on the system. At a national level, we are engaged in taking out €1 billion in costs in the current year. We probably have delivered on €700 million to €800 million of that amount and are struggling with approximately €200 million, which is shared across the entire acute system.

While I do not wish to delay the meeting, the witnesses should deal with reconfiguration, which is a big issue.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The issue with reconfiguration has been confused with the moratorium. As for the investment in reconfiguration, all the capital investment has been exceeded in respect of what was required at the outset of the reconfiguration process, with investment in Nenagh, Ennis and in particular in the critical care block in Dooradoyle. In addition, while the emphasis on the original investment on the revenue side and support was met, the entire plan was contingent upon a reassignment of resources so that as a service moved from one location to another, resources would move with that service. The problem is this has coincided with the moratorium. Consequently, the locations that were to relocate staff to Dooradoyle ended up with a moratorium whereby they lost staff and could not replace them and now state they have been unable to follow through. It is unfair to tag this as an issue pertaining to the reconfiguration process. As we have stated many times, this pertains to the management of the moratorium.

With due respect, that is semantics. At the time, the HSE pushed ahead with reconfiguration in a big way in the mid-west. Under reconfiguration, the Mid-Western Regional Hospital has been obliged to take on and fund additional staff. Mr. Gilroy has stated the effect of the moratorium has been that people left Ennis and Nenagh but the Mid-Western Regional Hospital still was obliged to take on staff to deal with these changes. The closure of the 24-hour accident and emergency units in Ennis and Nenagh has meant people come into the Mid-Western Regional Hospital. This effectively was HSE policy and clearly the mid-west is the poor relation within HSE west in respect of funding. I seek fairness and as for suggesting the moratorium has intervened, I remember the time when the HSE, at a local level at least, strongly encouraged the idea that reconfiguration needed to take place. A commitment was given that the resources would follow reconfiguration. My understanding is that approximately €6 million in respect of consultants and approximately €4 million in respect of other specialties was not specifically funded in respect of reconfiguration. While Mr. Gilroy is talking about the capital projects, I am talking about revenue, which was not funded.

At present, if a backlog develops in the accident and emergency unit, nurses come under enormous pressure. Although people are trying to deliver a good service, this pertains to management. To follow on from what the Chairman said, it is clear that in recent years, regardless of whether it was done with a nod and wink, local hospitals in country regions that did not push ahead with expenditure within a year would be left behind. Those hospitals that pushed ahead and made expenditure secured the development funding in the following year. I believe reconfiguration falls into this category. Limerick is under enormous pressure on the ground and certainly is not getting its share of the HSE west pie. Why is its per capita funding below the average nationally and below the average in HSE west? Why does the funding for the Mid-Western Regional Hospital fall behind the funding for its Galway equivalent? Mr. Magee should address these points.

Mr. Liam Woods

On the first point relating to the resourcing of reconfiguration, I am going from memory but will confirm the numbers for the Deputy afterwards. The direct provision for reconfiguration was €5.9 million, which included substantial resources being invested into Dooradoyle, as well as the provision of some resources for ambulance services. There would have been savings in the other two hospitals at that time as well. This funding was agreed and provided in the mid-west. I am not aware of any further funding outstanding relating to reconfiguration and the €5.9 million was provided.

But when it comes down to it, staff and positions were meant to transfer but did not do so because of the moratorium. Those positions comprise part of the reconfiguration process.

Mr. Liam Woods

I do not mean to negate the point made by Mr. Gilroy about the moratorium. I simply state that in terms of financial provision of revenue funding for reconfiguration, €5.9 million was provided and savings accrued into other sectors. I fully take the point to which the Deputy refers regarding the moratorium. Separately, additional funding was provided to ShannonDoc for greater out-of-hours services, which was a consequence of reconfiguration. As for the more general point about the funding level vis-à-vis other parts of the country and how that is playing out, we have studied this ourselves. An expert group considered this issue and reported to the Minister in July of last year and I believe the report is still available on the Department’s website. At that stage, there was a recommendation of moving to a population-based geographic distribution of resources. However, given policy change since then, it is unlikely this will happen. I must caution members on one point and while I do not have the data to hand, I can share them with members later. One must consider all the factors, including inter-regional flows, before one can determine the level of resource that is being absorbed in a health environment in a single location. That is particularly the case in acute services but also in medical card and other services. We have some of that data and I will provide it to the committee.

Over the past three years, hospitals have generally experienced an 18% to 22% reduction in budget. As the chief executive officer stated, there was a reduction of €1 billion each year over the past two years and another retrenchment in 2009. I accept the overall challenge is major. The relativity within the budget for hospitals in the west is being determined by HSE West. As far as I am aware, over recent years there has not been a recent skew in that. I note the Deputy's point on this but I need to examine the data in more detail.

The more general point of moving to population-based funding does not appear to be policy but perhaps it is moving in time to a payment per procedure per person, regardless of where the person is located.

I welcome the assurances given to Deputy Fleming on debt collection agencies and unpaid medical bills. While it may be considered flippant, there might be a point in deploying these agencies against some of the consultants in question rather than the patients who are often sick and distressed when they receive such agency letters. While the committee wants the executive to collect moneys owed to it, it may examine the language employed in the letters and the protocols used.

Diverging slightly from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, it would be remiss of the committee not to raise today's media article on levels of absenteeism in HSE west. These absenteeism figures, provided to the regional health forum by HSE west, show that up to 1,100 employees are calling in sick every day. This works out at one in 20 of the labour force not turning up to work. It costs the Exchequer €5 million a month which amounts to €60 million a year.

Is there an explanation for this high rate of absenteeism? Is this unique to HSE west or would this be replicated across the organisation? Is the executive concerned at these high rates of absenteeism?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Yes, the issue of absenteeism has been a significant issue in the health system in recent years. There has been a large focus on reducing absenteeism levels across the system. In 2009, the level was 5.8%. At the time, a programme of work was set to achieve a target of 3.5% which would be closer to better practice. In 2010, the rate came down to 4.8% and the current national rate is 4.7%. There has been a marked improvement but I accept there has been a slowdown in the rate between 2010 and 2011. I accept there has been a disimprovement in the figures for HSE west and the overall levels in the west are higher than in other regions.

Absenteeism is a significant issue that needs to be managed. We have a significant programme in place to manage down absenteeism levels. It is a difficult process that takes time but we are heading in the right direction. Ten health areas in the system are below the 3.5% rate such as Mallow, St. Vincent's and the Mater hospitals. The overall rate is under constant scrutiny and measured on a monthly basis as part of the performance management framework.

The cost of absenteeism is the absence of a care resource in a hospital or other health service. Regarding the Mid-Western Regional Hospital, absenteeism rates are as high as 6% there and it is part of the issue of performance improvement. Mr. Sean McGrath has more detailed figures on the rates.

Just before Mr. McGrath comes in, it is acknowledged that workers in the health service, such as nurses, are more likely to pick up an infection during their course of work. My question is aimed more at those individuals working in the wider HSE, many of whom are not in contact with ill patients, who are calling in sick. Are these cases of people taking their exact number of statutorily entitled sick days or are there longer periods of sick leave? What protocols are in place for dealing with sick leave? What are the subsequent costs to the HSE of having to bring in replacement agency staff?

Mr. Seán McGrath

The Deputy is correct; the cost of absenteeism comes to €60 million a year. At a national level, we have region-by-region professional and institutional comparisons. For example, we can compare rates among nurses in Limerick and St. Vincent's, Dublin. These figures are collated every month and circulated in the system. We meet with each of the institutions frequently during the year ensuring we all understand the dynamic involved. More importantly, we have an active process both with line management and the human recourse directorate in which there are back-to-work interviews and engagement with individual workers as to what are the issues underlying their absences. This was a national protocol that was agreed with all the stakeholders. It is having a big effect, taking the national figures going from 7% some years ago to below 5%. The critical point now is to get this below 4% which, as the chief executive said, is getting harder.

There are higher incidences of absenteeism among certain professions. For example, in the medical field it is almost negligible while in some support grades it enters double digits in some locations. We have very granular details, an active process on the ground and a taskforce in each of the regions to ensure where rates are high, they are addressed quickly. Our goal is to get to 3.5% which is achievable. There are more people in that bracket now than we had before. Invariably, the matters in HSE west must be addressed.

The difference in rates between medical and support staff is the nub of the issue. Logically, one would have expected those working with ill patients on a day-to-day basis would be more likely to be sick rather than those in offices. Will the executive circulate the data it has in this respect to the committee?

Mr. Cathal Magee

We have a very extensive report on this with an analysis of costs, grades and locations which we can make available to the committee following this meeting.

The basic line on decoupling the hospital charge with the consultant fee is that the public purse and the public agency should not be dependent on any private professional submitting an invoice before they get paid. I am not too concerned whether the process is simple or complex. However, I want to know where we are at with it. Is it possible the Department of Health can provide an update to the committee on this issue?

Many wonder who runs the health service. Some think it is the Minister for Health, the Department of Health, the HSE and, in previous times, the health boards. This morning we have been left with the impression that it is the private health insurers who are deciding when the health service gets paid. The private health insurers do not own the bricks and mortar of the public hospitals which they need to provide their service. We have that card to play and it needs to be played. The private health insurance companies cannot carry out their service without the availability of public hospitals.

There is a real onus on the Department of Health to get its act together on this, particularly at a time when the HSE is experiencing this cash flow issue. It would be good if we could get an albeit once-off injection of €163 million back into the public coffers rather than assisting private health insurance companies with their own cash flow situation.

We need to hear more because we are going around the houses. Is it an issue that will not be resolved until the Minister introduces legislation? Can he introduce a regulation? Does all of the responsibility lie with the Minister? I am not much the wiser after our exchanges. Could we have an update on it?

Mr. Barron gave us account of the position of the Department of Health.

It seems, if they do not mind me saying so, somewhat at odds with the Department of Health policy which the chief executive of the HSE outlined as well.

As did the Comptroller and Auditor General.

My understanding from the opening statement is that the Department of Health and the HSE are on the same page on the issue. I would like to see if we could get that confirmed but also if we could find out what specific action-----

We will ask the question of Mr. Barron. Is Mr. Barron on the same page as Mr. Magee?

Perhaps he can state what specific piece of action would have to be taken by the Minister and the Department of Health to make this happen.

Mr. Paul Barron

I thought I clarified this earlier.

Mr. Paul Barron

We all are on the same page.

Mr. Paul Barron

The HSE, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the Department would favour a decoupling situation.

I do not want Mr. Barron to speak for the chief executive, but Mr. Magee's understanding was that the delay - I am using my own words here - is the fault of the Department of Health.

Mr. Paul Barron

The point I was making is that there is no power currently available to the Minister to enable that to happen. To answer Deputy Harris' specific question, the Minister cannot make a regulation to provide for that as of now.

Is it the view of the Department of Health that to bring about decoupling, the Minister for Health would need to introduce legislation?

Mr. Paul Barron

That appears to be the case. We are awaiting advice, but that appears to be the case. What I can say is that as of today, there is no regulation-making power that the Minister can readily turn to.

From whom is the Department awaiting the advice?

Mr. Paul Barron

From our legal advisers.

How long has the Department been waiting for that advice?

Mr. Paul Barron

It is ongoing.

Since when? Is it a year?

Mr. Paul Barron

No. It is nothing of that length. It is quite recent.

Mr. Heffernan is from the new Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. He has heard the debate on various issues. What is his view on this? Could his Department intervene and bring an end to some of the issues that were raised, and also this particular issue raised by Deputy Harris?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

In regard to our Department's view, we also agree with the decoupling approach. It is a matter for the Minister for Health, who has primary responsibility, to consider what are the appropriate actions or remedies.

Let me say, first, it is unacceptable that health professionals should not be meeting their requirements to sign off on these forms to facilitate payment. That being said, it seems that there are two issues or two possible areas of weakness. One is in the contract. That is the framework in which the existing engagement with the consultants has to be operated. The second issue is whether it is necessary and appropriate to introduce legislation. If legislation is required, it would be a matter for the Minister for Health.

Would the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Department of Health or the HSE have engaged with the consultants to explain the need to sign-off earlier? Who intervened at that level? Was it the HSE?

Mr. Cathal Magee

At a consultant level, there is ongoing engagement with clinical directors, with consultants and with hospital managers to try to activate the claims administration process, and that is under way.

Would the intervention of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform or the Department of Health, at a very senior level, with that group that Mr. Magee described bring about a conclusion to the issue for them to issue their invoices?

Mr. Cathal Magee

To take the Deputy's question, the Minister has made a public statement which is supportive of and agrees with the issue of decoupling. The Department itself is supportive of the analysis that this is a very significant cure to the problem of income collection and to the outstanding moneys. It is also an opportunity to get money into our system where we badly need it, in the current year and, potentially, into next year. I am not au fait with what is the best remedy for that and how that can be effected.

Given that this is a statutory charge, we should be able to get payment of it independent of a consultant signing forms, and that is now accepted. The issue centres on what is the remedy. Is it a regulatory remedy or a legal remedy, and can that be effected? That is a matter for the Minister and for the Department but in principle, everybody - the Comptroller and Auditor General, ourselves and the Department - have been in agreement for some time. It is a question of getting action on the solution.

I want to touch on two issues. The first one may have been dealt with in my absence. If it was, I ask the committee to bear with me.

On the contractual arrangements for consultants, the briefing states that 2,508 consultants are employed in the public health system in total, including 2,087 on 2008 consultant contracts, 296 on 1997 consultant contracts and 20 on contractual arrangements. Can Mr. Gilroy elaborate briefly on that? How are those 20 on other contractual arrangements distinguished from the 1997 contract and the contract of 2008?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

All of those are in previous iterations of consultant contract. It is a dwindling number all the time. It is consultants who would not have taken the 1997 contract in 1997 and would have remained on their original arrangements and then, subsequently, did not take the 2008 contract either.

The consultants are different. Although there are representative bodies, it is not a collective bargaining per se. Each consultant post, on negotiation, gets to choose whether he or she avails of the contract or not. That is why we have them on multiple arrangements.

Would those 20 remaining positions, which I accept will dwindle and be gone over a period of time, have differed significantly from the other contracts?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

They would. A defining piece of the 2008 contract would have been the setting parameters, not just around the measure but the public-private equity of access. Also, the relationship between the consultant and his or her employer became much more normalised in the 2008 contract. In some of the previous contracts there is huge ambiguity around whom consultants would be responsible to, who would be recognised as their line manager. Those would be some of the key differences between the contracts.

The second issue relates to the nurse bank and the issue of agency staff. Chapter 43 of the report states that the health service has successfully reduced its employment levels consistently since 2007, but that in many cases the reduction in numbers has been replaced by agency staff who are not recorded in its numbers as, traditionally, only those who had access to public sector pensions were included.

There is an issue with the moratorium. In many respects, is it not more expensive for the HSE to rely on agency staff? Is it not the case that the cost to the HSE of an agency nurse is much greater than that of a nurse in a position with the HSE and in a public sector pensions arrangement?

Mr. Cathal Magee

Deputy McCarthy is correct that with the advent of the moratorium a number of years ago, a practice emerged where critical posts existed where staff retired or left and were not formally filled. Hospitals and the health system tended to replace such individuals with an agency appointment. That has happened across both the acute system and also long-stay nursing where staffing levels might be quite tight.

Until last year, there was no procurement or contract in place around agencies. The HSE was paying excess margins for agency staff. A national procurement process put in place at the end of last year and the beginning of this year has negotiated a significant reduction the margins and terms of contract for agency staff. The margins charged by agencies for supplying staff decreased from 20% to between 5% and 7%. We also negotiated the basic rates that agency staff would be paid. This resulted in a significant reduction, in the order of €30 million, in overall costs. The volume of agency staff in our system has, however continued to increase and is now above what is capable of being funded from our budget. We are investigating ways of controlling this issue and in the context of current financial pressure, agency staff levels are decreasing significantly across the system. In a health system, agency staff are part of the solution but their value for money has to be kept under constant scrutiny.

In regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the nurse bank, this is a model used by the Dublin voluntary hospitals whereby full-time and potentially permanent staff are employed as part of a supernumerary force that could respond to any gaps that emerged. It is a different model from that of the statutory system. The Comptroller and Auditor General has suggested that perhaps it is a better model. Subsequently, however, both the Department of Finance and the control framework have insisted on nurse bank people becoming part of the framework. Furthermore, the reduction in agency rates we negotiated earlier this year through the national framework has resulted in a margin of value that makes the agency option as cheap as the nurse bank. I agree, however, that the preferred operating model is to have the required complement of permanent and pensionable staff. Agencies have filled the gaps where numbers have been reduced and we are trying to manage out that situation.

There is clearly a practice in place whereby people who are employed by the HSE are being pensioned off and replaced by agency staff. Agency workers do not have strong contractual arrangements or security of tenure. There is no guarantee as to where they will be in 12 months' time. Does Mr. Magee agree an issue arises in regard to exploitation of agency workers compared with permanent staff?

Mr. Cathal Magee

A European directive is emerging on terms and conditions of employment of agency workers and this will impact on our system in the coming months. Certain requirements and standards are already in place regarding the employment of agency workers. For the past ten or 15 years agency staff have been a significant feature of the health system and the labour model in Ireland. As a temporary addition of resources at peak periods or when people are absent, their use is legitimate. The flexibility offered by agencies suits many workers who choose to work for them and the rates they paid were very high. Many of our own staff worked for agencies in addition to their employment in the formal public system. Under the terms of the contract put in place last year, staff employed by the HSE or a HSE funded agency are prohibited to work on an agency basis.

Long-term agency resourcing is not acceptable in our health system. A temporary issue arises due to the impact of the moratorium but we do not see agencies playing a role in the longer term. They have a role to play in filling gaps that emerge over short periods when people are absent. It is important that terms and conditions are standard across the industry and are in accordance with EU legislation. I do not accept there is exploitation. Many staff prefer to work for agencies.

What is the cost of hiring a bank employee?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Both the agency and the bank employee are pegged to Department of Health pay rates for the relevant nursing grades. In the agency context, an entry grade is pegged to the first point and another incremental rate is paid based on experience. The bank pay rates are based on the incremental scale so that, for example, one would come in on the 20th point on the scale if one had 20 years' of experience. It is cheaper to recruit through the newly negotiated agency model than the bank.

It is important to note that agency rates are aligned to existing pay rates in the public service. In a large number of areas across the country agency cohorts have been substituted into permanent pensionable positions where we have the headroom or savings to do so. In the local health office in Tipperary, for example, a large number of agency staff have been converted into permanent full-time employees because they have been providing an important function there for some time.

What is the overall number of HSE employees, including agency staff, and how would it compare with the 2007 figure?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Overall numbers have decreased significantly. The health sector now employs just under 105,000 whole time equivalents. If one compares a notional cost of the whole time equivalents with the agency spend it is less than 3,000, bringing the total to 108,000. The health sector employed in excess of 111,000 whole time equivalents at the start of 2008. We put a notional figure on the cost of agency staff and we have now started controlling that, along with the bank, to establish how many agency staff are employed by location and region and corporately.

What does the use of agency staff cost per annum?

Mr. Seán McGrath

Last year agency staff cost us approximately €180 million.

What will it cost this year?

Mr. Seán McGrath

This year to date, we will in most cases meet or exceed that figure. On the medical side, the cost of locums will be far in excess of what we spent last year. As members may be aware, we have had to deal with a particular issue in respect of non-consultant hospital doctors. We have tried to maintain the volume we had in 2010 and clear actions have been initiated at local level to this effect. Based on the new price model we put in place last year, there is potential for making significant savings. Year to date, it is quite significant and in many cases it is up. We are seeing traction, particularly in nursing and support grades which are beginning to dip below last year's level.

Every year, University College Cork turns out fine graduates in psychiatric and general nursing. A lot of these graduates are emigrating because it is extremely difficult for them to find work in Ireland. In May I tabled a parliamentary question on the number of retired HSE staff who are put back onto the payroll. At certain times of the year the figure can be in excess of 300 people. Is that system not inherently unfair? A retired person on a pension may be brought in to cover shift work in a local area instead of good graduates who are unable to enter the system and face the bleak prospect of unemployment or emigration. Are there plans to address that issue?

Mr. Seán McGrath

We saw those trends in the mental health system and we have converted those who came back on pensionable grades either through the agency model or new graduates coming in. We face a challenge in terms of expertise and the locations of many of these institutions. We have no grá for bringing back people with expertise when we could be recruiting graduates into the system. Where we have the funding in place, we will do so.

Is there a deliberate policy to consider somebody who is newly qualified?

Mr. Seán McGrath

As best we can and where we have the funding and matching competencies, we would always prefer new graduates as part of the process. We have significant recruitment banks from which we recruit the numbers and capabilities we need.

I wish to ask Mr. Magee about reconfiguration of services in the south east. We had an experience recently in Dungarvan district hospital. I heard what Mr. Magee said about staff when there are cuts in a particular budget. My recent experience with the HSE was very good, particularly with Pat Healy the regional director in the south. There was a question of dialogue between the staff and management in the hospital. In the end there was a reorganisation of the rostering. It affected St. Michael's ward in Dungarvan district hospital with 16 elderly people in long-stay beds. There was a threat that the unit would shut down temporarily, but that was averted. It required the co-operation of the staff involved and communication with senior people in the HSE, which was good.

While I have had a very good experience recently, sometimes it has not been that good. When the HSE makes cuts in agency staff or within budgets, what is its process for dealing with the hospital staff? In this case they were brought in at the last minute. It worked out very well because of the involvement of Pat Healy in particular. Sometimes it has not worked out very well. Staff are very willing to be flexible and reorganise rosters. In this case it was a reaffirmation of their value as professionals and they were allowed to demonstrate that, but that has not always been the case. According to the newspapers, there is an overrun of approximately €240 million. Is this happening on a recurrent basis throughout the country? What is the HSE process for downsizing as it pertains to staff?

What are the key elements of the HSE's budgetary overruns? If the figure of €240 million is remotely correct, where is it focusing its cuts nationally? From where will the savings come? What are the big figures? The HSE must have an idea as to where it might find that cash. Deputy Michael McCarthy spoke about agency staff. Seven or eight agency people lost their jobs in Dungarvan. What can we expect? What categories are likely to be cut to make up that €240 million? I might then ask about reconfiguration.

Mr. Cathal Magee

In regard to the process of change and effective management of running a service and a system with less money, it is challenging for a management system. I am delighted to hear of the progress that has been made in the south and in the area with which the Deputy is familiar. The southern region is coming to terms well with the financial challenges in the current year right across its system and is actively managing the process of trying to reach the forecasted financial envelope available for that whole region. In one sense it is a region which has given us confidence that it can deliver.

Generally in the health system and with health professionals, whether it be support, nursing or medical, we do advocate a collaborative approach and engagement with people on the ground to find out the best way of dealing with the financial and service challenge. That is what we advocate. There has been a partnership and a collaborative ethos in the system. One of the starting points of it is for people to accept it is their challenge. The biggest issue we have is where people want to externalise the problem and say, "We're underfunded. We need more money. Somebody needs to come in and bail us out". That kind of mindset then gets in the way of looking at the problem and the options to deal with it.

Where one has ownership of the problem within a hospital, within a management or within a region, one is off to a very good start. If one has good leadership and good engagement with staff and the representatives, one can come up with solutions. That is happening across the system. In media terms we hear about difficulties and industrial relations disputes. Equally there are many areas in our system where huge progress is being made to meet what are very difficult financial targets and disciplines. As our finance director said earlier, the acute system in the last two years is down about 18% or 19%, which is a very significant reduction.

In short, if a unit takes ownership of a problem and must come up with a solution, must look at it internally and not externalise it, then it is a great starting point. The ideal is if one has a management which can engage both local management and also, with support of the regional HR personnel or director of operations, try to find what the solutions. That is happening in many areas.

It is important to get that message out. There is a sense among some, even within the organisation, that this might not be the case sometimes and they were even surprised at the level of engagement they ultimately got. I do not know if this has crept up and is unfair to say but in some cases there is an attitude that the engagement might not be there.

Mr. Cathal Magee

In terms of the macro position-----

I ask Mr. Magee to categorise where the HSE will achieve these cuts. Will it shut hospitals?

Mr. Cathal Magee

There are three big areas where challenges arise. One is in our hospital system where we came into the year with €70 million of overspend which reverted back to the incoming year for 2010. So hospitals had to deliver a significant reduction in expenditure on the run rate that they came out of in 2010. In the beginning of the year there was quite a challenge around the volumes of activity in our system. So beds were opened and agency staff were brought in because of the pressure on the system in January and February. In the first quarter hospitals got off to a bad start in terms of the expected run rate. Since April or May there was a significant improvement. The big focus in the hospital system has been on reducing the levels of agency and reducing the levels of overtime. The other area that we have targeted nationally is over €200 million of procurement savings.

Can Mr. Magee give me numbers? Mr. McGrath confused me slightly with his response to Deputy McCarthy's question on agency staff. He did not give me a sense that the costs of agency staff was going down a great deal. Did I pick that up wrong?

Mr. Cathal Magee

On agency staff the unit cost is going down but the volume is going up.

I heard him say volume.

Mr. Cathal Magee

That is what is happening in the second half of the year. Across the system we are reducing agency by up to 50%.

Ms Laverne McGuinness

And higher.

Mr. Cathal Magee

We are also trying to take out all overtime costs and looking at procurement. Over the year we have had a focus on taking out a target of €150 million or €160 million of procurement nationally. We probably have about €120 million or €130 million delivered.

The areas are agency staff, overtime and procurement. Is there anything else?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

Income and seasonal closures.

Mr. Cathal Magee

Nationally, we should say that at the beginning of the year we took €200 million out of drug costs - that is banked. If one looks at the €1 billion of costs that we have to take out over the year, about €600 million to €700 million of that is delivered and we are looking at trying to deliver a balance of around €200 million or €250 million. That is the pressure point. There is a very detailed cost reduction plan set out. It has been circulated and is available. It itemises all the areas on a hospital and regional basis.

Mr. Woods might want to talk about some of the-----

Mr. Liam Woods

The Deputy was asking about agencies. There is €110 million spent on agency to the end of July. That is up on the previous year. So the target for the remainder of the year is to bring that down.

Is the target to reduce it by more than 50%?

Ms Laverne McGuinness

There is a slight distinction between nursing agency and NCHDs agency because, particularly with the doctors, we are depending on getting the doctors from India and Pakistan registered. That is almost done and will be finalised later in the year. We will not have so much saving on the agency doctors in 2011 but we will going forward into 2012. There is a target of 50% in relation to nursing and in some places it is actually higher.

I turn to the reconfiguration in the south east. Mr. Gilroy has an intimate knowledge of the issue, which has been going on for years. There are four main hospitals, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Wexford and Waterford regional, and there is a view that there is duplication of services. The issue ties in to our discussion on budget overruns. The duplication of acute services in the south east is replicated in other parts of the country. Where are we in the process of reconfiguring the services that are provided?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The primary driver of the regional reconfigurations is patient safety. When we look at what triggered the configurations in the north east and the mid-west, there were crises involving patient safety. Those were run as independent reconfigurations. We then had the national co-ordination of the regional reconfigurations, but the main emphasis in the earlier stage remained on patient safety. The south east is slightly different. Although there is duplication of services, the hospital service in the south east does not have the patient safety concerns that we see in other regions. There are some minor patient safety issues, but not on the scale we see elsewhere. We then come to the cost effectiveness aspect. There is a balance to be struck. Small hospitals have a cost-effective role to play in our health service too.

The issue has arisen in the south east and I have had to declare publicly a number of times that no decisions have been made. Analysis has been done. What has now started to replace to some extent a big chunk of the regional configurations is the acute medicine programmes, or in fact all the clinical programmes led by Barry White with the support of the relevant colleges. As each programme starts to emerge, it feeds into the reconfigurations. In parallel we have the implications of HIQA reports and we will see what emerges from the Tallaght report, which will no doubt have implications throughout our hospital system. Many dimensions feed in to reconfiguration, but the situation with the movement of services is nowhere near as urgent in the south east and, to be clear, no decisions have been made on that. There is a control process so there will be plenty of notification if the need emerges, but it is not in the same category as some of the other areas, where the primary driver is patient safety.

I do not want to be smart but I am absolutely none the wiser. Mr. Gilroy said an analysis has been done and HIQA feeds in to this, but the duplication of services-----

Mr. Brian Gilroy

That there is duplication of services does not necessarily mean services are not cost effective. A service provided on two sites can be equally efficient on both sites. We cannot change everything at once so we have to prioritise. Why are we not ploughing ahead and moving services around hospitals in the south east? The answer is that the primary driver is patient safety, then the acute medicine programme and the other clinical programmes come in behind that around bringing in some of the efficiencies. Those programmes are only concluding their design stage and beginning to go into implementation, but they will have an impact. There has been constant local concern in the south east, with people asking whether we are going to pull a service from their hospital and whether things that have happened in other hospitals will happen in the south east, but in all the other hospitals quoted in those concerns, the driver was patient safety. It has never been cost savings. In all the work triggered to date it cost us more to carry out the actions. We have never saved money by doing such things. It is more expensive to do what we have done.

Fair enough. I thank Mr. Gilroy.

I have just a few quick questions. How much has been spent so far on the national children's hospital at the Mater?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

It is in excess of €20 million, but I will provide an exact figure.

Okay. On a different matter, €15 million was paid under the clinical indemnities scheme in 2009, and I note from the figures that the cost went up to €79 million last year. Will the witnesses explain the background to that? What exactly is this scheme? It is paid through the State Claims Agency.

Mr. Liam Woods

The State self-insures for the costs of clinical indemnity, so there is no insurance policy. The State Claims Agency manages the arrangement on behalf of the State.

How much does the policy cost?

Mr. Liam Woods

There is no policy. The moneys are-----

So there is no insurance. Is that what Mr. Woods is saying?

Mr. Liam Woods

Yes. The payment is based on settlements of cases either in court or outside the court. The funding that Deputy Fleming mentioned represents payments made arising from-----

What brought about the change from €15 million to €79 million?

Mr. Liam Woods

It has been increasing substantially, but not that dramatically. The resource switched to the HSE from the Department in 2009, as I recall, so there was a half-year adjustment in 2009, but if we look at the costs over a number of years, the figures go from €60 million to about €97 million at present. The major driver of that is the growth in the number of claims. The major single component within those claims is obstetrics. The current value of the book of liability or potential claims, which the State Claims Agency manages, is more than €800 million. In the 2009 accounts it was some €600 million.

The small print in the notes state it is €845 million. What is interesting from the HSE point of view is that there is an estimated liability of almost €1 billion but it is not recorded in the accounts so it is invisible. Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General will comment on this as well. The notes state that the Minister is directed not to include the €845 million in the accounts. Is this condition in the legislation that set up the HSE? It cannot be, because it is a new scheme, in that it has gone to the State Claims Agency.

Mr. Liam Woods

The condition is that the Minister determines the HSE's accounting policies, one of which Deputy Fleming refers to, and we comply with those policies.

That is not under any circumstances a normal accounting policy for an agency that operates on an approved basis.

Mr. Liam Woods

The criteria around whether we provide or reference as contingency relates to the degree to which we can assess whether the expenditure is a probability, a possibility or-----

But this is more than a contingency. Mr. Woods is satisfied there is a figure of €845 million.

Mr. Liam Woods

There is a book of potential claims but they will not all crystallise. The State Claims Agency does work to minimise claims.

Does Mr. Woods have an estimate of what the cost might be?

Mr. Liam Woods

The figure in the accounts to which Deputy Fleming referred is the current full expression of the maximum indebtedness.

Chairman, the point I am making is that there is a liability of almost €1 billion in respect of claims that will be coming through the courts or coming to be settled - Mr. Woods said obstetrics is the biggest area - but it is included as a footnote. We often speak about hundreds of thousands of euro, but here is a liability of almost €1 billion, yet the Minister has said, "Ah, but we don't include that in the financial statements." This is not a great way to deal with public accountability and the true state of the finances. The liability will have to be met. The Chairman might want to discuss the issue with other members, but I suggest the committee writes to the Minister for Health because it is not an acceptable policy to pretend the liability does not exist. That is an awful carry-on. I know the Comptroller and Auditor General has to audit in terms of the legislation the Minister laid down, but it is not acceptable.

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to comment.

Mr. John Buckley

There is really nothing to add. The policy has been set by the Minister. The accounts are framed on the basis of the Minister's directions and accounting policies. In the next few weeks, the committee will have before it the State Claims Agency when it discusses the accounts of the National Treasury Management Agency.

It will be possible to look deeper at its management of the liability.

We will deal with this next week.

We will deal with the State Claims Agency, but this is a figure which will come to be paid by the HSE. We will argue about a hospital or an emergency department, while another €100 million must be paid on obstetric claims but it is not included. It must be frustrating from the point of view of the witnesses to know these massive bills exist and will hit them but not to know when. What is the format for informing the HSE when they are to be paid? How was the decision made to pay out the €79 million?

Mr. Liam Woods

The claims agency advises us.

How long does the HSE then have to pay?

Mr. Liam Woods

How long?

Does the HSE pay promptly?

Mr. Liam Woods

We pay immediately.

Is it possible for the HSE to discuss with the State Claims Agency paying a claim of €4 million in a very serious case over the lifetime of the person or over a 20 year period, rather than it being removed from the HSE's annual Vote as a lump sum? This is a horrific figure to remove from the annual Vote.

Mr. Liam Woods

That is correct. I should expand. We work with the State Claims Agency on identifying where clinical risk arises and how to deal with it and minimise the likely occurrence of future risk which crystallises in claims. This work takes place in the system.

Will Mr. Woods write to the committee on the make-up of the €845 million on a year by year basis? How much of it relates to claims from this year, last year and the previous year? We will then be able to see whether the amounts being claimed each year are increasing. Will next year's figure be higher than €845 million? Mr. Woods can also provide us with information on whether they are new or old cases.

With regard to the health service national partnership forum, the unions had to pay back €255,000 to the HSE. When did the HSE receive this money? The bulk of it involved SIPTU but does Mr. Woods have an exact breakdown? A reference was made to a refund from "unions" rather than "a union".

Mr. Seán McGrath

I will supply it to the Deputy. I do not have it to hand.

This issue will be dealt with in December but the information the Deputy requested can be sent to us in the meantime.

These are points we followed through last year but they have come up again.

I have a final question to the person responsible for cancer services. Colorectal cancer screening is due to begin in January 2012. Will it start then?

Dr. Susan O’Reilly

The national cancer control programme never announced fixed dates. We announced we would begin in 2012. It is a complex process in that when a national screening programme is begun all of the elements must be in place. The elements required comprise ensuring all of the necessary nurses have been recruited, trained and in posts and this is in train but not completed. These nurses will be devoted to colorectal cancer patient care and trained to perform colonoscopies to boost capacity.

We have almost finished assessing the various pre-chosen colonoscopies sites to determine whether they are ready to go live. An information technology component must be implemented to ensure all of the patient pathways, data collection and quality assurance are in place. We predict all of these disparate elements will come together in mid-2012. We do not propose going live with the national screening programme unless everything is working. It is not possible to do a part of it; we must be ready to roll. We predict we will be ready to roll in mid-2012.

Before Mr. Gilroy leaves, I want to refer back to the number of properties the HSE has. How many of the properties are closed or in a dilapidated state? Is Myshall part of this?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes, it is one of the 72 I listed.

An arrangement was made with regard to Myshall between HSE and the Department of Justice and Equality.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

That Department passed the parcel.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

That property is not in use.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

It was never in use.

What are the ongoing maintenance and security costs for this property and all properties which fall into the same category? Myshall was bought for use by the Department of Justice and Equality.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes, as a refugee centre.

It was never used.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

No.

What was the original value of the property? What was the arrangement that brought the property into the ownership of the HSE? What is it valued at now? How much are ongoing costs, such as security, for the property?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

I will have to come back to the Chairman on the maintenance figures. We acquired Myshall from the OPW for €1. We were in the process of trying to dispose of it but the unit was vandalised. We have corrected some of the damage and it is going back on the market.

When properties such as this are disposed of, does the HSE have a policy of using the money to invest in disability services or psychiatric services? Is there a specific area to which the money goes?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

When the HSE was established in 2005 all of the moneys raised from any sales were surrendered to the Exchequer and we could not use them. In late 2009 we received a supplementary from the Department of Finance reimbursing large mental health sales for reinvestment in A Vision for Change. All land sales from 2010 and 2011 can be reinvested in mental health to support A Vision for Change.

Now that the database of properties is in place, and I understand the way valuation is applied to the properties, most of us are concerned about the properties that will be vacated. By and large, they are older buildings and HSE moves to a new centre such as the Shamrock Plaza centre in Carlow.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

Yes.

A number of properties become vacant because a number of services have been located in the newer properties. When will these properties come to market? Are they on the market? Clearly the HSE has no use for them.

Mr. Brian Gilroy

As I stated, of the 72 properties 12 are either sale agreed or sold and 38 are on the market. Of the balance, six properties are being refurbished for re-use and 16 are in the review stage whereby they may have come available recently. We will either refurbish and reuse them in service or we will dispose of them.

Is Myshall an exception as a property which is not used at all?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

As I stated, Myshall will go back on the market.

I also have a question for Mr. Gilroy. With regard to the programme for the establishment of primary care centres throughout the country will Mr. Gilroy give me an idea of how many of these have been completed? What was the initial number of contracts the HSE envisaged? What problems has the HSE had with regards to planning? How many have been held up because of planning? What is the completion rate of the primary care centres which the HSE envisaged initially?

Mr. Brian Gilroy

The 2010 Comptroller and Auditor General report is relatively up-to-date on the status of those which are either concluded or in the process of being concluded. I can provide the Deputy with a written response with more up-to-date information. We discussed it earlier and the record will show where the difficulties lay with part of the scheme and what are our proposals.

We will leave the property chapter open and we can deal with it again.

My next question is for either Mr. Buckley or Mr. Heffernan. As we go through the accounts with the Accounting Officer and his team, issues of recurring problems arise, such as the payment to GPs on foot of medical cards and the capitation or an overspend in IT. What is the response of Mr. Buckley and Mr. Heffernan to this? Is it their responsibility merely to report it to the Committee of Public Accounts?

Could a further step be taken when matters just continue and are subject to another report? For example, the last Comptroller and Auditor General report was on the GP issue. The Comptroller and Auditor General is now reporting on the same issue, so it is still within the system and has not been dealt with. How does Mr. Buckley feel about that and is there a further reporting position that will bring some conclusion to the matter, or even to the outstanding debt from consultants and so on? What about the decoupling issue? Will we, as the Committee of Public Accounts, deal with these issues time and again? Is there something Mr. Buckley or Mr. Heffernan can do arising from meetings like this?

Mr. John Buckley

Formally, the position is that we report and that report is an attention directing mechanism. The committee would consider the report and at the end of the consideration it would produce its own report if it so wishes. That report must be replied to by the Executive in the form of the Minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, formerly the Minister for Finance. That is the formal mechanism for dealing with such issues.

For the efficacy of the system a great deal depends on the framing of recommendations by the committee itself. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have a role in enforcement but the committee has a role in reviewing matters, formulating conclusions and recommendations and sending its own report to the Minister. Normally, the Minister would deal with those issues and indicate how they will be tackled.

The press and various committee members over the years have indicated a certain worry about the delay in going through a cycle of having the Comptroller and Auditor General reporting in arrears and the committee also reporting even further in arrears. There is concern about how this can bring about any kind of meaningful action. It may well be that as a committee there might be consideration of whether it is possible to have some sort of engagement with the underlying causes. For example, I gave an outline last week on the headline issues that keep recurring, and perhaps these might be attacked at the level of system adjustments. Perhaps the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform could help with issues like change management and the various capacity building issues necessary in order for organisations to cease falling into the same traps and coming up with the same mistakes.

There may be a possibility of a twin-track approach where headline issues could be dealt with expeditiously, leaving specific matters to be dealt with through the normal reporting mechanism. Overall, the ststem is that I carry matters as far as the committee and it is up to the committee to address them.

Will Mr. Heffernan help us? It is tiring to go through the same issues with some of the same Departments, or even issues shared across Departments. I take it that as he deals with departmental spend, he also shares the concerns of the committee. Therefore, it is also a question for Mr. Heffernan in bringing the message from this committee to the Minister and giving him the relevant examples heard on a weekly basis. I wonder from Mr. Heffernan's perspective what happens after he hears from the witnesses, as he did today? Does he make a report to the Minister separate from ours?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

There are two levels. On a normal daily or weekly engagement with the Department of Health and the HSE with regard to financial matters in progress, we constantly have in our minds the kinds of issues which surface here, taking in value for money, efficiency, etc. We always engage with those players to try to improve performance in that regard.

Formally, with regard to the response of the committee, when the Minister is preparing a formal minute he or she would engage with the Department and line agency, which is the HSE in this regard, to get an answer to his satisfaction that a particular system deficiency or problem is being addressed and provision is being made for it. On the basis of the response, the Minister would formally reply to the committee. Under current arrangements, it falls back on the agency or Department that has corrected the deficiency or problem to ensure the solutions or system changes have been implemented. We consider this on an ongoing basis but the reality is that as a Department we cannot, because of insufficient resources, engage on a micro level of management in organisations.

With regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General's comments about capacity building in the context of reform and the Chairman's concerns, I can take today's deliberations back and feed them into the process to see if anything can be done through reform to address capacity issues.

I have another point relating to the parliamentary affairs division and the answering of parliamentary questions before I ask Mr. Buckley for any further comment. Some questions are answered in detail, such as the example identified by Deputy Fleming this morning. There are others that have been outstanding for a long time, which would not be tolerated in any other Parliament; I do not know how we tolerate it here. For one, I will not continue to tolerate how Members are treated generally with regard to the quality of the reply received and with the timeliness of the reply.

I have already discussed this with Mr. Magee and I ask him and Department officials to examine the existing process by which Members get information, either on behalf of a constituent or taking in some national issue. It is far from satisfactory. From my experience submitting parliamentary questions and that of others, the quality and timeliness of replies will be monitored to see if there can be some improvement as we work together on the issues that concern us all.

Mr. John Buckley

To continue the theme we touched on a few moments ago, most of what has been is discussed in the committee is a work in progress, whether it is debt collection or the measurement of private practice using the weightings in the case mix system. We must review this as we go through future audits. The same would apply to the relative cost of the nurse bank and agency staff. We recognise that those matters change over time. From an audit perspective we will continue to monitor and report on how the issues evolve.

Does the committee agree to note Vote 40 - Health Service Executive; dispose of chapter 40 - Management of Patient Income; chapter 41- Long-Stay Repayment Scheme; chapter 42 - National Cancer Screening Service; chapter 44 - Consultants Private Practice; and chapter 45 - Disability Services? Agreed. We will keep chapter 38 - Property Management and chapter 39 - ICT Governance open as we intend to return to these issues. I thank the witnesses for attending today.

As there is no further business we will agree the agenda for Thursday, 6 October 2011, which is the 2009 Annual Report and Appropriation Accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General, chapters 2, 4, 10 and 11, and the 2010 Annual Report and Appropriation Accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General, chapters 2, 3 and 7, and chapter 8: National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission, Annual Report and Financial Statement 2010; the National Treasury Management Agency, Annual Report and Financial Statement for year ending 31 December 2010; and the National Development Finance Agency, Annual Report 2010. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 October 2011.
Top
Share