Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Nov 2011

Vol. 746 No. 2

Health (Provision of General Practitioner Services) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)

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

I, too welcome the Northern Ireland delegation. I had the pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland recently to see my in-laws. I had the not so nice pleasure of having to visit a general practitioner there with my child, but an excellent general practitioner service is offered in Northern Ireland and free of charge. I am thankful for that and the delegates may carry that message home.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. We need to acknowledge the importance of general practice historically. General practitioners in every village and parish have been known to almost every individual in their localities. I always considered general practitioners as having a vocation. The same applies to the public health nurses who have operated in the country over many years and kept health services running in the communities.

Previous speakers are correct in saying the service has changed significantly over recent years. It will change quite a lot more. There is a fundamental shift in how we deliver general practitioner care and primary care. This Bill will reflect that.

I acknowledge the role of the various general practitioners' co-operatives. Caredoc operates in my area. In fairness to the co-operatives, they operate very successful after-hours services.

Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan should note there was concern at the outset that there would not be a service at the level to which he referred and to which we have been used heretofore. The service has responded well, however, and I do not hear as many complaints as I would have done some years ago. The service is up and running and accountable, and this is reflected in the level of service provided.

It is the intention of the Government, as indicated by various speakers, the Minister of State, the HSE and the Department of Health, to prioritise the delivery of primary care. The intention is to have patients cared for in their homes and communities in so far as this is possible and to remove the burden on the acute hospitals. This cannot occur unless there is a fully resourced primary care health system. The availability and accessibility of general practice health care, health nurse care and all the ancillary services and supports are doubtlessly essential to the model. This Bill is not only about reducing cost and increasing accessibility to health care services in the communities. We need to be very careful about ensuring the existence of a carefully managed, cost-effective and good service when the model is fully delivered.

I share the concerns outlined by Deputy Twomey regarding disadvantaged and rural areas. There was a period in my area during which a practice could not fill a general practitioner vacancy but, thankfully, it has now been filled. It is not easy to attract newly qualified GPs to set up practice in areas that may not be as economically advantageous as other areas. That aspect needs to be provided for in any new models to be rolled out. Incentives are required to encourage young qualified GPs to set up practice in these areas.

This Bill will fundamentally change the structure of how we deliver primary care and it will encourage young GPs to remain here and establish practices here. For that reason, I welcome the Bill. It will remove restrictions to access to the general medical service list. It will allow young GPs, with the approval of the HSE, to competitively tender for those lists but they will have to prove not only their qualifications but that they can deliver a GP service and support services.

I acknowledge that good progress has been made in the delivery of primary care health centres but there is still a good deal of work to be done in this area. The Minister is working hard with the Department to ensure that they are rolled out as quickly as possible.

The role of the practice nurse was mentioned. That role is an enhanced one and it should not be under-estimated. Practice nurses now support GPs and these nurses have full professional qualifications in treating diabetes, obesity and heart disease, three of the biggest health care challenges facing the people of this country. It is important to utilise the resource of a practice health nurse working with a GP and other practitioners such as physiotherapists, chiropractors and psychologists. I have noticed that consultants are also operating out of some primary health care centres. That is a good move. I have noticed in my constituency of Waterford that some consultants travel from Dublin to run a clinic one day a week. This means people can have access to that next level of service in primary health care centres and do not have to travel outside their communities. That is important and should be encouraged.

I refer to the provision of step-down bed facilities in communities. HIQA has an important role to play in maintaining standards in community hospitals but we need to review legislation in that residential homes for the elderly are clearly not nursing homes. There are a number of such residential homes in my area in south Kilkenny and Waterford, which have provided good step-down facilities for the elderly for many years. Elderly people in the whole of their health are cared for in such secure residential homes. Such homes have to meet the same standards as nursing homes and that is creating a problem for residential homes. Some of them may not be able to remain open as a result of that.

St. Patrick's Hospital in Waterford is a hospital for the elderly with full geriatric services. There was a commitment in the Health Service Executive plan for 2009 for the provision of a new 50-bed unit for that hospital but unfortunately that is no longer the case. I would like to see that reinstated. The service provided by hospitals such as this one removes a burden from the acute hospitals. Such services enable people to move to a step-down facility from which they can subsequently return to their communities and take full advantage of a good GP service with the full role out of community services to support them. This Bill is a step forward but we need to proceed with caution.

We, as a party, are very much in favour of opening up this sector and allowing more doctors to qualify for general medical service contracts. We accept this Bill in principle. However, there are some issues we would like to tease out and deal with in the Minister of State's response. I am very much in line with what Deputy Twomey said in his excellent contribution in this regard. This legislation could have a negative effect on primary care in certain areas. As Deputy Twomey said, it may result in the flight of doctors form rural and low income urban areas because they may not be seen to be profitable enough.

Does the Bill make provision for 24-hour GP access and what about a provision for capping costs? We would like to co-operate and try to improve the Bill, rather than its introduction being a missed opportunity. We recognise that in recent years there have been positive advancements in general practice, as has been said. Primary care centres are innovative and professional with various fields of expertise within them, meeting new demographics and freeing up hospitals for more severe cases, and that is to be welcomed.

Does the Bill adequately address the provision of out of hours services? We do not believe it does. In some areas doctors amalgamate to provide out of hours services. Will that practice and their position be compromised by virtue of these proposals?

With regard to qualifying doctors and the availability of doctors, how many do we retain within our system and how many move abroad? What research and analysis on the training needs and requirements has been carried out? Have those who have qualified been surveyed and analysed as to their response to what they find upon qualifying?

On the area of home care or step-down facilities to relieve our hospitals, can some mechanism be devised at this stage to improve the role primary care facilities can have in this regard? Can health care and the promotion of healthy lifestyles be introduced to school curricula? Is consultation taking place with the Minister of State's counterparts in the Department of Education and Skills to promote this idea? What role can these primary health centres have to engender the healthy lifestyle aspect of living?

We recognise that the key provision of the Bill is that the HSE will be entitled to enter into a GMS contract with any suitably qualified and professionally trained GP. We note there will be no limits on the number of contractors, which should reduce costs, and this is a fact that we welcome. The Bill will also result in some medical card and GP visit card patients having a greater choice of GPs under the GMS scheme. We acknowledge that 74% of GPs believe that access to GMS contracts should be open to all qualified GPs.

In regard to the free movement of GPs, new contractors will now be free to establish their practice in the location of their choice. A contract holder who wishes to move location may do so and I presume that would be with the approval of the HSE. The basis for such approval is not clear, nor is it clear how it will work.

Will this deregulation cause a shortage of GPs in rural or low income urban areas? Deregulation may lead to the State losing what control it may have over the distribution of doctors. The IMO president said the deregulation of the GMS will lead to difficulties in filling GP posts in rural regions and areas of urban deprivation. There could be a flight of doctors from low population rural areas and low income urban areas because they are not now seen to be profitable enough, which harks back to a point Deputy Twomey made. Doctors should not necessarily just be allowed to set up in affluent areas, rural areas must be adequately covered. I hope to hear from the Minister of State how that is to be done.

There are no caps on GP fees. Is this another missed opportunity or is their an avenue open to the Minister of State in the legislation to bring that about? How does the legislation lead towards free GP care, as promised by both parties prior to entering Government? In respect of some of the promises made, is there provision for them in the upcoming budget? What provisions are made in this respect in the programme for Government and what is the timeframe for those to be brought forward?

Universal primary care insurance was to be extended on a phased basis to the proportion of the population who do not have a medical card so that by 2014 it was envisaged that every person registered with a GP would be insured for primary care. This means patients will no longer pay up-front fees when they visit their GP. This was to begin in the first year of Government and I presume this legislation will provide for that. This is to be done by extending primary care insurance for GP visits to people on the long-term illness scheme. It is to be paid for out of existing Exchequer funding and savings provided for in the health budget going into a primary care insurance fund. Can the Minister confirm whether this is provided for in this fiscal year and, if not, will provision be made in the next fiscal year and will it be confirmed in the budget?

Fine Gael announced it would enter into discussions with insurers on how GP care could be extended to all clients at a reasonable cost. Have the parties in Government reached a compromise in this regard and how will that impact the legislation?

Fianna Fáil supports the Bill in principle, albeit with the reservations we have outlined, and we welcome the opportunity to debate it. I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us on how he proposes to fill the gaps identified during the debate and how the commitment to providing free GP care for all will be funded.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on the Health (Provision of General Practitioner Services) Bill 2011. The Bill addresses issues highlighted by the EU-IMF programme and aims for legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors. It provides for the elimination of restrictions on general practitioners wishing to obtain contracts to treat public patients under the general medical services scheme by opening access to GMS contracts to all fully qualified and vocationally trained GPs.

At present, GPs can only obtain GMS contracts under limited circumstances where a vacancy arises due to retirement, a new panel is created due to additional needs being identified in an area or where a GMS doctor obtains approval from the HSE to take on an assistant with a view to a partnership in his or her practice. The Bill will allow patients a greater input in terms of nominating a doctor of their choice. No longer will it be the case that a private patient has to move to a different GP because he or she is entitled to join the GMS. The commercial viability of GP practices in an area will no longer be a factor in awarding GMS contracts and contract holders will be free to establish their practices in locations of their choice. The legislation will encourage young GPs to remain in this country and encourage competition in the sector.

The current GMS scheme provides free GP services to public patients throughout the State and covers 39% of the population, up from 34% at the start of 2010. The previous GMS contract was to all intents and purposes a contract for life but GPs were free to terminate their contracts at any stage after giving a minimum notice of three months. It was a one-sided contract. We often hear of discrimination between private and public health care. However, certain GPs could only treat private patients and not public patients, which might have led to the assumption that the GPs on the GMS scheme were giving a better service. Affordability is also relevant because GPs with GMS contracts were charging the same fees as those who only had a private contract when business principles suggest that a larger patient base and a guaranteed source of income implies those practices would have been better value for money. This is not the case, however, and GP figures remain too high and too variable.

This legislation, which has been earmarked as part of the EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland, should have been introduced years ago. However, the medical profession is now going to be regulated prescriptively because it failed to address the issues arising through self-regulation. Having a GMS contract proved profitable to many GP clinics, with 58 receiving more than €500,000 in 2009. The long disputed scoring system used to award entry into the GMS scheme is also being reformed. This system proved frustrating to new entrants because it effectively gave existing GPs an advantage over them.

The HSE has been progressive in its approach to GMS contracts but this legislation is required to help it in its task. Only a few months ago the HSE facilitated a six month trial period for a GP service in Doneraile, County Cork, provided that the new GP could demonstrate adequate demand for his services from GMS patients in the area. I am grateful to the HSE for its assistance and, with the support of the local community, the practice is proving successful.

The Competition Authority has pointed out that between 1982 and 2005 there was a large decrease in the number of GPs with lists of fewer than 1,000 patients and a simultaneous increase in the percentage of those with more than 2,000 patients. In effect, larger GP practices were mopping up the smaller practices as they became available. We do not want to emulate the situation that obtains in London, where a few GPs employ large numbers of salaried assistants who have no prospect of securing permanent employment.

One aspect of the GMS service not addressed in the Bill is that the visitation rate among individuals who receive GP services free of charge is significantly higher than among those who pay for their visits. In 2007 medical card patients visited their GPs an average of 5.2 times compared with 2.4 visits among those with private health insurance and only 1.9 visits for those without medical cover. This is a significant disparity. Whatever the underlying reasons for this disparity, we need to be aware that the considerable number of people who were in the middle income bracket until the financial meltdown and can no longer afford private medical insurance may be compromising their own health or that of their dependents because of financial distress. This is a worrying trend.

The new legislation will allow the HSE to take a more proactive role in ensuring adequate GP coverage. This is important because patient care has to be central to any changes made. The Irish Medical Organisation has stated that it remains to be seen how well services to patients will be protected. However, it seems that it was late in updating its interview marking scheme for obtaining GMS contracts and slow in trying to regulate this sector. It has also indicated that the shortage of GPs in Ireland is due to worsen in the short term. Approximately 2,800 GPs are registered to practise in Ireland, which represents a ratio of 0.6 GPs per 1,000 of population. The IMO has also stated that practices will have to ensure they have sufficient resources to provide fully staffed and equipped services from modern premises. I welcome this statement from the IMO and hope it was issued out of concern for patients rather than as a cynical obstacle in the way of new GPs. Capital costs are incurred in the establishment of any new business and a GP practice is essentially a business. In light of the IMO's concerns about sufficient resources for new practices being sufficiently resourced, the funds should come from the GP sector. It could be based on the modulation arrangements in the agriculture sector, whereby every GMS recipient pays a percentage of income, such as 6%, into a common fund. The amount paid could be based on earnings, with those earning less contributing a smaller proportion than, for example, the 58 GPs who earn over €500,000 per annum. Those who earn less than €5,000 should not have to make a modulation contribution. This would create a fund of €26 million for primary care centres.

Targeting GMS funding towards GP practices in primary care centres should be further explored. Primary care centres such as the one in Mallow are proving successful in treating patients with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, at 20% of the cost of the same treatment in hospitals. Any industry which does not put aside funds for new entrants or exceptional circumstances will inevitably run into trouble. It is astonishing that it took the IMF to highlight this issue. The IMO has stated that competition must be implemented with care, and that markets can produce instability, variations in performance and inequalities which might be at odds with the underlying principles of the health service. However, this legislation will help us deal with any of the organisation's concerns.

In summary, change is never easy and there will be cost implications to be borne by many of the excellent general practitioner practices that are being run in a professional and dedicated manner. In the longer term, however, it is better to have a situation where all general practitioners are treated as equals and no obstacles are put in the way of suitably qualified young general practitioners setting up a business where they choose to live and work. It makes no sense to force young general practitioners to emigrate after many years of expensive education which is paid for by the taxpayer, especially when the number of general practitioners is at such a low level. This Bill will benefit the Government, the general medical services that administer the general practitioner scheme and, most importantly, the patient.

I welcome the Bill. It means that if suitably qualified general practitioners, GPs, decide to set up practice they will be able to treat not only private patients but also holders of GP visit cards and full medical cards. There is no limit to the number of contractors who can be involved. The changes are being introduced on foot of a commitment in the EU-IMF programme which dictated the introduction of legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors, including eliminating the restrictions on GPs wishing to treat public patients. It was also part of the pre-election pledges made by the Government.

The current restrictions are detrimental to the ability of young, properly qualified GPs to set up a practice and deliver care and services to their community. In many instances in the past the restrictions accounted for whether GPs decided to stay in this country or to emigrate, which was our loss. I recall debating this issue many years ago when I was a member of a health board. I was extremely concerned about the matter.

I wish to raise another concern I have had for some time. There is a need for Dáil reform because Members do not have an opportunity to raise issues of extreme concern. I refer to an article in The Sunday Times by John Mooney entitled “Course to treat eating illnesses lacks weight”. This is an issue I have raised previously. In the article he states that a high profile psychotherapist who offers diplomas in the treatment of eating disorders has no official professional accreditation in Ireland and has not obtained any medical or psychological qualifications from a university. I am concerned about unqualified people involved in psychotherapy and counselling at a very delicate level in treating people with serious psychological, psychiatric and emotional difficulties. Serious damage can be done by unqualified people operating in this area.

Mr. Mooney referred to the Eating Disorder Resource Centre of Ireland which offers diploma courses at a cost of up to €3,000. These take eight weekends to complete. It was stated by the centre that it is accredited to the British Psychological Society, but a spokesman for the society stated that it does not recognise any courses offered by this centre. I investigated this issue more than 18 months ago when Bodywhys, the Eating Disorders Association of Ireland, brought it to my attention as a result of its concern. People had contacted Bodywhys in extreme distress following a discussion with somebody who had completed a diploma and was practising and charging for psychological assistance, advice and counselling.

There are no statutory regulations in the State for the registration of psychotherapists and counsellors. There is no State control over them and over what qualifications are held by people practising in these areas. It is dangerous for untrained, unskilled people to probe others' unconscious mind. They are dealing with human vulnerability and serious damage can be done to such delicate people. There is a historical situation in this regard which dates back to the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005. That Act provided for registration of persons qualifying in the use of the title of a designated profession for the determination of compliance relating to their fitness to practise. Twelve professions were listed but psychotherapy and counselling were not included.

For more than 12 months, when an agreement was reached between all the relevant psychological and psychotherapeutic groups and counsellors, we have been seeking the introduction of regulation in this area. The Government has stated that it will introduce a Bill in the new year to deal with this area but I understand the Bill will deal with difficulties experienced with the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 rather than the regulation we have been seeking for some time. When the Fine Gael Party was in Opposition, it fully accepted this and last December I introduced a Private Members' Bill to provide for it. This has been a matter of extreme urgency for some time because we are aware of the difficulties experienced in this regard by people who have been damaged by their experience with untrained professionals.

There is another matter I wish to raise which has concerned me greatly for a number of years. It is in the psychiatry area. I and many psychiatric professionals believe that the family has a key role in the recovery of a person who is in crisis or has a psychological or psychiatric problem, including suicidal ideation. However, a large section of the psychiatric profession fails to recognise the benefit of family involvement. Too many professionals refuse to include family members in the recovery plan for their patients. In too many instances psychiatrists refuse to discuss the after-care needs of a patient after discharge from a mental ill health residential service. This refusal to discuss the after-care service on leaving a hospital is unique in the health services. In general medicine, professionals see the family involvement as part of the recovery programme after discharge from hospital.

Too often, I have met families who are stressed owing to a lack of information on the treatment regime that best serves the convalescence of a person coming out of a psychiatric institution. Patient confidentiality is given as the reason. Family members are key to identifying a member in danger of losing his or her life. Too often, however, I receive complaints that the professionals do not listen to families with this experience. Sadly, the family's views may be borne out and in many instances, the person in crisis has taken his or her life. The culture of excluding a family in such a crisis from the recovery programme of a person with a mental health issue must change and the full family must be involved. In the United States, in the event of a person being diagnosed with a psychiatric or psychological difficulty, the family are called and are involved in the recovery plan for that person. Psychiatric treatment must pertain to recovery rather than to containment. I believe mental health to be central in building a healthy, inclusive and productive society. Illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia can be treated successfully for the majority of sufferers, and with early intervention and treatment — early being the operative word — people can live healthy lives fulfilling their individual potential.

In this context, I again raise the issue of the adoption by the Government of the strategy, A Vision for Change, as the basis for the development of mental health services in Ireland. The policy framework as set out in A Vision for Change built upon the recommendations made in the Planning for the Future document of 1984. Moreover, recommendations have been presented in various reports from the 1960s in respect of the development of psychiatric services that have not been acted on over the decades. A Vision for Change was greeted with universal approval as being the best model that was comprehensive and would introduce a world class service to meet the mental health challenges facing our society. However, five years since its announcement, there has been a lack of progress in implementing A Vision for Change as well as an absence of leadership at a national level. I was pleased that during questions to the Taoiseach two or three weeks ago, the Taoiseach again confirmed and reiterated the Government's commitment to ring-fencing €35 million each year during its five-year life towards the implementation of A Vision for Change. Given the pressures on the Exchequer and particularly during recessionary times, it is easy to be concerned regarding areas of vital importance to the health of the people. I again welcome the confirmation by the Taoiseach that the aforementioned €35 million will be ring-fenced for the development of A Vision for Change.

There certainly are positives aspects to this Bill, such as opening up the General Medical Services scheme to a wider group of doctors. However, one concern I have is I honestly fail to discern a coherent approach to the issue of primary health care, and many others have made precisely the same point on areas that are not areas of advantage. There is no framework to provide some certainty and there is a lack of values that underpin this legislation. For example, a value I would expect to see is an entitlement to good quality primary health care. I am fairly sure I remember such an entitlement being included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, it appears to have been sidelined in favour of the more central argument on economic matters, and social matters have taken a hit in consequence.

The proposals for universal health insurance contained in the programme for Government, or at least elements thereof, obviously will have an impact on the availability of or access to primary health care. I understand the need for a broad spread and the necessity to open up the availability of locations. However, it really commodifies health care and I have a major concern about this approach. It appears that when the troika sought changes, it only considered one dimension of what needed to be changed. Ireland has a highly fragmented health service, which largely has been inherited from our colonial past. Indeed, if one looks far back into the past, one will find the city of Dublin had a proud history of taking a pioneering approach to health care. For example, I believe the Rotunda Hospital was the first maternity hospital established in Europe. Similarly, the first operation performed under anaesthetic was carried out in the Richmond Hospital. It appears as though that fine pioneering approach has gone backwards in that the present system comprises a mixture of many things, and I cannot see coherence in the system under development. There are both not-for-profit and for-profit organisations as well as co-location, although I am unsure whether we got that far. In addition, there is a privatised service at primary level, albeit with some amalgamations such as the development of the doctors on call groups, which has been a worthwhile initiative. However, no coherence is evident and to open up the system in the absence of having values that should underpin the kind of health care to which we aspire is to miss a vital link. Consequently, some coherent overarching statements are required. I acknowledge some elements have been included in the programme for Government but how they are to be rolled out is not obvious. At what point will there be a health care system in which most people feel sufficiently confident to believe they do not require a form of secondary insurance arrangement if they can afford it?

I certainly do not oppose this measure but neither am I wildly enthusiastic about it. While it will do no harm, I have major doubts as to whether it will provide the kind of service that people, particularly in disadvantaged communities, should have an entitlement to expect as citizens of this country because I believe it will add to the existing fragmented approach. I would welcome a debate in this House on what will be the overall approach and what is the anticipated timeline for its arrival. Such a debate would discuss what it will look like, how a citizen who is ill will interact with it and when it will become a health system, as opposed to an illness system. The constant emergency that appears to face our hospital system will only be relieved if it is underpinned by a decent primary health care system in which people are kept well and only end up in acute hospitals if they become ill, rather than the present approach whereby one queues up repeatedly and is delayed even for elective surgery, after which it becomes an emergency.

That is the public perception of the health system. It is deeply damaging in terms of people's confidence and is certainly very frustrating for people working within that system, as we see regularly outside the gates here and also through people contacting us.

I have no doubt the Government would wish to put such a system in place but it would be very useful to understand what the nuts and bolts will be, rather than the "we have to do this because we are told to do it" type of approach. As I said, while I do not oppose the Bill, it is only a tiny part and is too fragmented.

I wish to share time with Deputy Brendan Ryan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I strongly welcome the changes that will be brought in by its introduction. The introduction of competition into the GP market will see a reduction in prices for patients, which is a good thing for the two out of three people who need a GP but do not have access to a medical card. It will mean that GMS patients will not have to wait as long to be seen by the local doctor as more doctors will be available. It will also see a reduction in the numbers attending hospitals as illnesses are caught more quickly and people get to the doctor in time. It will also mean that new GPs who are finishing their training will have greater opportunities in Ireland, so many of them will not have to go abroad to work in places such as Australia or the UK but can practice at home.

We need to be very clear about this. The Government's priority is to make sure every euro spent in our economy is spent effectively. The current GMS contract has not seen a good return on investment for the general public because of the restricted access to the scheme. We have fewer than one GP for every 1,000 people, which compares to the figures in the United States and Germany. According to the Competition Authority, my county of Meath has the least number of GPs per head of population, which is not good enough.

I see this Bill as bringing more responsibility to the public funding of GPs. At present, we are spending just over €400 million a year to fund GP visits alone, and this is spread among approximately 2,300 GPs. At a time when everybody is being asked to tighten their belts because of the state of the economy, the average payment to GPs is some €220,000 a year, which includes funding to run their surgeries. However, that is not ring-fenced just to be spent on public patients so the general public through taxation is subsidising the operation of GP surgeries for both public and private patients. Moreover, that payment of €220,000 is just an average. Some GP practices are getting a lot more than that, depending on the number of public patients they see. Of course, GPs are not only seeing public patients but are seeing private patients as well, so the other 50% of visitations are from private patients who are paying between €50 and €70 per consultation. The price for a consultation has not gone down to reflect the pressure on people's pockets over the past three years. In fact, the cost of going to the doctor has risen by nearly 90% since 2000, whereas inflation was just 30% over the ten years since then.

Another issue is that many surgeries, some 50%, do not display their prices, so it is very difficult for people to work out whether one doctor's surgery is giving better value for money than another. In addition, some GPs are asking patients to pay for services that are covered by the GMS, an issue I have raised in the House previously. People in Meath who have medical cards have told me that doctors asked them to pay for blood tests. It is an issue I will continue to raise as these are vulnerable people who are too scared to speak back to the doctors and to complain, and they end up paying for a service that the Government is paying for through the GMS system. The IMO claimed that GPs were giving people free blood tests and that the Government is at fault due to tightening its budgets but this is hardly fair at a time when we are giving the average practice €220,000 per annum. I call on the Minister to ensure no patient under the GMS receives less treatment than it is contractually bound to under the scheme between GP and patient.

I support the Bill and am glad to see it introduced. I wish the Minister the very best in this reform of the health service.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Although a relatively short Bill, its provisions have the potential to deliver tangible improvements to GP services. It provides for both the elimination of restrictions on GPs wishing to treat patients under the GMS and allows patients the freedom to choose their own doctor without being tied to their GMS contracted practitioner.

At the most basic level, I welcome the fact the Bill provides the right for any suitably qualified and vocationally trained GP to set up a practice in the location of his or her choosing. For too long, the GP industry has been a closed shop or sheltered profession, providing unnecessary barriers to entry for young, aspiring GPs and, more importantly, creating conditions which have allowed for the escalation of GP fees for the ordinary Irish family.

The archaic restrictions referred to in the Bill created a form of elitism. We are witness to this in other sheltered professions in Ireland such as pharmacy and especially law, which retains the totally outdated and exclusionary practice of "devilling". These professions also need to be tackled in the same way that the Government is tackling general practitioners in this Bill.

The GMS is currently availed of by 80% of GPs, who are cumulatively receiving upwards of €500 million of State funds to treat medical card patients. Examples of the individual amounts some GPs are receiving are quite staggering. In 2009 one GP in Dublin received €767,000 for seeing medical card and GP card patients, in Donegal a doctor received €754,000 and so on. In all, 58 GP clinics received over €500,000 in 2009, 156 received €400,000 to €500,000, while over 1,000 GP clinics received between €200,000 and €400,000.

These figures highlight to all of us the benefits to some of the barriers to entry for others. It also places the 20% of GPs not included in the GMS at a competitive disadvantage. GPs in this category are unable to avail of guaranteed State income and in many cases end up losing patients who qualify for a medical card and have to change to a GMS covered practice. With this Bill, patients will have the freedom to choose their GPs and will not be tied to one practice. This should also serve to end instances of opportunistic charging of medical cardholders for tertiary services such as routine phlebotomy services.

The removal of limits in the number of contractors contained within the Bill will allow new GPs to set up business in areas where, up to now, one GP or practice has held a monopoly over a particular town or region. As with all monopolies, the customer, or in this case the ordinary Irish patient, suffers. Without competition, GPs can and do set excessively high prices to non-medical cardholders. These people, usually low to middle income earners, many with families, can face high GP costs should they or a member of their families become ill. The standard price in my constituency of Dublin North is approximately €50 but there are practices charging higher prices for what can turn out to be a ten-minute consultation. Of course, there can be follow-on costs for prescribed medicines which further add to the cost of health care for the ordinary person.

All Deputies in this House know of people in their constituencies who just cannot afford to go to their GPs. If they do go to their GPs, their shopping bill, electricity bill or heating bill will have to be put off, with serious consequences. This is the reality of the situation in Ireland today, and our task in this House is to introduce legislation which will ease the hardships being faced by ordinary people. In this Bill, we have an opportunity to improve services and decrease costs for ordinary people.

The Competition Authority in its report in July 2010 highlighted the fact that competition between GP practices and access to GP services will lead to greater access to GP services and better choice and quality of service for all patients.

I refer to general medicine's sister field of dentistry. Recent legislation obliging all dentists in Ireland to display prices publicly for all services they deliver, combined with other factors, has led to a more competitive market with some dental practices reducing consultation fees from €60 to between €30 and €40. Over the past three years, almost every person in this country lucky enough to retain a job has faced a wage reduction. This has impacted on people's standards of living but while they took wage reductions, there was no perceptible decrease in GP fees. By opening the market for GPs, increased competition from fully qualified practitioners should lead to reductions in prices for patients.

While the ultimate goal of this Government is to provide universal health care, the reality is this will take a few years to implement. In the meantime, I welcome the potential in this Bill for a reduction in the cost of health care. Health provisions are dealt with in the section entitled "Fairness" in the programme for Government. I believe this Bill will help rebalance what has up until now been an unfair system and I warmly welcome it.

I welcome the Bill, which provides that suitably qualified general practitioners setting up practice will not only treat private patients but will also treat patients holding both GP visit cards and full medical cards. There will be no limit on the number of contractors. The legislation is being introduced as a result of the commitment in the EU-IMF programme which required the introduction of legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors, including eliminating restrictions on GPs wishing to treat public patients. These restrictions have had a detrimental effect on younger, properly qualified GPs setting up in practice and delivering care and service to the community.

I would like to raise the matter of the provision of a GP service in the north city fringe part of my constituency in Dublin North-East through a proposal to provide a primary care centre in the Clongriffin-Coast area. Following the proposal to develop the Dublin north city fringe and the Fingal-Baldoyle-Coast area for residential and commercial development with the granting of planning permission in 2002 and subsequent appeals to An Bord Pleanála, the then Eastern Regional Health Authority first proposed in 2004 at a meeting with local public representatives that a state-of-the-art primary care centre would be required for the north fringe area to cater for the future needs of the new community. It was planned that a 19,500 sq. ft. primary care centre would incorporate GPs, public health nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work and other services.

By 2007 a considerable number of new residents had moved into the area and they began to demand answers as to when the primary care centre would be in place. A pharmacy had opened in a unit at Clongriffin town centre with the expectation that the business would be viable once the primary care centre was opened. The tardiness in completing the Clongriffin DART station was a factor for some time but the rail station eventually opened in the early part of last year. The plan up to that point was that the primary care infrastructure initiative scheme would allow GPs to provide to the HSE accommodation suitable for the provision of primary care team services. In return the HSE would enter into a 25-year lease with the providers for accommodation occupied by the HSE. This agreement is subject to various conditions but the principal condition is that the preferred provider must secure a minimum number of GPs to service GMS patients in the locality who would operate out of the same building as the HSE under the banner of the primary care centre.

While serving as a local authority member, I was on the HSE Dublin north-east regional health forum and, in early 2010, it became apparent that there was a breakdown in discussions between the HSE and a group of GPs regarding the opening of the proposed Clongriffin primary care centre in a unit provided by Gannon Homes under the primary care infrastructure initiative scheme. Unfortunately, hopes that the promised primary care centre would be put in place were dashed when the GPs, who had previously declared their support for the centre, withdrew from the process. Following their withdrawal, the HSE was no longer in a position to proceed with a lease agreement for accommodation at this location. The HSE subsequently informed forum members that a potential new location for a primary care unit for the Baldoyle-Clongriffin area has been identified at Myrtle Court, a new estate off Grange Road, Baldoyle, and that advanced negotiations had been taking place between the executive and a major health care provider over the previous six months. It was stated that construction would commence in early 2011 subject to planning permission and site acquisition. This has not happened and I have not received an update from the HSE in this regard.

Due to this uncertainty, the pharmacist in Clongriffin was forced to close leaving the area without the services of a chemist. The economic downturn was also a factor in the slow uptake of the commercial units in Clongriffin town centre and the hope was that the opening of a primary care centre together with the new DART station would provide a much needed stimulus essential for the success and future viability of Clongriffin. Will the Minister intervene with the HSE to ensure the proposed primary care centre for the Clongriffin-Coast area of Dublin North-East is put back on the agenda and that a timetable for its implementation is provided as a matter of urgency?

This is a worthwhile Bill. The GMS scheme has been in operation since Rory O'Hanlon was Minister for Health in 1989 and, like many other things, it is about time we took a fresh look at it. It is high time we re-examined the scheme. It is a shame in a way that it has taken the pressure of the troika to achieve this but perhaps this is a patch of silver lining in a dark cloud that has been cast by the restrictions we face as a result of the EU-IMF bailout. The need for change is highlighted when one considers the substantial difficulties with the current scheme, especially from the point of view of qualified GPs who are unable to access the GMS list as well as for patients seeking affordable health care. The legislation will enable non-medical cardholders to access more affordable health care, which is a strong component of Labour Party policy in government.

Currently, GPs can only secure GMS contracts in restricted circumstances and this has led to a situation where aspirants must wait for a colleague to die or retire and they cannot access a list of medical card patients, which is far from ideal. It creates problems for GPs not on the list as they can only see private patients which, in turn, contributes to driving up prices for non-medical cardholders. The GMS scheme has come to be seen by some GPs as a guaranteed cash cow in addition to the benefits they receive through employing additional staff for their practices and drawing down State fees. One GP in my constituency received more than €500,000 in payments, which is an incredible sum. Statistics like this give me great pleasure in welcoming the Bill to address an inequality that needs to be tackled and I am glad the Government is doing so.

The State spends a significant amount annually on the education of young medical students, many of whom must leave because they cannot find somewhere to finish their training. I have a number of female friends who are qualified doctors and who, for different reasons, would prefer the life of a GP and the opportunity to work in the community but they have been forced to emigrate. This is another element of the brain drain. These are young doctors who have been educated by the State and they must leave because opportunities are not available for them to pursue a GP career. I welcome the Bill in the hope it will open the GMS scheme to new applicants and that the system will be fairer.

However, I add a word of caution. The new Bill does not contain any measure to encourage GPs to display their prices, as dentists must. This should be made obligatory so people can compare prices. If a person goes to the hairdresser or to the dentist, he knows what he will pay, but currently there is no provision for a doctor to display his prices. This should be examined as the Bill goes through the House.

This Bill is welcome; it is a positive step that will help to open the market and will benefit patients and GPs, paving the way for something I fundamentally support as a member of the Labour Party — universal health care.

I welcome this Bill and compliment the Minister and all concerned for introducing it. I look forward to its passage and enactment; it is long overdue. I cannot understand why it took the troika to add haste to the situation. No matter the reason, I am glad it happened. There is a great deal of anti-competitive practices. I compliment the vast majority of GPs and their staff, who work hard and give a good service in a difficult job. Many have given long years of good service to the community. A situation, however, has evolved where change is badly needed.

Entry to the GMS scheme is an issue. In 1970 medical cards were made available to people who in the opinion of the health service were unable without undue hardship to arrange general practitioner services for themselves and their dependants. These were followed by doctor-only medical cards. The 1989 agreement is outdated and it is time to change it. Previously, vacancies were not available until someone retired or died. Older people might enjoy a long relationship with their doctors but times have changed and medical practice has advanced. It is a pity to see young GPs, who have made a huge investment over the years in their education, emigrating, as is happening in so many sectors, when they are needed at home. They often made considerable sacrifices to attain their qualifications. It is a shame there is not more competition so there would be more areas for them to move into.

The Competition Authority made recommendations in this area, although in many other areas it did nothing, and these were taken into account in this Bill. The statistics are frightening. There are almost 2 million medical cardholders and 129,000 GP visit cardholders. Expenditure amounts to €435 million. There are 2,600 GPs in active practice, with 2,279 holding a GMS contract. An additional 300 doctors work in a locum capacity. Those are phenomenal numbers providing a service to people who need it.

Some consultants use hospital services to treat private and public patients but GPs must have their own surgeries and equipment. Investment is huge so we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. There should be a cap on the remuneration that can be earned from the GMS scheme. While we are trying to introduce a maximum wage and to be fair and balanced, they are self-employed and must pay insurance and provide facilities but there must be a way to avoid the fatigue that results from having too many patients.

It is a pity we had to wait for the IMF to come in to make these changes but I welcome them anyway. Dentists were mentioned and I remember the protests when they were made to display their prices. It has worked for the benefit of the consumer and I see no one complaining about getting less of a service. A visit to the dentist is unnerving but no one is saying they are any worse off. In fact, prices have come down because the displays mean people can shop around. This legislation could include such a provision for GPs to be required to display prices of all services clearly. I have a large family and barely a week goes by without having to visit the doctor but sometimes we might only see a nurse. There is a range of services and the charges for them should be clearly displayed. If blood is being taken, a person should know how much he or she is being charged.

A person should also have the right to change GP, as I have because I do not have a medical card. My GP provides a good service and is located in a large practice with a number of GPs. I have an issue, however, with the availability of doctors at night, something the Bill fails to address. It is a sad state of affairs that in 2011, if a person has a sick animal, a vet can be called at 3 o'clock in the morning and he will be there in a half hour but the same person cannot get a doctor. Caredoc operates in my region, and I welcome the fact that fears that some of its services were being cut back have been allayed, but no mother wants to bring a child to the doctor unless she needs to and it is desperate when she cannot get a GP home visit. Even in the practice I attend it is so busy that if we want a home visit, we must wait until 7 p.m. or 8p.m. Doctors are reluctant to do it. It is terrible that a pet can get treatment quicker than the owner; that is morally wrong. GPs have earned their time off but there are huge issues in the Caredoc system. It is a fire brigade service and it is not good enough that if a person wants a GP, he or she cannot get one. He or she must ring this service, tell the person on the other end of the line what is wrong and that person will ring back. That is not good enough. Someone who is panicking or lying out cold on the floor cannot relay that information. It is not fair for those elderly people who have given some service to the State and paid their taxes. They deserve better.

I referred earlier to consultation charges. Like most people, I am charged €50 for a visit to my doctor. Some individuals are charged €60. In the past two to three years, most fees have been reduced. The Government, like that which preceded it, is concerned with reducing the cost of living and prices. I had many discussions — some of which were quite animated — with the former Minister for Health and Children, Ms Mary Harney, in respect of this issue. Ms Harney always maintained that in certain European countries one will only be charged €10 or €15 for a visit to a GP. It is not acceptable that Irish GPs have not reduced their prices or have not been obliged to do so. The Competition Authority should be involved in this matter. Everyone has been obliged to accept cuts, large numbers of people have lost their jobs and many businesses are struggling to survive but GPs are still charging the same amounts they charged during the Celtic tiger years. That is not acceptable. GPs should be obliged to display their prices and they should be forced to reduce the cost of a visit to at least €40.

When medical cardholders are obliged to seek additional services from their GPs — such as having driving licence application forms completed, blood tests, and so on — some are being charged an additional €10, €20, €25 or €30. That is not good enough. The people to whom I refer have medical cards because they do not have the money to pay for medical services. It is not acceptable that GPs should be paid through the GMS in respect of patient visits and then charge extra for additional services. The Competition Authority should address this matter also because the transactions involved are all done on a cash basis. I do not know if these transactions are recorded but what is happening is not acceptable. Many of my constituents are concerned with regard to this type of practice.

People have always respected and admired their doctors, which is only right and proper. However, this has led to a situation where individuals are afraid to challenge their doctors or discuss matters with them. Let us face it, one is generally in a fairly delicate situation when one visits the doctor. I have a fear of injections and that places me and others like me at somewhat of a disadvantage. Elderly patients who have built up relationships with their doctors over many years would not dream of questioning them and if they were asked to pay €100, they would hand it over. The Competition Authority should investigate what is happening. I am surprised that GPs have not been requested to display their price lists and those relating to chiropodists, nurses and others who might provide services on their premises. I accept that GPs provide their own facilities, but a cap must be introduced in respect of the fees they charge.

I am concerned with regard to the bureaucracy which attended the recruitment of non-consultant hospital doctors from abroad earlier in the year. The advertisement process relating to this matter was expensive and elaborate but it was also well done. The only difficulty is that some of those who were offered jobs here have still not entered employment. I do not know the exact figure but it is outrageous that some of these doctors are still not working in our hospitals. I do not know whether the HSE, the consultants or the Irish Medical Council caused this problem but what has happened is scandalous. The junior hospital doctors to whom I refer came to this country, in good faith, to work and now we are hearing all sorts of stories about some of them being placed in rented accommodation and not being allowed to work. Some bureaucratic barrier put in place by one or all three of the entities to which I refer stopped a number of these doctors entering employment. As a result, there has been increased pressure on consultants, beds and wards have been closed and hours of service have been reduced. The junior doctors to whom I refer have almost been the subject of house arrest since they came here. The situation in which they find themselves is degrading and steps should be taken to ensure that there will be no recurrence of what has happened.

I compliment the parties responsible for recruiting these doctors. They did a good job and those who were offered work in Ireland travelled here in good faith. What befell them could only happen in Ireland. Bureaucracy has reached a crazy level. Governments and Ministers come and go but officialdom is permanent and it is draining the lifeblood from this country. All those in officialdom are concerned about is protecting their own patch. These people are afflicted by greed. I am not in a position to point the finger at anyone in particular but the type of greed to which I refer must be rooted out. What happened in the case to which I refer was extremely distasteful. The junior doctors brought here from abroad are eminent and qualified. Everything was done above board in this instance and no shortcuts were taken. Had shortcuts bee taken, these individuals would never have been recruited or brought to this country.

What happened in this case sent a terrible message to the home countries of these junior doctors. In the past, Ireland has sent ambassadors abroad — both lay people and members of the clergy — and they did much work wherever they went. They and others, such as the NGOs, continue to work. However, their legacy is being tarnished by this shameful and outrageous episode. I hope the Minister for Health will be able to come to grips with the matter and that there will be no recurrence of the events we have witnessed. I do not envy him his task and I wish him well in respect of it. The mandarins who caused the problem must be rooted out because they are giving our country a bad name and delaying progress. In addition, their actions are having an effect on people's health.

I represent a rural constituency. I am aware of a case involving certain doctors who were providing services to a rural village and its hinterland and who decided to retire. Following their announcement, everyone in the area was involved in a great battle to retain the health centre and to have a new GP appointed. People in the community to which I refer were quite scared when they realised they could lose their local health service. I am aware of other instances where public meetings were held and lobbying took place in counties Waterford and Tipperary because people were frightened that they would not have access to local health services. It is not acceptable that people should be concerned in respect of issues relating to health. In the instance to which I refer, great efforts were made to oblige the HSE to appoint a new GP to the local health centre. The excuse put forward by the executive on many occasions was that it was not possible to employ a GP to take up the position. That may well have been the case but situations such as that to which I refer must be addressed.

The position is this regard is similar to that which exists in the context of rural transport. I am involved with the fledgling rural transport service in Tipperary — which is operated by volunteers — and it is not acceptable that people in rural areas do not have access to the same services as those in more built-up areas. Some of the medical practices-health centres in rural areas that have been closed were not exactly small operations. I do not know whether the HSE just wanted to close them down but whatever the position, a great deal of unnecessary worry and angst was visited upon families and others. Elderly people and mothers with children who did not have access to transport needed the security of having a doctor nearby. Their doctors might not be at the health centre every day but they were present on most occasions and had all patient records on file. This matter is not addressed in the Bill but it should be because continuity of service is required.

People need to know that if their doctor becomes ill or decides to retire, a locum or replacement will be put in place. Citizens must be able to visit a GP whose practice is situated within reasonable distance of their homes. Not everyone is in a position to travel to the nearest town. Many families never had second cars and with the advent of the recession, those who did no longer possess them. If one partner is working, it is often the case that the car will not be available to the other. As a result, people cannot travel far to visit their GPs. As already stated, unlike their colleagues in veterinary medicine, GPs no longer make house calls.

I welcome the many benefits to which the Bill will give rise. In the future, people with GP-only medical cards will have greater choice in respect of which GP they attend. It is important that people should have such a choice, particularly if they have difficulty with a certain individual, wish to change practices or want to seek a second opinion. People are entitled to a second opinion and to move to another practice if they so desire.

The Bill will ensure that any suitably qualified doctor who wishes to obtain a GMS contract will be free to do so. I wholeheartedly welcome this development because for too long a monopoly and certain restrictions have held sway. It is important that a change is being made because it will encourage young GPs to establish practices in Ireland and remain here with their families. These individuals have devoted a great deal of time and money to their medical studies and training. It is important, therefore, that we should encourage them to remain here. We should not educate and train them only to allow them to leave and work in other jurisdictions.

The Competition Authority issued its report in July 2010. I am glad the authority did because I was critical of it last night. I am glad that some matters in that report were acted upon.

I welcome the Bill. I look forward to its passage through the House. I am positive about most aspects of it. As I stated, we must never forget the customer is a paying customer, whether under the GMS or a private patient, and he who pays the piper should call the tune. We should never forget — I will not knock the doctors — that the patient must always come first. Some 99.9% of GPs put patients first. Patients must have security of access as well and the GPs must remain there for them. We must examine the unavailability of GPs after hours, at weekends or at night. It is not good enough that one cannot get a doctor. If one is sick, one needs a doctor and one should be able to get one.

Deputy Fitzpatrick has 20 minutes. I understand he is sharing his time.

I am sharing time with Deputy Buttimer.

One of the results of the programme introduced by the EU-IMF is the provision to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors by the end of September 2011. This encapsulates restrictions on general practitioners wishing to treat public patients. It is with this in mind that the Bill provides for the elimination of restrictions on GPs wishing to treat public patients under the General Medical Services, GMS, scheme.

Essentially, the Bill will open access to GMS contracts to all fully qualified and vocationally trained GPs, subject to general suitability criteria. This will ensure greater benefits to all stakeholders, in particular the public and patients.

At present the entry terms to the GMS scheme form part of the 1989 agreement with GPs. There are three routes for entry into the GMS scheme for GPs: where a vacancy arises due to the retirement, resignation or death of an existing GMS doctor; where a new GMS panel is created in response to an identified need for an additional doctor in an area; and where a GMS doctor obtains approval from the HSE for the creation of an assistant post with a view to partnership within his or her practice.

Developments in primary care should always build upon and add to the strengths of the current system. This Bill ensures an enhanced provision for the patient, and for this reason and many others I have no hesitation in supporting it.

Historically, GPs, public health nurses and other professionals have provided primary care in Ireland. They have provided a critical frontline service which has acted as a gatekeeper for many secondary elements of the broad range of health and personal social services. In many cases, and for long periods, it has been the commitment of such professionals in primary care which has ensured the public has been able to avail of a personal, local, accessible and timely service with which they have been satisfied.

As mentioned, the legislation will create a more open playing field with all suitably qualified GPs being able to access GMS contracts. The most fundamental aspect of the Bill is that there will be no limits on the number of contractors.

New GMS contractholders will be free to establish their practices in the locations of their choice, but once established, any contractholder who wishes to move location will only be able to do so with the prior approval of the HSE. This is designed to ensure continuity of care for patients. The fact this Bill ensures there will be no limits to the number of contractors clearly complies with the EU-IMF programme, removing restrictions to trade and competition.

This Bill has two main strands. In the first instance, as mentioned previously, it fulfils the requirements established by the EU-IMF. Second, and more importantly, it confers numerous benefits on the State and, therefore, on patients.

The enactment of the Bill will result in medical card and GP visit card patients having a greater choice of GPs under the GMS scheme. This should not be underestimated, particularly in the less populated towns and villages of the country. Greater choice can instil better confidence in patients and ensure they are not compelled to return to a practitioner where they may have had an unfavourable experience.

In addition, the greater range of service providers in an area should ensure they deliver a better service to the patient. By this, I mean they may effectively compete for custom in many ways. Examples include extending opening hours, opening on Saturdays and Sundays, providing better waiting and parking facilities, investing in the latest technology, and providing the latest advances in treatment and diagnosis. All these aspects help improve the delivery of services to the patient.

This Bill will ensure that any suitably qualified doctor who wishes to obtain a GMS contract will be free to do so. Thus, those with drive, passion and enthusiasm will be rewarded and, more importantly, afforded the opportunity to excel in their profession. By allowing greater access to such practitioners, it will also greatly raise the standard of delivery and patient care.

This Bill will also encourage young GPs to remain in Ireland and to establish their practices here. As has been all too often documented in the media recently, we are losing vital and crucial talent through emigration. This Bill will in a strategic way help address the export of our young GPs, the very core of our future improved health system. After all, it is these young men and women in whom the State has invested, via the provision of education and universities. It is imperative that we try to arrest their decline and encourage them to stay within our shores.

Furthermore, this Bill will encourage competition among GPs at a time when many fee-paying patients have less money at their disposal. This competition will ensure a greater choice for the patient and in doing so, will put downward pressure on charges. This can only be of benefit to our already financially stretched people.

Another aspect of this Bill that ought not be overlooked is that the extra GPs should ensure greater provision of frontline services, therefore reducing some of the supply to the over-stretched hospitals. This aspect of the Bill will have a preventative element and will help ensure a better delivery of services at both GP and hospital level.

The current capacity of primary care is insufficient to meet the evolving needs of the population. Changes in demography, reorientation towards prevention and health promotion and shifting the focus from secondary care towards primary care will increase the burden already facing community services. This Bill addresses in an effective and fundamental way these issues.

I alluded to the fact that GPs provide a crucial gatekeeper role to secondary care services. Studies have shown that patients value this gatekeeper role and it has also proved to be cost effective. Greater availability of GPs will further cement this vital and sometimes underestimated role.

In addition, this Bill may reduce the strain on an already under pressure secondary care sector. The secondary care sector is providing many services which are more appropriate to primary care. This Bill has the potential to address this over-reliance on secondary services. Essentially, by providing greater access to and choice of primary care, it will reduce the pressure on secondary care providers.

A further aspect of the Bill that warrants mention is that it affords the potential to facilitate and develop otherwise underdeveloped out-of-hours primary services. It has the scope to provide greater choice and service to the patient, with resultant benefits to hospital accident and emergency departments.

Finally, I want to address another commendable aspect of the Bill. In addition to the already stated benefits, this health Bill will further address the following recommendations in the Competition Authority's July 2010 report on general medical practitioners, which was aimed at increasing competition within the GMS scheme: access to GMS contracts should be opened to all qualified GPs, decisions to award a GMS contract in a particular area should not take account of the viability of GPs already practising in the area and GPs in possession of a GMS contract should be free to set up in, or move to, the location of their choice.

I have no hesitation in recommending this Bill as it has a multitude of benefits to both the State and the people. By opening GMS contracts to all fully qualified and vocationally trained GPs, this is welcome and timely legislation.

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on the Health (Provision of General Practitioner Services) Bill, the Title of which is important. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall.

It is vital that the health service is undergoing transformation. People have legitimate concerns regarding the condition of the health service and the type and quality of the health service being provided.

I welcome the appointment of Deputy Shortall as Minister of State with responsibility for primary care. Given the importance of her task, she is a critical part of the Government and her appointment demonstrates its commitment to the primary health care of the people. Speaking as someone who admires the Minister of State, I am thrilled that, given her many years in the House, she has been given this responsibility. She has the political determination and vision to get the job done with the Minister, Deputy Reilly. It is important that we pay tribute to her.

It is also important that we support workers in the wider health service and that they see the Government as being willing to embrace change within the service. As the Minister of State knows, the programme for Government is ambitious, in that we are committed to the development of a single-tier health service, one that guarantees universal access to medical cards based on need, not income. We must move away from an income-based health model.

Deputy Fitzpatrick was correct, in that this proposal fulfils our commitment in the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding, but we must put it in context. Under the memorandum of understanding, the Government will introduce legislative change to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors, including medical services. It will eliminate restrictions on the number of general practitioners, GPs, qualifying, GPs wishing to treat public patients and advertising. For these reasons, the Bill is important. It will provide greater choice, the buzz word in this debate. Choice is important.

Equally, the relationship between GP and patient is of critical importance. As a non-medical cardholder, I have a choice. I attend my GP because I like, respect and trust him. He is competent and capable and will look after me.

The 1989 agreement with GPs enshrined restrictive practices, closed routes of entry into the general medical services, GMS, scheme and limited the number of GPs who could participate in the scheme. In effect, it ensured there would be no competition. A new GP could only participate if a doctor retired, resigned or died, if there was an identified need for an additional doctor, or if a GMS doctor required an assistant. Even if these criteria were met, the shelter was reinforced by the requirement for the HSE to consider the viability of existing practices. The interim entry provisions were negotiated in 2009 and further strengthened restrictive practices. Under the scheme, medical card patients were not allowed to transfer from one GMS doctor to another. For years the HSE, the Department and the medical profession have worked together in establishing a sheltered environment in which to practise. Some might say a cartel was in operation. As much as the doctors themselves, previous Governments were responsible for promulgating restrictive practices. It is essential that the patient be put at the core of everything we do. Given that, in this instance, the patient's interests lie in reform, it is important that reforms be enacted.

The changes will have an immediate impact on approximately 400 practising GPs not currently part of the GMS scheme. If they so choose, they will allow them to participate in the scheme and access their own GMS lists. They will also allow doctors working as assistants under the scheme to branch out on their own, further augmenting the themes of change and choice. The effect of the changes will be increased competition. The House discussed the Competition (Amendment) Bill this week. Today, we are discussing legislation that, as the Minister stated at the beginning of the Second Stage debate, will result in medical card and GP-only medical card patients having a greater choice of GPs.

The changes to be made under the Bill will benefit newly qualified GPs and those who choose to return from training overseas. It will immediately make it viable for newly qualified GPs to open practices. The Minister of State must consider how to reach out so that communities can have a greater choice and the responsibilities thrust upon many hospitals' accident and emergency departments can be diminished. We must move away from the first port of call being an emergency department. We must teach people that presenting at an emergency department immediately is not necessary in every case.

During the past six months we have been made acutely aware of the shortage of non-consultant hospital doctors, NCHDs. The Joint Committee on Health and Children, which I am privileged to Chair, has met all of the interested parties to discuss the reasons for the shortage and how to solve the problem. Some believe we are only sticking a Band-Aid on it and that we have not addressed the critical issue and prevented a shortage from recurring. Owing to a lack of training opportunities and career development and advancement options, many doctors trained in Ireland have opted to work abroad. Many also train abroad. Eliminatingcertain practices under the GMS scheme will provide an opportunity for more doctors to remain in Ireland. We want to keep as many doctors as possible here, as Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned.

For medical card patients, the only way doctors can compete is not through price but through quality of service, having a special relationship built on a caring, competent and professional one-on-one interaction. The Bill will remove the requirement for the HSE to consider the viability of practices. It will be for each GP to ensure his or her practice meets the best standards in order that it can attract new patients and expand. This is a matter of providing for a greater variety of service choices. I hope the Bill will impact on the charges for private patients. If doctors open new surgeries to cater for GMS patients, they will also need to attract private patients. It is important, therefore, that the price issue be tackled by GPs. I hope pricing, a key issue, can be considered by the House in the future.

Patient care is important. We must acknowledge the great work being done by GMS scheme GPs working in communities. In many cases, they deal with elderly, vulnerable and disadvantaged patients. How will the umbrella organisations, namely, the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, and the Medical Council, and vested interests react to the relationships outlined in the Bill? Is it the case that the representative groups are stating one thing and doing something else? Are they merely lobbying to protect their members' interests, as is their entitlement? In the overall context of the Bill, it is important that a balanced approach be taken and that there be competition to deliver better outcomes for patients. The organisations should not use words that could be translated as meaning they opposed the Bill or would not take care of patients. The IMO and GPs have a great role to play in targeting the delivery of health care services.

Reform in the wider health sphere is essential. I hope we will consider the HSE and its role in the outputs of the health service. Instead of protecting existing practices, we should provide opportunities to be bold, innovative and expansionary and create new partnerships and primary care policies.

The Minister for Health is a reforming doctor and the Minister of State has vision and determination. Both have knowledge of the GMS scheme and are leading the charge for change.

In this regard, several key stakeholders who have practical knowledge are willing to embrace change and in this context I hope we will have reform. It is imperative that we acknowledge that reform of the health service will not happen overnight; it will take time. The Government has been in office for eight months and has introduced legislation on non-consultant hospital doctors and the Bill before us today dealing with the GP scheme. The one thing people will not allow is a lack of reform of the Health Service Executive. They want to see change in the structure and management of our health services and they want that change now. It is critical that a reforming Minister is given the opportunity to introduce change which will benefit the children in the Visitors' Gallery, their parents and their grandparents.

Setting aside the merits of the Bill, it is regrettable that it comes before the Oireachtas at a time when we face a deepening financial crisis which is having serious and far-reaching implications for our health care system. The main concern is that the most vulnerable people in our communities are those who suffer the most.

My party colleague, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, pointed out that many of our citizens who wish to access the General Medical Services Scheme cannot do so because of the exclusivity of the current arrangements. However, despite the obvious need for change, some in the medical profession want to see the retention of the status quo. This is unethical and untenable as clearly there are too few GPs overall and too few GPs who have access to GMS contracts which allow them to treat medical card patients.

Our health system is failing people throughout the State and nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in my constituency of Dublin South-West. For many years Tallaght hospital has been rarely out of the news, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. I note in a joint statement issued today that the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, announced a series of initiatives to reform and modernise the governance structures of the hospital. While I welcome the potential of this announcement, the Minister must also address the years of under-funding of Tallaght hospital which still has a proven track record in providing quality care in the face of almost insurmountable demands and having to function with wholly inadequate resources. Its management has consistently advised on the staffing and other resources required to rectify obvious imbalances and any restructuring of the management structures at the hospital will make little or no difference if the resources deficit is not corrected to ensure Tallaght hospital operates properly.

Since it opened in 1998, Tallaght hospital has become the busiest hospital in the State. In 2010, its accident and emergency unit treated 93,000 people. Recent figures obtained from the HSE show that it sees more emergency department attendees, treats more inpatients, and sees in excess of 30% more patients in its outpatient department than the next busiest hospital. Despite this, it has the fewest numbers of consultant doctors of the four Dublin teaching hospitals and there is also a shortfall on the requisite number of consultants. This was identified in the hospital review conducted by Dr. Maurice Hayes in September 2010 when he inquired into the issue of radiology and the scandal of unread reports and X-rays. He reported that relative to other Irish hospitals "the degree of understaffing in Tallaght Hospital in 2009 was substantially greater than in the other sampled hospitals".

Tallaght hospital is funded by the HSE to supposedly service a population area of 350,000 when in reality it must service a population of up to 500,000 people. A breakdown of Dublin hospitals' annual financial allocations yields startling figures, with Tallaght hospital's allocation set at €176 million, compared with St. James's allocation of €220 million and a €200 million allocation for St. Vincent's. This equates to €800 per person in St. James's, €727 in St. Vincent's and €350 in Tallaght.

Having a properly functioning acute hospital depends on appropriate health service provision in primary care and in continuing non-acute care beds. It is clear that tremendous challenges face Tallaght hospital and these are further exacerbated by the shortage of GPs servicing local communities compared to other similar areas. For example, if one compares Galway city and the Tallaght urban areas, both have similar populations of more than 70,000 yet Galway city has more than 40 GPs compared to 26 GPs for Tallaght. This is significantly below even our poor and low State-wide level of provision and this needs to be examined.

The absence of an out-of-hours GP on-call system means people have nowhere to turn except Tallaght hospital's accident and emergency unit. This was touched on by other speakers during the debate. People complain about patients turning up at accident and emergency units but if they have no alternative that is where they will go. Fettercairn, which is an area in my constituency, has a population of 7,000 people but no GP service is available. This is a scandal in what is supposed to be a modern country. Where do people go? They go to their local hospital.

In addition to this, the provision of so-called "step-down" beds for patients who have completed their acute care treatment is very poor in the Dublin south-west region when compared with other catchment areas. This compounds the problem of, to use the awful expression, "blocked beds", adding to long waits for accident and emergency unit admissions and elective procedures which tie up 50 of Tallaght hospital's 640 beds at any time. We also have the added pressures that will result from the imminent closure of the St. Brigid's Nursing Home in Crooksling which for decades provided highly specialised care for high-dependence patients who suffer from very debilitating illnesses. It has 89 patients at present and not 80 as was stated in the statement issued by the HSE. Of these, 65 are high-dependence patients and it is proposed to move them to another site. However, it will not be suitable for high-dependence patients and another crisis in the system will ensue.

Good management and governance are crucial in ensuring patient care but progress can be achieved only if adequate resources are put in place so the hospital and its staff are able to provide the necessary care which is essential for the general wellbeing of our citizens. As the medical board of the hospital stated, it is not possible to deliver optimum safe care with continually diminishing resources and steadily increasing patient activity.

My party supports the Government's commitment to provide, during its term of office, free GP care for all and this is something we have long advocated. However, like much that has been promised, there is very little tangible evidence that the Government is making good on its pre-election pledges. This was highlighted by the Minister of State with responsibility for primary care, Deputy Róisín Shortall. While the Minister of State has acknowledged that there are what she termed "blackspots", such as Tallaght, where there is a shortage of GPs, this can be addressed only if effective measures are put in place to improve the present unacceptable situation. Good planning and good implementation of an effective primary care strategy is needed to ensure that all communities are served equally and that every citizen has access on the basis of need and within reach of where he or she lives.

I came up with a solution for the situation in Fettercairn. A Polish doctor, who is a consultant in Tallaght hospital, was willing to work in the area but because of the crazy rules in the medical system on access to medical cards he was not allowed.

An audit was carried out on the patients in a hospital in Limerick with regard to their needs and background. We need to look at similar hospitals in Dublin to see why people are coming to the accident and emergency units. This Bill only addresses one aspect of the problem of primary care delivery. The system is flawed in so many ways and people's worst fears about December's budget are that things can only go from bad to worse.

I remember going to a launch concerning primary care, hospital care and access to doctors in the south west of Dublin. Where was it held? In Fettercairn. I do not know if others can see the irony in launching a primary care programme in the specific area when there is no doctor operating. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister of State in responding to the debate. I hope the positive elements of this Bill will have a positive effect on patients who have no option but to go to the accident and emergency unit.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which is a welcome and important initiative in the development of our community-based health care services. In the pre-election manifesto of Fine Gael and in that of our colleagues in the Labour Party, we made a commitment to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectors and I am pleased to see this commitment is now being honoured with the abolition of the current restrictions on GPs seeking to treat public patients. As we enter a budgetary process dominated by many difficult decisions imposed by the EU-IMF agreement, this is one of the more welcome elements.

I believe in a health care system where, in so far as possible, patients can access the care they need in their community. The roll-out of primary health care services is about much more than the provision of GPs but GPs will have an integral role to play as an element of that service. I welcome the Minister's commitment to addressing the current inequity in the way GMS lists are awarded by the HSE and, in particular, the removal of the requirement that the HSE consider the impact the awarding of a list would have on existing practices within the locality. All too often, the closed GMS list currently operated by the HSE takes choice from patients. It is important that any public health service puts patient choice at the centre. Anybody who has had reason to interact with the health service will recognise it can be a very stressful and frightening time. Having a GP who one respects and has an ongoing relationship with can be a huge support in such difficult times. However, the current system works against patients, often requiring them to move to a new GP if they need to access the health care system using a medical card.

It is my understanding that this affects primarily two kinds of patients — the first is those whose circumstances have changed in our challenging economic times and now access their GPs through the public medical card system. The second is those who qualify for a discretionary card on the basis of a medical diagnosis. Under the current system, these patients are often required to leave their family doctor, who knows their history and with whom they have built up a rapport, often over years, and to attend a GP holding a GMS list granted by the HSE but who may have no knowledge of, or involvement with, that patient or the family. This Bill will restore choice to these patients, empowering them to choose who provides their care and to stay with the doctor they know and trust. This is a welcome development and I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House.

As we move towards a system where more services are based in the community, and are accessed through local GPs, it is vitally important that GPs have the skills and patient knowledge they need to provide the best possible standard of care. Consequently, we must ensure that the brightest and the best qualifying GPs recognise that there are opportunities for them in Ireland. At the moment, the system works against young doctors as they are not entitled to treat any public patient until they have a contract with the HSE. This can take several years to obtain. The provisions of this Bill are therefore very important in ensuring we have a suitably qualified workforce in place to support the move of services from a hospital setting back into the community. I welcome the opening of the GMS system to competition as it will make it easier for young, ambitious and talented doctors to establish themselves in Ireland without having to break into existing practices and the closed shop arrangements of the HSE.

Opening up the area of general practice to increased competition will not just benefit public patients but all users of the service, as GPs will be forced to become more cost effective in the way they run their practices. They will also have an incentive to provide a wider range of services to their patients. This will take place hand in hand with the commitment in the programme for Government to deliver universal primary care to patients without any cost barrier and to alleviate the pressure currently seen in our accident and emergency units.

As a Deputy representing a constituency with urban and significant rural areas and with many houses and families spread out over a wide geographic area, I am keenly aware of the need to ensure that all residents in my constituency will be able to access the same standard of care. Anecdotally, I have heard tales of rural practices struggling to attract GPs, either on long-term or short-term contracts, due to the differing requirements of the role, such as the need to make time-consuming house calls in remote areas. As we move towards a more equitable, but also a more competitive system, we must ensure patients will be able to access the same standard of care regardless of where they live. We cannot allow a situation to arise where rural residents are deprived of the same standard of care as their urban peers due to urban areas being seen as more profitable. We cannot have quality health care delivered on the basis of postcode. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, to keep this under consideration as she embarks on playing a major role in the reconfiguration of the health care system.

It is important that we look at the role of the GP in terms of the reconfiguration of the health service. As we move towards providing more services within the community, we must look at other stakeholders and professionals within our health service and the enhanced role they can play. I refer to community nurses in particular. In other systems in the EU, many more services are provided by nurses than GPs. It is a cost-effective way of delivering services and it is a way of recognising the qualifications and training of these health professionals. It also alleviates pressure on GPs and from an economic and social point of view, it keeps people out of hospitals.

This Government is determined to rectify the mistakes of the previous Government, which threw billions of euro at the health service without delivering any real and meaningful change. By the end of this term of office, we will be well on our way to delivering free GP care and putting in place the infrastructure for it. This is an important Bill, which is part of the EU-IMF agreement. Regardless of that, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party feel strongly about it. I welcome this legislation and thank the Minister for introducing it.

We must have a broader discussion about the role of community health care. This should not just be based on medical cards and doctors and we need to hear details in the coming weeks about our primary care system. In my constituency, where there has been talk of reconfiguring the hospital service, it is important to show people that we are serious about not only closing existing services based on promises and the nirvana that has not been delivered in the past despite promises and economic wealth. We need to have our ducks lined up correctly. Throughout the reconfiguration of our service, we need to make it clear to people that the roll-out of primary care goes hand in hand with reconfiguration. While the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, is in the Chamber, I stress the need to examine the roll-out of primary care centres. She has done much work on this. In my constituency, there are large urban areas such as Bray and Greystones where people are needlessly going to hospitals for services that could be provided at the local level. This would be beneficial from every point of view, including traffic, the environment, the economy, a sense of community, spin-offs for other GP practices and benefits to doctors.

This is an exciting time to reform the health service. In the past, increasing the budget has not delivered improvements and better results. I have seen this in my constituency. We must reform within a difficult financial situation. It is difficult to reform when funds are not available given that we must bring people with us. There is always a fear that the Government will introduce reforms to save money. We must explain to people that, while change is always difficult, reforms are in their interest. When this Government leaves office, we will not leave glossy reports on the shelves. We will have made a real difference to people's lives, which is what I want to see in Bray, Greystones and across my constituency. This Bill is a start and there is a long way to go. The Government has been careful to outline that change will not happen overnight.

It is a process and in that regard this legislation is very much a welcome start. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share