Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2002

Vol. 550 No. 4

Written Answers. - Medical Defence Organisations.

John Perry

Question:

345 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Health and Children if his attention has been drawn to an article (details supplied) concerning the introduction of enterprise liability here; his views on the reported comment in an official memorandum concerning a mechanism used to smooth the transfer of obstetricians from one medical defence organisation to another in 2001; the nature of this mechanism; if there was payment of moneys, either directly or indirectly by the State, to a medical defence organisation; the level of such payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8486/02]

The memorandum to which the Deputy refers is a briefing paper prepared for the information of the Secretary General of my Department. The background to the transfer of some 30 consultant obstetricians from one medical defence body to the other is as follows: In March 2001 the Medical Defence Union indicated that it proposed to charge a subscription of £393,000 to obstetricians in Ireland renewing their membership after July 2001. As the Exchequer would be bearing the greater part of the cost of the increase from the previous subscription of £68,000, the Medical Defence Union informed my Department of its plans. Officials of my Department, supported by their insurance advisors, considered that having the Exchequer fund public hospitals' share of this increase represented poor value for taxpayers' money, given the Government's plans for the introduction of enterprise liability in July 2002.

My Department wrote to the Medical Defence Union and to the other mutual medical defence body providing cover to Irish doctors, the Medical Protection Society, expressing its concern that obstetricians might not be able to secure necessary indemnity cover at an affordable cost in the run-up to the introduction of enterprise liability. My Department requested that the two defence bodies submit proposals to deal with this concern and smooth the way to the introduction of enterprise liability. Proposals were received from both bodies. These were examined by officials of my Department and their insurance experts. Their unanimous advice was that the proposal of the Medical Protection Society be accepted. The Medical Protection Society agreed to examine all requests for membership from consultant obstetricians who had previously been members of the Medical Defence Union. As far as I know, all of the obstetricians who had formerly been members of the Medical Defence Union were accepted into membership of the Medical Protection Society.

The transferring members of the Medical Protection Society enjoy the same benefits of membership as those who had previously been members of the society. They paid the same level of subscription as the other consultants in the speciality, £56,000. The precise terms on which the Medical Protection Society agreed to consider the applications for membership are the subject of an agreement between my Department and the Medical Protection Society which has a confidentiality clause. These terms are commercially sensitive, as are the terms contained in the proposal received from the Medical Defence Union. I propose to respect the confidential nature of both sets of proposals. However, I can confirm that there was no transfer of funds, directly or indirectly, by the State to either of the medical defence bodies other than the normal reimbursement by public hospitals to their consultants of the appropriate percentage of the medical defence subscriptions provided for in their contracts of employment.
Top
Share