asked the Minister for Health if a person will be liable after 1st April for fees to a consultant for treatment in a semi-private or private ward, when he would not be so liable if he were treated in a public ward; and, if so, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Hospital Consultants' Fees.
20.
The change in eligibility for hospital services will not take away or alter the right of eligible persons to opt for subsidised private or semi-private treatment which is provided for in the Health Act, 1970, and was similarly provided for in the Health Act, 1953. Those who opt for such treatment pay private fees to consultants. This will continue and I see no reason why it should not.
Since maintenance in a public ward will be covered under this proposed scheme, whenever it comes into being, and since the treatment which would be given to a patient is the same whether he is in a public, private or semi-private ward, does it not follow logically that the treatment of the patient in the private or semi-private ward should be equally covered because the State are not being put to any great expense, but the individual concerned is?
If the individual concerned opts for a private or semi-private ward for personal reasons, I do not see why he should not pay.
Does the Minister not agree that in opting for a private or semi-private ward the patient is subsidised or paid for to the extent of the cost in a public ward and he should only have to pay the difference? If he were in a public ward his treatment by the consultant would be free.
The Deputy is engaging in argument rather than asking a specific supplementary question.
Therefore, why should his treatment in a private or semi-private ward not be free or subsidised to the extent that it would if he were in a public ward?
If he opts for treatment in a private or semi-private ward, he gets a subsidy from the health board. It is not unreasonable if he so opts that he should have to pay consultant and other fees.