Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 May 2009

Vol. 683 No. 2

Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I have no difficulty with the stated purpose of the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 which is to affirm the purposes of the previous Health Insurance Acts, ensure that access to health insurance cover is available to all consumers regardless of age and health status, to strengthen the legislative provisions to achieve this purpose, to enhance intergenerational solidarity and to provide for the implementation of related measures to achieve these objects. I am, however, no advocate of private health insurance.

There is clearly a need to protect our health system from a predatory approach by health insurers which would see older people and people with illnesses being forced to pay higher health insurance premiums. The most recent estimate has it that more than 50% of the population in this State subscribe to one of the private health insurance providers. That is an estimate published in 2008, presumably based on 2007-08 figures. I have no doubt that the figure for 2008-09 will show a significant fall in the number of people covered by private health insurance as a result of the recession. We are seeing an ebb and flow, with profound consequences for our health services.

During the Celtic tiger years, increasing numbers of people took out private health insurance, as reflected in the figure I have quoted. I believe this happened for two reasons. First, incomes increased and as a result many more people could afford, albeit with great difficulty in many cases, to pay for private health insurance. Second, and most important, the Government had allowed our public health services to deteriorate so much that many people believed they needed the added cover provided by private health insurance, despite its burdensome financial cost. I believe we are now seeing a turning of the tide.

The astronomical rise in unemployment is resulting in more people applying for medical cards, the cancellation of private health insurance and ever greater demands on the public health services. These services, because of the fundamentally flawed policies and disastrous mismanagement of our health service by successive Governments, are almost at breaking point. The cuts imposed since autumn 2007, and greatly increased cuts this year, are creating a crisis situation. While I accept the word "crisis" is often over-used, I challenge anyone to deny the crisis in respect of our health services.

Coupled with the cuts across all the health services, there is a concerted attack on the delivery of hospital services at local level. This week, the people of Cork and Kerry were shocked to hear what the HSE has in store for their local hospitals with Tralee, Mallow, Bantry, the South Infirmary and the Mercy Hospitals to be downgraded. The people of Monaghan warned people across the State what was coming down the tracks. We face the removal from 31 May, ten days from now, of all acute inpatient services from our hospital, Monaghan General Hospital. I take this opportunity to make a last minute appeal through the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, and her officials to the Minister for Health and Children to intervene to prevent this disastrous move which will have calamitous consequences for my community and the people of County Monaghan.

The great tragedy is that the period of the Celtic tiger presented successive Government with an unprecedented, and probably never to be repeated, opportunity to transform our health system. That transformation is still necessary and will have to be achieved but it will be done in much more difficult financial circumstances. Pending such transformation, this Bill is yet another measure to patch up the inequitable, ramshackle and inefficient health service in this State. Many years ago former Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, boasted that the system "with its integrated mix of public and private care, has served the nation well". He clearly admitted that it was a two-tier system. We do not get such frank admissions from Government these days. However, the two-tier system is more entrenched than it ever was. It is also more complex, more inequitable and infinitely more costly.

It is interesting to read the response of the Minister for Health and Children when concerns were raised in the Seanad last year about the prospect of VHI privatisation. She made the following statement: "If one has private health insurance, one has preferential access to diagnostics and facilities paid for by the taxpayer and for which a group of employees in this State gets a fee." The Minister appeared to speak disapprovingly of this preferential access, yet she has done everything to maintain it. This is the two-tier system. In 2005, the Minister said the fact that "more and more people are getting private health care is a good thing. It is a sign of increasing disposable income". The Minister did not say that the increasing number of people taking out private health insurance was also, as I have pointed out, a sign that people were moving away from the public health system because of long waiting lists and loss of confidence. A vicious circle was created. The public health system was allowed to deteriorate, which prompted more people to choose private care. The for-profit health sector grew richer as the Minister intended and the Government has fattened that for-profit health care business as never before.

Many uninsured people also abandoned the public system and went into debt to pay for private care in order to avoid long waiting lists. Credit unions reported growing numbers of people taking out loans to fund health care. For example €30 million was lent in this way in 2004. However, as I have said, the tide has turned. Now the price is being paid in a sub-standard public health service on which growing numbers of people are becoming totally dependent.

The reality is that we do not know the total amount of money we spend as a society on health services. The Minister and her Department seem to be as ignorant about this fact as everyone else. We know that the best use is not being made of this money because it is being applied inequitably and inefficiently in a two-tier system. Approximately 70% of the population have long been paying for their health care twice — once through taxes and again through personal health insurance or direct user fees for GP services, medicines and hospital care. This complex and inefficient funding system has been used by successive Governments to underpin the grossly inequitable two-tier public-private system.

We in Sinn Féin have called for the establishment of a health funding commission which would assess all the money being spent on health services both by Government and by citizens in the form of health insurance premiums and user fees. This commission would not be engaged in a statistical exercise. Its purpose would be to plan the transition to a truly fair and efficient system. Surely that must be the shared objective of all who believe in health care justice on this island. In our strong view the way forward is a universal, single-tier system of health care accessible to all based on need alone and regardless of income or where we live. Such a system would be funded from general taxation based on the principle of ability to pay. It would protect the most vulnerable and ensure that there was no fast-track to better care for some while others languished on waiting lists. The best care should be available to all on the basis of need.

There are very few winners in our current inequitable health care system. The exceptions are those who profit from the increasingly lucrative private health business. Overall, our population suffers an inequitable and inefficient system. Its fundamental structure is flawed and it is plagued with bad political and bureaucratic management. A new beginning is needed and health funding is central to that. We need a much wider debate than can be facilitated by this Bill. The Celtic tiger is dead and we are now facing a devastating recession with health services that are still organised on the basis of an inequitable and inefficient, two-tier, public-private system. If this does not change then recession will greatly increase that inequity and inefficiency. Those with wealth will be looked after by the private system which the Government has built up, while the majority dependent on the public health system will face longer waiting times, fewer hospital beds, staff cuts, closure of local hospitals and reduction of services in the community. We are seeing that happen every week.

Sinn Féin has a different vision. We believe that health care is a fundamental human right. We need to ensure that everyone has equal access to health services that are both equitable and efficient. We also need to ensure that factors which lead to poor health for many people, including social and economic inequality, are tackled effectively. Studies in Ireland and worldwide have shown that those with less wealth are far more likely to suffer illness and premature death than more privileged sections of society. Therefore, Sinn Féin views health not just as an absence of illness but, in line with the World Health Organisation, as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being" and the enjoyment of health "is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction".

We translate our vision for the health services into three key proposals: a new universal public health system for Ireland that provides care to all free at the point of delivery, on the basis of need alone, and funded from general fair and progressive taxation; fundamental re-orientation of the health system to adopt a central focus on prevention, health promotion and primary care, including mental health care, and on ultimately eliminating the underlying social and structural causes of ill-health and premature death, such as poverty and inequality; and immediate establishment of a health funding commission to report within a reasonable timeframe on the projected costs of the transition to an all-island system of universal provision, taking into account all spending on health services under the current systems, including direct Government spending and spending on health insurance.

Clearly, our key funding proposal requires a fair and progressive taxation system based on ability to pay. We seek a single-tier system and this would mean that State funding for the private for-profit health sector would be ended. I commend these proposals to the Minister and I recognise that the path to achieving each of these goals, which will be clearly in the interest of all citizens throughout the island of Ireland, will take time. In the interim I use the opportunity today on behalf of everyone in communities throughout the State who are afraid, deeply concerned and worried facing the loss of critical services from our network of local hospitals to appeal the Minister to take the appropriate action to ensure that these services will continue.

On behalf of my community in Monaghan, which was selected many years ago as the first test case for the reduction of services in hospitals throughout the State and is now facing the loss of the last acute facility in Monaghan General Hospital by the end of the month, I appeal to the Government once again to pull back, to have sense and to recognise that the people of the county, small in number though they may be, are entitled to equitable access to the critical services on which I, as but one citizen among their number, have depended for my life and to be able to participate today. In God's name, do not proceed with the closure of acute medical services at Monaghan General Hospital.

I call on the Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children, Deputy Áine Brady, to give her concluding statement. I take this opportunity to congratulate her and wish her well in her new duties.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to issues raised by Deputies on Second Stage of the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008.

Deputy Reilly spoke about the strong regulation that exists in the Netherlands. The reality is that the strongest part of the regulatory framework in the Netherlands is its risk equalisation scheme, which aims at removing perverse incentives for insurers to pursue strategies that would make them less attractive to the elderly and the ill. The Deputy is aware that the health insurance market in the Netherlands operates with a risk equalisation scheme and a minimum level of cover. As he pointed out, the authorities in that country have managed to make the elderly, chronically ill and diabetics more attractive to insurers who have gone after that market. This was achieved through risk equalisation because other elements of the regulatory framework cannot give this result.

Deputies raised the question of the relationship between current employment trends and private health insurance costs to employers. The number of people with health insurance has increased in line with employment growth but, given the current economic climate, a fall in numbers taking out cover is likely and there is some evidence of a small decline in the insured population during the first quarter of 2009. Factors contributing to this decline include the closure or downsizing of companies which paid private health insurance on behalf of their employees or made contributions thereto and individuals who had been paying for their insurance and find themselves out of work. However, the cost of health insurance for employers has to be considered in the context of the overall aim of the scheme and maintaining intergenerational solidarity in particular. The overall effect of the levy and credit is neutral. Where premia have been increased by insurers, this simply reflects the age profiles of the insurers concerned and the fact that in the absence of a risk equalisation mechanism they have not been contributing to intergenerational solidarity across the insured population. The reality is that all persons in a community rated market should be paying a premium that supports the application of community rated health insurance across the entire market. As stated on Tuesday, amendments to address technical issues relating to the operation of the scheme and other issues raised by the industry will be brought forward on Committee and Report Stages.

With regard to the Deputies' inquiries on premium price increases following the announcement of the levy and credit, the Minister has no role to play in the setting of prices by any health insurance provider. This is a commercial decision for the insurer concerned. The level of increase at the start of this year was influenced primarily by the additional cost pressures insurers faced due to medical inflation, the increase in capacity in the private sector and the move towards economic pricing of public pay beds.

I cannot agree.

The scheme will counter perverse incentives for insurers to focus on younger age groups, with insured persons less likely to face higher increases or product segmentation related to their age.

Deputies also raised the issue of possible overcompensation for the VHI. The purpose of the scheme is not to compensate the VHI but to continue making health insurance affordable for older people and those with poorer health. Under the scheme individuals aged 50 years and older receive the tax relief irrespective of their insurers. The VHI has a significantly older age profile than the other two insurers. Furthermore, having regard to proportionality, the scheme has been designed so that it only partially compensates VHI. The Minister will on Committee Stage be bringing forward amendments to section 9(3) to give the Health Insurance Authority greater direction on the evaluation and analysis of the data it will be getting from the insurers and which will form the basis for the levy and credit in subsequent years.

With regard to the profits announced by VHI, the figures quoted refer to the annual returns for the year ending February 2008. The more recent returns covering the ten months to the end of December 2008 show that VHI was loss making, hence the level of premium increase it had to put in place at the start of this year.

Deputies raised the issue of the cost of health insurance for families, the cost of the levy for children and the position on waiting periods where higher levels of cover are taken out. Setting the levy at one third of the adult rate, or €53, recognises that the premium charged for children is significantly less than the adult price and that under the Health Insurance Acts the maximum amount that can be charged is 50% of the adult premium. The open enrolment regulations allow insurers to apply waiting periods when an insured person avails of higher levels of cover. This is a necessary protection for the insurers. Currently the waiting periods, which only apply to the additional elements of cover, are two years for a person under the age of 65 when first named under the higher contract or five years for a person of or over the age of 65 years. These waiting periods are being reviewed in the context of the preparation of the lifetime community rating regulations which will be put before the Houses for approval in the autumn.

Deputies also raised the issue of the possible size of the premium increases for over 60s in the absence of the scheme. It was incorrectly asserted this could not have taken place in a community rated system. Specifically targeted multiple products that provide different levels of cover above the minimum benefit for different types of conditions or higher priced products for older people and cheaper products targeting younger people lead to a fragmented market. These plans could still have been community rated in that they could have been made available in principle to all persons at the same price while in practice not being appropriate to all age groups or types of health status. This interim scheme and the longer term robust risk equalisation scheme will remove this incentive for fragmentation and support intergenerational solidarity, making the elderly, chronically ill and diabetics more attractive to the insurers who have gone after that market.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked why we are not bringing in the long-term scheme at this juncture. Having regard to the Deputy's point in regard to bringing forward a revised risk equalisation scheme at this time, the Bill before us is a specific response aimed at supporting the key principles of the market. Work on a long-term risk equalisation scheme will intensify following the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas. It was not feasible to amend the previous scheme in the short term as, in addition to the specific issue on which the Supreme Court ruled, a range of other issues had also been put before the courts which would have to have been considered in bringing forward any amendments to the previous scheme.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this debate. While the Bill contains two provisions which have attracted public attention, namely, the levy and credit, it is also important to bear in mind that the other key provisions in the Bill which reinforce the concept of intergenerational solidarity, community rated health insurance and the protection of older people are at the core of the health insurance system and strengthen the regulatory functions of the Health Insurance Authority on consumer protection.

It is intended that Committee Stage of the Bill shall be taken on Tuesday, 9 June 2009.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 38.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • Perry, John.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Pat Breen
Question declared carried.
Top
Share