Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Health debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2017

Hospital Consultants Contract: Discussion

The subject of this morning's meeting largely came about on foot of findings in an "RTÉ Investigates" programme which aired on 21 November 2017. In this, the first of two sessions, we will engage with officials from the Department of Health and representatives of the HSE. In the second session, we will hear views from the Irish Medical Organisation and the Irish Hospital Consultants Association. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Ms Teresa Cody and Mr. Paddy Barrett of the Department of Health and Mr. Liam Woods, Ms Angela Fitzgerald and Ms Colette Cowan of the HSE to discuss oversight and monitoring of hospital consultants contracts, including enforcement, impact on waiting lists, stretch income targets and issues relating to the role of clinical directors and hospital management.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Any opening statement made to the committee may be published on its website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Teresa Cody

I am the assistant secretary in charge of the national human resources division in the Department of Health. I am joined by Mr. Paddy Barrett, assistant principal in the national human resources unit.

I will begin by thanking the Chairman and the committee for inviting us here today to discuss a range of issues concerning the consultant contract. The invitation follows on from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme, which aired on 21 November 2017, about the level of private practice being carried out by hospital consultants and the effect this is having on public patients.

A key objective of the consultant contract of 2008 was, and still is, to improve access for public patients to public hospital care. It should be noted that at the time, this new contract represented a fundamental change from previous contracts and was the largest redesign of the consultants’ contract for 30 years. It specifically included a framework developed to protect the position of public patients and provided for increased availability of senior clinical decision makers. Revised work practices under the new contract, the extended working day, the appointment of clinical directors, in conjunction with other developments such as clinical care programmes, have allowed greater flexibility in meeting the challenges facing the health system.

There are a number of different types of contract, which allow consultants to work in different ways. The monitoring of public-private mix is an ongoing part of implementation of the consultant contract. If we look at the system as a whole, the data from September 2017 show that the public-private mix at a system level stands at 82% public for elective inpatient work and at almost 86% for day-case work. National performance has been consistent at this level. These rates are also consistent with the typical 80:20 split provided for in the consultant contract. The framework for the regulation of a consultant's private practice is contained in section 20 of the contract. It provides that the public to private practice ratio is to be implemented through the clinical directorate structure. It also gives the employer of the consultant full authority to take all necessary steps to ensure a consultant's practice shall not exceed the agreed ratio of public to private practice.

The Health Service Executive, HSE, therefore, has responsibility for ensuring consultant compliance with their contracts. Responsibility for reporting individual consultant compliance lies with the hospital groups. The main reason for this is to ensure local accountability. Hospitals know their consultants and the work they deliver. However, it is clear that the arrangements that are in place, or enforcement of these, are not robust enough to deliver compliance in all circumstances. As a result, some consultants have engaged in private practice activity at levels that exceed the levels provided for in their contracts. This may arise in respect of the level of private activity undertaken on-site or they engage in significant levels of off-site private practice although their contract does not provide for this. The Department of Health is working closely with the HSE to find a solution to ensure compliance is monitored more effectively and, more importantly, that breaches are dealt with appropriately.

The need to get delivery of real change under the revised contractual arrangements for the benefit of public patients has been the subject of engagement between the Department and the HSE over the years. The benefits provided for in the 2008 contract regarding greater consultant availability were further strengthened and enhanced in an agreement reached between the parties at the Workplace Relations Commission in September 2012. Following further engagement with the Department, the director general of the HSE issued clear instructions to relevant health sector management in October 2012. These instructions reaffirmed the need for individual hospitals and hospital groups to ensure full compliance with the terms of consultant contracts.

In terms of more recent developments, directly after the airing of the RTÉ programme, members will be aware the Minister for Health was strong in his condemnation of the practices reported. He asked the HSE to ensure that more robust measures are in place in 2018 to make sure all consultants comply with their contractual obligations. There had already been a number of engagements this year between the Department and the HSE in this context. In September, in response to a letter from the Secretary General of the Department, the director general confirmed that consultant contract compliance is an agenda item at the monthly performance meetings held by the HSE acute hospitals division with the hospital groups. The national director for that division, Mr. Liam Woods, is here today and he can speak further about that process.

In line with the Minister’s requirements, on 1 December the Secretary General of the Department of Health wrote to the director general of the HSE, repeating that it is essential that robust arrangements are put in place to monitor actively compliance with the provisions of the contract and to ensure that corrective action is taken where breaches are identified. A comprehensive framework, at both national and local level, has been requested to see that this is done. The Department has also sought confirmation of the steps being taken by the HSE to investigate the apparent contract breaches by individual consultants.

The Department will shortly be engaging further with the HSE in response to some broader issues the HSE has raised concerning oversight of the contract, including the impact of the Health (Amendment) Act 2013 and the need for hospitals to collect private patient income. However, the HSE has already been advised that those issues do not affect the implementation of measures required to ensure robust governance and monitoring of compliance with the contractual provisions applicable to consultants engaging in private practice, with remedial action pursued where required. The matter of consultant compliance with their contracts is also being discussed in the context of the High Court legal cases that are in train.

The Minister has established an independent expert review group to examine the impact of separating private practice from the public hospital system. The removal of private practice from public hospitals was one of the key recommendations of the Sláintecare report. This group will conclude its work by the end of next summer.

I trust this information has been of some assistance. My colleague and I will endeavour to answer questions the committee may have.

I thank Ms Cody. I call on Mr. Woods to make his opening statement. I know that it is lengthy. Perhaps it might be abbreviated or Mr. Woods might want to make the entire statement.

Mr. Liam Woods

I am happy to follow the committee's desire. I can either read quickly or cover the highlights, whichever is preferable.

As there is a lot of material we know already, perhaps we might just have the highlights.

Perhaps Mr. Woods might make a precis of it.

Mr. Liam Woods

I thank the joint committee for the invitation to discuss the consultant contract. I am joined by my colleagues Ms Colette Cowan, chief executive officer of the University of Limerick hospital group and Ms Angela Fitzgerald, deputy director of the acute division.

The recent "Prime Time" programme examined the issue of private practice in the public hospital system and identified a number of unnamed individuals who allegedly were not meeting their contractual obligations. The issues raised are concerning for patients, their relatives and the wider public. Our hospital level data show that with a small number of exceptions, individual hospitals are compliant with public-private mix requirements. In fact, the proportion of public patients treated is higher than the required level. This suggests that the issues raised in the programme are about individual practice rather than whole system non-compliance issues.

I propose to move on to the next section on fulfilling commitments. Consultant duties in a hospital encompass three distinct elements, namely, health care provision, education and research. I will move on to discuss the types of contract under heading two of my statement. Type A contracts are for consultants treating public patients only while type B contract doctors can treat private patients within public hospitals. Type B* doctors were employed pre-2008, which is the latest contract date, and transferred to the new contract and they are allowed to have off–site practice. Type C doctors are allowed to have off-site practice and their private practice limits within a public hospital are also prescribed.

Nationally within the acute system, there are 6%, or 169 consultants holding type A contracts, while two thirds or 1,789, contract holders are on type B contracts while 28% hold types B*, C, or pre-2008 contracts.

For the committee's information, there are 364 consultants who are holders of pre-2008 contracts. That contract is colloquially known as the Buckley contract.

The oversight arrangements have been outlined. They are designed as points of reference with a view to ensuring accountability, recognition of joint appointments and cross-hospital work arrangements, and guidance regarding detailed calculation of compliance. There is a detailed guidance note, which can be made available to the committee, for hospital groups and hospitals to implement the contract. We can return to this issue later if the committee so requires.

Current compliance was referenced in the Department of Health's opening statement. Some 82% of inpatient work and 85.8% of day-case work is public. Thus, at a national level the overall hospital system in is compliance. Clearly there is a challenge around individual compliance within that, which we will come to discuss. For those sites where more than 30% of work consists of private practice, there are relevant factors to be considered, including the impact of paediatric and maternity, historical bed designation and the absence of private services in locations.

I refer to interventions in cases of non-compliance. The HSE's performance management process has highlighted issues or areas of potential non-compliance, and has, where it has been deemed appropriate, intervened to examine and address such non-compliance through independent review or internal audit. Two examples of such reviews took place in the University of Limerick Hospitals Group and St. Vincent's University Hospital Group. The findings from such review processes serve to inform improvements in internal controls.

I refer to structural challenges in overseeing the contract. I mention the decision by way of legislation to de-designate private beds. The 364 holders of Buckley contracts are entitled to practice in beds that were designated private. That designation situation changed in 2013. That does not mean that those contracts become unmanageable. However, the expression "designated bed" has been removed from the legal framework but still resides within the contract. There is no mechanism to allow the HSE to determine if consultants have billed and been paid for all patients recorded as private on hospital systems. None of the consultant contracts makes provision for the monitoring of off-site practice and private patient income accounts for 12% of total acute hospital funding.

I will take the issue of the potential displacement of public work as read. There is a lot of content on this topic. In our submission we have flagged some of the factors that are more generally pushing the hospital system. These include the growth in emergency attendances; an increase in attendances by the over-75 age cohort; bed-days lost to delayed discharges, typically accounting for around 550 beds; beds closed due to staff shortages; and consultant manpower shortages. By comparison with OECD, Health at a Glance comparators, and other analysis, we would need at least another 2,000 consultants to reach a middle level across OECD comparators. One of the core issues facing our system is that we do not have enough consultants in certain key specialties.

I welcome our delegates. I assume they have all seen the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. The first question that must be asked is this whether the delegates surprised when they saw the programme or whether they were shocked, or both? Did they have any inkling that this type of activity and practice was being carried out? The witnesses have referred to the fact that it was limited. However, what "RTÉ Investigates" would suggest that it is not as limited as we are trying to suggest here. There may be reasons our delegates suggest differently.

In the context of the perverse incentives that are now in the public health system, and the funding of same, we have been talking about the issue of stretched targets for a very long time. Mr. Woods stated that the decision by way of legislation to effectively de-designate private beds - 2013 legislation - was aimed at optimising private income and supporting the delivery of accelerated income targets. That change came about primarily because of the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendations. In doing that, do the delegates agree there is now a perversion at the heart of the funding of public hospital systems? In other words, there is an incentive for public hospitals to put private patients in beds ahead of public patients. That filters down to the involvement of consultants. Due to this perversion at the heart of the system, it is very difficult for hospital managers, and those managing budgets, to confront consultants who are pushing private patients through the public hospital system.

Everybody working in the system tells me that there are no stretched targets in it. Everybody around this committee table looks at the accounts and knows that at the heart of it there is an incentive to facilitate private patients ahead of public patients. If somebody here can tell me I am wrong, I call on them to do so and to explain why I am wrong. I believe this is at the heart of the difficulty. It puts clinical directors and hospital managers in a very invidious position because consultants are involved in this as well and are facilitating the increased stretched budgets available to public hospitals. I would like to hear the delegates' comments on that issue.

From what I can gather, the HSE pays an extra €46,000 extra to a clinical director. They are obviously the ones charged with the responsibility of making sure these contracts are upheld. Has a case ever been brought to the attention of a hospital manager, a clinical director, the HSE or the Department of Health in which there was a breach of contract? Has anybody ever picked up a phone and reported that a consultant was only working 13 hours a week, as was reported in one case? A young person in a carpark with a clipboard and a stopwatch was able to identify it, but our amazing systems could not. Why is that the case, in view of Ms Cody's claim that this issue on the agenda? Ms Cody stated that the director general of the HSE issued clear instructions to relevant health sector management in October 2012. I have also been advised that it has been on the agenda of almost every meeting. Has it ever been raised to the point where a consultant, clinical director or hospital manager was called to account? Is there now a situation where the HSE and the Department of Health are utterly compromised when it comes to dealing with consultant contracts? There are a number of reasons, which I have outlined, including stretched budgets, which are now endemic in the heath system, for funding of public hospitals and the fact there was a court case which could potentially place a liability of €300 million on the State over changes in contracts and working conditions for consultants over the years, the court cases flowing from that and the fact they were vindicated. Is there a cosiness developing between the HSE, the Department of Health and consultants to delay the payment of that €300 million and turn a blind eye to other issues that at the very least are unethical, immoral and potentially illegal? I would like to hear the delegates' comments on that issue.

I apologise in advance as I need to attend a quick meeting. I will ask my questions but will check the answers and correspond. I hope I will be back before this meeting is finished.

I refer to the issue of stretched income targets. I believe Ms Cowan first alerted us to them some time ago. Reference was made to the difficulties they cause, and we attempted at that committee hearing to try to tease the issue out. It strikes me that they are still causing difficulties, despite the HSE's insistence that it is otherwise. What we saw on "RTÉ Investigates" was once again - RTÉ one; HSE nil. That is how these things work. What we saw involved a very small number of consultants. By not dealing with this, we do a grave disservice to all the consultants who work over and above their contracted hours.

I have had the honour and privilege of representing people who are not consultants and who see an upstairs-downstairs attitude in the HSE quite a lot of the time. I have seen people hauled over the coals for infringements of their contracts that are minuscule in comparison with what we saw on the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. Will the delegates address what appears to be a culture of deference in which some people are untouchable? They might also take this opportunity to talk about the consultants who are fulfilling their contracted hours and more.

In Ms Cody's statement she says the Department will shortly be engaging with the HSE in response to some broader issues the HSE has raised concerning oversight of the contract including the impact of the Health (Amendment) Act and the need for hospitals to collect private patient income. Perhaps the HSE can come in on this, as well as Ms Cody. When were those concerns raised? In what format were they raised? Who raised them and when were they discussed? I sincerely hope they were not raised immediately following the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. If they were raised before that and have been on the agenda, will Ms Cody outline what exactly is being done to ensure those issues are addressed? I am sure she will be happy to share that with us.

Mr. Woods has said the HSE does not co-ordinate data nationally and that some consultants work across hospitals. Obviously he knows they work across hospitals. I understood the purpose of the establishment of the hospital groups was to streamline some of this. Has anything actually been streamlined? I strongly suspect it has not but perhaps it has. Are there plans to streamline in that way because, having represented people who work in the health service, most of them can account for every minute they work and they do so because it is the requirement? Yet, there seems to be a small number of people who do not do this. As Deputy Billy Kelleher pointed out, a young fellow with a clipboard and a clicker was able to monitor the comings and goings of the staff. Does Mr. Woods accept what we saw in the "RTÉ Investigates" report as a factual account of what is happening in some instances? Is he prepared to hold his hands up to this and will he take any steps? If it was a porter in a hospital who had been found not to be working his or her contracted hours, I imagine the HSE would pursue him or her quite vigorously. Will Mr. Woods outline the plans to recoup that money which people have been given for work they did not do?

I apologise that I have to go, but I will be back.

Will Mr. Woods start with some of those questions?

Mr. Liam Woods

I will answer the earlier questions first. I saw the "RTÉ Investigates" show and we would be concerned about any of those allegations being substantive. We are aware of the waiting lists in the public health system. Both speakers raised the issue of stretch income and perverse incentives. The origin of this dialogue was in the Sláintecare committee. I will say broadly what is happening. The HSE is funded annually with an income target for the acute system of €938 million. Of that, €620 million is for what one would think of as private charging in public hospitals or charging of patients who choose to be private in a public hospital. That is €620 million that the hospital system collectively is seeking to charge and collect on an annual basis. The stretch income issue that was referred to in previous committee discussions was that the target was proving difficult to achieve. The point being raised by Deputy Kelleher was whether it is giving rise to a skewed or perverse incentive within the system. What I would say to that in the context of the current year and just dealing with the facts is that the HSE will be short in its income collection by about €90 million in the current year. Neither the HSE centrally, nor the director and I, seek to source private patients to try to grow that, which was a concern of Sláintecare. It does not seek for public hospitals to take measures to manage cost because there is a shortfall in income. There is a wider point in what the Deputy is saying. If we look at the source of private income in public hospitals, 79% of the private income arising in public hospitals is from patients coming through the emergency department or maternity services for which there is no queue. The balance results from inpatient elective work. It is important that we examine that closely and understand the trends in that. The macro position is that nearly 80% of the total private work done in the public system comes through the emergency department or maternity hospitals. There are wider policy issues that are not really for the HSE to comment on in terms of the tensions between the perversities to which the Deputy referred. What I can say is there is an income target. It is a difficult target to achieve. There is a series of campaigns by insurance organisations in the health sector to, in effect, minimise claims payments of the public system. From my point of view in terms of public patients being treated, that is not at present impacting on the financial position of the hospital groups or hospitals in such a way as to give concern to the public provision. There are wider issues around the linking of that with some of the points Deputy Billy Kelleher made. They are more in the policy domain. That was the issue of stretch targets. My colleague, Ms Colette Cowan, may wish to say more about that from a hospital group perspective in a few moments if I go through the other questions.

There are stretch targets and they are in place within the system. They were known to be €44 million in the current year but the reality is they will be more like €90 million because of the way the finances are working out in the current year.

That €90 million has to be made up.

Mr. Liam Woods

Yes, in previous years-----

It was €44 million but now they have to find another €46 million.

Mr. Liam Woods

Yes, in previous years-----

How do they find that?

Mr. Liam Woods

It has been an issue in previous years and the way it is addressed is either by resource elsewhere within the HSE or by Supplementary Estimates by the Oireachtas. That has been the history. If one goes back over the past three or four years, when such an issue has existed, that has been the way it has been made up.

Is it the case that they should be looking for this from private income but where they do not get it that is met by Supplementary Estimates?

Mr. Liam Woods

The public system receives most of its private income through its emergency department. All patients are public until they declare themselves otherwise. It is a matter for each individual to determine whether he or she wishes to use insurance or not when he or she attends a public hospital. That is a choice. Since the 2013 amendments to the legislation, the hospitals can bill privately for all beds that patients are treated in. Prior to that it was only for beds that were designated and there was a process under the 1991 Health (Amendment) Act for that. In reality, the hospital is not in significant control of the income it receives. It is based on an election under the Health Act 1970 by an individual citizen, not the hospital. It is not a pressure on the hospital at the front door. Perhaps it might be useful to ask Ms Cowan to say one or two things about that from the hospital perspective.

Ms Colette Cowan

The income target for the UL Hospitals Group is €70 million and the stretch target is €7 million which I have to attempt to achieve over the financial year. With reference to the emergency department, I will give an example in orthopaedics because that is what was shown on "RTÉ Investigates" in Croom Hospital; 40% of the patients who come through the only emergency department in the mid-west region are private patients who attend with orthopaedic trauma and are treated on site. That skews the data when we are looking at the public-private mix and equally around our income generation. That happens every day throughout the system. Annually, 65,000 patients attend the emergency department and they may opt in or opt out of being public or private patients at the time of admission.

Mr. Liam Woods

To the extent required, the HSE will provide information for the group the Department has put in place to look at the issue of charging private income in public facilities.

That is more in the policy domain and the Sláintecare report makes recommendations in that regard. To the extent that we have data and can be of assistance, we are already doing it; that is our job. The committee's core concern about the stretched targets is whether they are impacting on public patient service provision in the here and now, the answer to which question, in my experience is, no. There are wider questions which are addressed in the Sláintecare report and which will be addressed in the actions being taken by the Minister and the Department of Health in that regard. To answer the Deputy's question, there are stretched targets which are not being achieved, but we are not reducing the level of service to public patients because of it. We are conscious that all patients will be public until they choose not to be so, something that happens within the hospital space that the hospital does not control.

Mr. Woods is speaking about people being admitted through emergency departments. There are many other ways through which patients enter hospitals. Is there incentivisation in that regard? Consultant X who has two patients, one private and the other public, in a hospital that needs funds could opt to treat the private patient ahead of the public patient because the hospital would be paid €800 per night by an insurance provider on behalf of that patient. My question is not only about those who enter hospital through emergency departments but also those patients who do so through consultants, outpatient referrals and so on.

Mr. Liam Woods

For the 20% of patients who do not enter hospitals through emergency departments and are not maternity patients - I am speaking in that regard about inpatient elective work - some of the work relates to national specialties. There is a single queue process within the entire system. The cohort mentioned by the Deputy accounts for 20% of total activity, the limit allowed within the contract. If one looks across the system, it is spread by hospital in small quantums across the full service. As far as I am aware, there is no question of an individual hospital seeking to attract more elective patients to derive income. The key challenge when it comes to elective surgery is presented by access to theatres, theatre nursing staffing levels and the volume of surgeons. Taking orthopaedics as an example, up until recently there were five orthopaedic surgeons - there are now four - delivering the service in the Limerick area which has a population of 380,000. The new norm in the United Kingdom is an orthopaedic surgeon per 15,000 of the population. The key challenge is ensuring volume. What is controlling the volume of elective work is the increasing number of patients in clinical need coming through emergency departments who need to access to a public hospital bed space. My response to the Deputy's question about whether potential funding or the payment arrangements for hospitals are skewed is that it is not visible in the data. Also, hospitals do not actively seek to do it. Fundamentally, the main concern which I am sure will be reiterated by the representative associations is access to theatre time for surgeons and to bed stock for physicians. That is the critical ingredient for us. The points made in the Sláintecare report about the need for investment in primary community care services are pivotal in having a flowing hospital system. That is the biggest constraint. I can assure the committee that the 20% of patients who do not come through emergency departments and are not maternity patients are widely distributed and that there is no sense that patients are being actively sought by hospitals in any way that is different from clinical prioritisation.

On whether there has ever been a breach of contract and consultants have been challenged in that regard, the answer is yes. Obviously, this is a matter for the employer and the employee, but there have been such breaches. By way of example, members may have heard on radio the day after the "Prime Time" programme was shown a consultant from the Mater hospital talking about the normal process there. It includes the receipt of a monthly report, on which there is dialogue. If there is a significant variance, there is discussion about it. There have been such instances.

On whether we are compromised by the court case, factors such as the court case and bed designations do not negate the potential and requirement for the HSE to manage the consultant contract like any other employment contract. It is our duty - it is also the duty of voluntary hospitals - to manage the contract as written and signed and that is what we are doing. There is no sense of contract management being compromised at a local level because of some of these are national issues. Is there a cosy relationship? I suspect there is not.

For the record, I asked questions as opposed to making statements.

Mr. Liam Woods

I know. The answer to the Deputy's question is not to my knowledge.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked about stretched targets, an issue we have discussed. There was also a reference to the general culture and there being an "Upstairs, Downstairs" culture. That is not my impression based on my interactions with consultants. By and large, as referenced by the Deputy, taking into account on-call duties, as well as the basic 39 hours, the majority of consultants are working a lot more hours than they have been contracted for. There are arrangements in place covering on-call duties. I spoke recently to a cardiologist who spent a significant amount of time in the cath lab doing international work in addition to her basic hours. It is not unusual for that to be the case.

On the point about national data, for admitting consultants, there are data available for patient administration systems. The information is classified as between public and private patients at the point of admission. This system is in place in every hospital. Above it, as referenced in section 20 of the consultant's contract, there is the hospital inpatient enquiry system which provides for a clinical classification of work. It is basically the same information from the patient administration system summarised nationally. The data are visible locally and nationally, as is the case in the patient administration system. Neither of the systems was specifically designed to be a contract management system. Therefore, for non-admitting consultants, it does not tell us anything about their practice. For example, for anaesthetists, radiologists and laboratory personnel, the contract requires separate processes to be in place locally using local systems. For contract holders, of whom there are 364, there is a requirement to look at bed designations in hospitals, pre-dating the 2013 Act, in terms of their use as a proxy for a volume of allowable private work. There are data within each hospital that show the volume of work that is public and that is private. As I said, the HSE does not know what a consultant receives by way of income from health insurers. There is no basis for it to know that information, but we do know what the volumes of work are. The Deputy's question about whether there is potential to streamline some of the data is interesting.

On the hospital inpatient enquiry system, HIPE, the contract requires us to look at complexity, as well as case volume, such that if a consultant is engaged in a highly intense case which may have a complexity rating of five but a volume rating of one, that is what we have to count in the contract. It requires us to do what is already happening, the coding of all cases in accordance with the ICD-10 coding system. That system is perhaps one at which we could look as a further enhancement to provide information at a group and hospital level and nationally.

Deputy Billy Kelleher asked about the functions of clinical directors. He asked what they monitored and why they were not picking up on breaches of contract.

Mr. Liam Woods

The Deputy correctly mentioned the monetary amount of €46,000. The role of clinical directors, as per the contract, includes oversight of this area, but it is wider than that. My colleague, Ms Cowan, will elaborate further on the matter. Clinical directors are engaged in a review of public private practice. At a hospital management level, as referenced by the Deputy, and at group and national level we ensure they are supported and enabled to do this. There is no question that the role of clinical director as set out in the 2008 contract needs to be supported more. There was a reference in the early stages to having business managers and other support staff around them, something which did not arise in the period of austerity. There is a piece of work being done with the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland on how we can deliver more effectively in that role.

That will include this piece and other parts of its work. I will ask Ms Cowan to speak on it briefly because each group would have a clinical director and there are clinical directors within hospitals.

Ms Colette Cowan

In UL Hospitals Group, we have a chief clinical director and four clinical directors working as part of my executive team. The clinical directors review the hospital in-patient enquiry, HIPE, data every month and meet every Tuesday morning at 7.30 a.m. to review a number of performance items on my behalf and report to me at performance meetings. We have seen skewed data at times. We have met consultants one to one about matters relating to the public-private mix across the hospital group and we are unique in the sense that we have clinical directors managing six hospitals within the hospital group setting. We do not have a private hospital and we do not have co-location; therefore, it is quite seamless and we know where doctors are working. We do not have to be concerned about people being off-site or working for 13 hours a week. The clinical directors look at the HIPE data. They meet individuals but there is a balancing act for us as an executive team. If we enforce the rules too tightly, people will leave the service and leave us with a situation where our service disimproves because a person has resigned or left the system. I mentioned Croom Hospital earlier. We have five orthopaedic consultants in the region, serving 380,000 patients. They do not just work in Croom elective hospital. They provide a five-day fracture clinic for me at a UL Hospitals, ULH, site, and 100 patients a day could attend those clinics. They also provide a seven-day trauma service. These people work for extensive hours across the sites and when the public-private mix changes or moves, those people are met and spoken to. I assure the public service and my colleagues in the Oireachtas and at this committee that we have a process in place.

Ms Cowan references an important point. If one looks at the recruitment of consultants, we cannot fill posts. There is a market. If a person's skill is urgently required and there is a scarce pool of that skill, then that person has an advantage over the HSE or the system since that person is required and can put on pressure by not complying with contracts because he or she knows that nobody else can do the job. Is that possible? Does that happen?

Ms Colette Cowan

I do not think it happens. We work closely with the consultant body and they are anxious that we improve the number of consultants providing a service because they are overwhelmed with the workload. They see over 50 patients in their clinics in orthopaedics and ophthalmology alone. They are overwhelmed by referrals, both public and private, into UL Hospitals Group and they have to manage that. We have a common waiting list. People are put on the list chronologically and that is observed and monitored on a monthly basis. We report to Mr. Liam Woods on it.

There is an opportunity to look at contracts to attract good consultants to work in this country. Of my five orthopaedic consultants, two are on the Buckley contract, which does not compel them to have a certain public-private ratio. We dedesignated the beds in Croom Hospital under the Health (Amendment) Act 2013 which, in effect, created a gap for us around monitoring the public-private mix. We put a performance metric on it to ensure that we stayed around 35%, to ensure that the beds would not be overused for private patients but those consultants are within the contract. I have failed them under the 2008 contract because I did not provide co-location. We do not have that co-located hospital that other centres may have in Dublin. We are unique in the region but I am assured that my consultants work across the six sites. I know where they are and that many of them work over and above requirements. When the Deputy mentioned "Prime Time" and asked if we saw it and knew about it, we were well aware that this would air. We had answered freedom of information, FOI, inquiries for weeks. The result of that investigation, while it is important that the public is aware and assured, was great distress to my 139 consultants who work in UL Hospitals Group, whom we met to try to reassure that it was a small cohort of people that we had to manage. Our consultants provide excellent care over and above their contracts.

Mr. Liam Woods

On recruiting and retaining consultants, a small train of consultants leaves the public system to work entirely in the private system which I think the Deputy was also referring to. We continue to attract consultants within the acute system, which is the majority, including 2,700 of approximately 3,200 consultants in the whole system. We have approximately 60 more this year but it has become more challenging. What we are fundamentally after when we take on highly specialised clinicians normally returning from overseas is for them to have access to the facilities they need to do the work they can do. If we bring in interventional radiologists and neuroradiologists, we need to have spaces for them to operate in. That is challenging. We will need to invest in capital to support the growth in that service, which is in demand. There has been a small but not insignificant trend of movement from the public system to being entirely in the private system and outside the public environment. I met some young, recently appointed consultants to assess their view of operating in the system as they have experienced it over the last two or three years. It would be fair to reflect that their main frustration is access to beds and facilities. Sadly, one of those then moved to the private system. There is a challenge for us. The Sláintecare agenda will be very supportive in addressing that because it will free up the flow and allow better use of the current space and hopefully additional space in time.

I thank Mr. Woods. I have a few comments. As I am from the same part of the country as Ms Cowan, I understand the difficulties involved in the mid-west. Most consultants that I am aware of work extremely hard. They work in excess of their hours, as Ms Cowan has said, and give service way over their contract requirements. The issue raised on the programme is that there is a cohort of consultants who do not fulfil their contracts. I know there is deep frustration among consultants who work hard that this is the case. If we come back to the programme, I think the frustration among the public is that one has to wait an inordinate length of time to get into the system. One's outpatient appointment may be six, 12 or 18 months away before one's need is assessed. Once one's need is assessed, one would hope that the treatment is based on need. Many patients feel that if they go privately to see a consultant, they will skip that initial six, 12 or 18-month delay and will have their need assessed by a consultant. They may then be admitted to a hospital in a public bed but will pay the consultant privately or they may come in through the public system and be a completely public patient. That queue-jumping is a frustration people have. There is a fast track. If one goes privately, one may then be treated more quickly as a public patient or maybe as a private patient. I have come across places where people have come into an emergency department, said they wish to be a public patient and yet end up being treated as a private patient because they have inadvertently signed a form when they did not have full knowledge of what they were signing for. They then realise that the insurance company has been billed a substantial amount for what they thought was public care.

The frustration is that the public-private mix is not working. As Mr. Woods and Ms Cody have referred to, the Sláintecare report attempts to untangle private care in public hospitals. There is a difficulty if that drives some of our consultants out of the public system and out of the country because their income will be limited if they are purely public consultants. The delegates might address and keep in mind some of those issues. I call Deputy Margaret Murphy O'Mahony who will be followed by Deputy Bernard J. Durkan.

I welcome the delegates. On the RTÉ programme, which is why the delegates are here and why the matter was highlighted, why do they think it took an RTÉ programme to bring this to a head? Surely someone must have known that this was happening? What is the delegates' opinion on that issue?

The terms of the contract are in place. Consultants have a time in their contracts which they should adhere to. Someone is obviously overseeing this. There are consultants not adhering to their contracts and the body overseeing that is not making sure that consultants adhere to their contracts. Many are at fault.

Ms Cody indicated the Minister has said there must be more robust measures but what has been done since it was highlighted on the RTÉ programme? What will be done and why does this happen at all? It was mentioned earlier that consultants were not taking up positions and that this led to temporary contracts. Are the individuals who take up temporary contracts as qualified or as into their jobs as full-time consultants? Is there a potential conflict between the operation of the National Treatment Purchase Fund and the consultants' public contract? Is there undue deference shown by administration officials towards consultants that may not be there towards other employees?

I am aghast that something of this magnitude was taking place under the radar of the supervision of a number of people. I do not know how it could have taken place. At this committee we have raised on numerous occasions the snags that interrupt the free flow of patients through the public hospital system and nobody ever seems to be able to tell us the answers clearly.

My first question is to what extent was it visible that there was a delay. Was a cause given for that delay in respect of public patients going through the hospitals concerned? If this was not visible, what is the reason? What was the role of the clinical directors? Were they on the site or did they occasionally come on the site? I know reference has been made to the fact they have several responsibilities. However, there must be some means of ensuring responsibilities in a particular hospital were of a nature that would clearly identify any issues that needed to be dealt with, given that public moneys are involved. As the Chairman knows, I have mentioned before that if we had regional authorities on-site, it would eliminate much of this and there would be local senior administration, which in turn would have to account for any snags in the system.

Was this matter brought to the attention of anybody in management before the RTÉ programme was broadcast? Could we know if it was? If it was not brought to the attention of management, what was the reason? Surely there must be some supervisory system within the structures of the Health Service Executive, HSE, particularly at a time when we had shortfalls and over-runs of expenditure in a number years. We were particularly stressed by the extent to which waiting lists and overcrowding took place. Did any of that set off alarm bells in any quarter? Was an audit ever done? We mentioned this before and Deputy Billy Kelleher correctly indicated that any teenager with a clipboard could figure out what was going wrong in a very short and simple time. We have asked the question again and again and nobody seems to be able to identify precisely what the problems are in the process. For example, if somebody is off-site for most of the week and spends one day in the public hospital, what would be the deficit in terms of availability for public health services? What would happen and would anybody ask questions as to where the person might be? Have the financial controllers a role in this area as well and do they accept reports? Has anybody made a report, even before the RTÉ programme? What was done on foot of any such report? Was it brought to the attention of authorities in different hospitals?

I am not blaming anybody but the job of this committee is to find out the facts. It was very embarrassing to find that it took RTÉ - fair dues to it and those involved did the job - to get to the bottom of some of the questions we were asking and to which we could not get answers. It raises a very serious question as to the degree to which we can effectively carry out the job we are trying to do. The people in hospitals are also trying to do a job. It is very important with respect to the morale of staff who give their time fully and freely in committing to the public sector. It is very off-putting for them to find out that a large proportion of people in some areas are off-site, doing other work, but at the same time they are on-site doing private work.

I have one or two other questions. Do the clinical directors practise? Have they a conflict of interest by virtue of the fact that they do practice? Do they manage practice in such a way as to give themselves an advantage while disadvantaging patients and the public health system? Have excuses or reasons been put forward as to why they should be off-site when they are supposed to be on-site in public hospitals? I have a number of other questions and I can come back with them if it is possible. I can ask them now if the Chairman so wishes.

We will leave it at that for the moment. we can allow the Deputy back in later.

Mr. Liam Woods

I will begin with the questions relevant to the HSE. The Chairman raised questions about outpatient services and points about eligibility. It is correct to say the waiting times in many specialties to access outpatient consultations are too long. There is work ongoing in the acute division of the HSE to create new models of care to accelerate the rate of outpatient referral and do more work with GPs and other services in the community under revised models of care; that would provide more care in the community. We can consider individual specialties like urology and we know 35% of patients coming in need to see a urologist but the balance could be managed in some other way. We must move to those new ways of doing care. The Chairman's query about eligibility is more a legal policy question. The Chairman asked if it is feasible to see a consultant privately and come into a public list. When a patient arrives in hospital, he or she can choose whether to be public or private, and that is not a choice we make. The Chairman clearly understands that. That is not within the control of the HSE or the clinician. The Chairman was referring to a policy issue.

The Chairman also asked about a patient presenting as a public patient in the accident and emergency department but finding subsequently that a billing took place, with an insurance company paying the bill on the person's behalf. That should not happen without prior consent and the patient would, in effect, have to waive entitlements under the 1970 Act to be public. If that did or is happening, it is not appropriate. It is our role to ensure that is reviewed and does not happen.

Sometimes the patient declines to become a private patient or invoke private insurance. When the patient is admitted and has to sign a form before going upstairs to a ward, he or she might not be informed of what is being signed. Without informed consent the patient may have inadvertently signed a form that was previously declined.

Mr. Liam Woods

That is a critical point and informed consent is vital. The patient must knowingly declare that he or she wishes to negate the public entitlement. That is required in law and we are very clear about that. If anything else is happening, that is a concern. It is something we looked at before and a concern was raised with us by the Department of Health some years ago that there should be no undue pressure put on patients in public hospitals to declare themselves private because they have insurance. We do not want that and we do not seek it. It is something we must keep on top of.

Deputy Margaret Murphy O'Mahony asked why it took an RTÉ programme to bring this matter to a head. The HSE is well aware of the problem of long waiting times. We worked with RTÉ for up to two years on the provision of information and we are very aware of the kind of information being made available to the programme. The Deputy's underlying point regards the awareness that a significant number of people are waiting longer than we would like for procedures.

We are aware of it. The NTPF data which come from the HSE systems and are published monthly show that is the case. Our response in the current year and as we move into 2018 is to seek to grow further. I will come to the Deputy's point about the NTPF, but the specialties of ophthalmology and orthopaedics were referenced. They are two of four or five specialties in which there is a significant number of patients who have been waiting a long time. We will seek to grow capacity in these specialties in 2018. To support this work, we are considering some specific proposals in the mid-west. For example, in Nenagh proposals have been put forward regarding cataract procedures, as others were elsewhere in the country which we are considering. Our response is to seek to provide the service, as well as an additional service because it is the true constriction.

As regards the robust measures mentioned by Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, I get the sense that members believe, as I do, that consultants who are outliers in terms of contract compliance need to be actively managed under the contract to be brought back into line with ratios that are appropriate at a local level and that the processes at hospital level, with the clinical director and hospital management, therefore need to be robust enough to know that we are dealing with the outliers. The point was made by Deputy Louise O'Reilly and those involved in the programme at the start that the vast majority of consultants complied with and potentially exceeded their contractual obligations. Therefore, there is a strong duty on us to ensure that where there is non-compliance, it is reviewed and amended and that there will be processes in place to achieve this. I assure the committee that we are fully aware of our duties in that regard.

As regards temporary contract locum posts, it is the clear preference of hospitals and hospital groups to have permanently appointed consultants. The key point in terms of the temporary posts, an issue that has previously been discussed at the committee, concerns post holders on the specialist register whom we are not developing such that they will be declared competent to work in the specialty in which they are operating. We are working to review consultants in posts but not on the register. That is a matter we have addressed here previously and on which we would happily bring back further information. It is not unique to the acute system.

Deputy Margaret Murphy-O'Mahony asked whether there was a conflict between NTPF funding and consultants' public contract. If I understand the question correctly, it concerns whether work we contract or which the NTPF buys in another environment for patients in public hospitals who have been waiting a long time is at odds with the consultants' public contract. The NTPF has a rule that when it contracts care in a private facility, it does not contract with the consultant on whose list the patient has been waiting. The NTPF's role relates directly to private hospitals in the country. Where feasible, we have worked with it to do additional work within the public system this year and that is within the current incentive set. We are providing more support and capacity to allow additional work to be done. The work the NTPF contracts directly is done in private hospitals. It tenders and contracts for that work as a separate organisation and does not------

It is entirely separate.

Mr. Liam Woods

It is separate from the HSE, but we work jointly with the NTPF because the identification and movement of patients are matters for hospitals and clinicians locally, as is the safe return of patients, where relevant. In contractual terms, procedures are not carried out by the same doctors on whose lists the patients have been waiting.

Mr. Liam Woods

The issue of undue deference has been raised several times. In my experience, by and large, it is historical. Consultants and their representative associations would give the committee a better sense of it, but I do not experience it in fulfilling my duties. There has been a very significant change from the time when potentially there was a culture of greater deference being shown. The committee may need to talk to some consultants to understand the true nature of that relationship, but that is-----

Who monitors the fulfilment of consultants' contracts?

Mr. Liam Woods

I was coming to the Deputy's questions, the first of which was about extent to which a delay was visible and the role of a clinical director. There are data on a monthly basis which are published on the NTPF'swebsite which detail the numbers of patients waiting for inpatient, day case and outpatient appointments in each specialty. The data come from the HSE hospital system and are clearly visible as to the level-----

I apologise for interrupting, but what type of data is visible? If there is a long waiting list for two types of treatment such as ophthalmic and orthopaedic procedures, is it not possible to inquire why patients are waiting and where the responsible consultants are and who employs them? Are the waiting lists sufficient cause to say this is a serious matter and that something needs to be done about it, particularly if we are referring patients from the waiting lists to treatment purchase schemes?

Mr. Liam Woods

In responding to the question I was addressing I said there were data. The Deputy's second question which he had asked previously was if we had data, what was happening with them. The main intervention we have made in the current year in the system, of which the NTPF forms part, is that we have invested additional resources to try to provide more services and reduce the total waiting time.

Another point raised by the Deputy was about clinical directors and whether consultants were on site to work when possible-----

Mr. Liam Woods

-----and there were people on long waiting lists. To answer the Deputy's point about the line of accountability in that regard, it comes under the supervision of clinical directors and local hospital managers.

The Deputy asked whether clinical directors practised. Broadly, they tend to be engaged in clinical practice. Do they give themselves an advantage? As far as I am aware, hat is not the case. They tend to engage in very extensive dialogue with their clinical colleagues.

I hate to interrupt again, but back in the days when a visiting committee from the old health boards descended on a hospital, skin and hair flew if there was somebody missing. Is that not true?

Mr. Liam Woods

I do not know if I-----

Mr. Woods does not remember that far back, but it is not too long ago.

Mr. Liam Woods

I do not think I am old enough to remember.

I assure Mr. Woods that it was not too long ago. There is a serious gap in the system if we have not been able to add a supervisory role for somebody at local or regional level. It is clearly missing and there is a serious disadvantage from the point of view of the taxpayer and the volume of patients who are waiting for treatment.

Mr. Liam Woods

Independent of the health board's observations, the relevant question is not whether the supervisory arrangement is in place; it is and is named in the contract as such. The Deputy is also asking whether it is working.

Mr. Liam Woods

The challenge for us - it is very reasonable and has been addressed in the Department's statement - is to say how we are seeking to ensure it is working and, if it is not, what are we doing about it.

The Deputy asked whether we undertook audits. Audits are undertaken by the HSE. On waiting lists, the NTPF undertakes audits of completed------

Surely, those who carry out the audits must have all of the information at their fingertips or on a screen in front of them. When it appears on the screen in front of them, what do they do? Do they say today is a bad day, that they should export more patients to the National Treatment Purchase Fund or that they should find out where are all of the people who are on contracts?

Mr. Liam Woods

There are two issues at play in that regard. There is a clear issue of capacity which can sometimes also arise within the private system which is not necessarily always in a position to respond. The capacity issue from our point of view is growing the service available and making sure that where-----

Mr. Liam Woods

It relates to treatment locations and may involve the provision of beds, suites for service or day facilities. The main shift in service has been a move from stay care to day care. There are now over 800,000 day care cases and 640,000 inpatient cases. A big shift is taking place which Sláintecare has assessed. It very recently concluded that there was a need for more capacity and also for care to be provided more outside hospitals.

To answer the Deputy's other question, when we carry out audits and there are recommendations, they are taken on board and implemented by local management and clinical directors. The two issues we are discussing simultaneously are increased capacity and ensuring compliance. Deputy Louise O'Reilly put it well when she said one could think of it as time in attendance such that consultants were in the space in which we needed them to be in accordance with their contract------

When did it first become obvious that consultants were not fulfilling their contracts?

Mr. Liam Woods

The monitoring arrangements for contracts has been in place since 2008.

There were arrangements in place prior to that date. The 1991 Act includes a requirement to manage bed designations, which is an ongoing process. The contract references a three-month window of compliance and a six-month period of adjustment. There could be a situation where outlier consultants return to the normal public-private ratio. We are speaking about 2,700 individuals practising across multiple sites.

We have spoken about clinical directors and hospital management. Perhaps Mr. Woods might elaborate on the monitoring process and whether legislation is required to copperfasten monitoring and an expectation that people will deliver what they have been contracted to do.

Mr. Liam Woods

No. The matters to be the subject of dialogue with the committee in terms of legislation relate to eligibility, charges and policy which are being deliberated on separately. Section 20 of the existing contract clarifies the information that is to be used to monitor compliance with contracts. For admitting consultants, this is about the hospital inpatient enquiry, HIPE, data set, to which I referred, in other words, the activity in which they are engaged and the percentage that is public or private.

Are they engaged in monitoring clinical directors or are they subservient to clinical directors or vice versa?

Mr. Liam Woods

To continue my response to the Chairman's question, for admitting consultants, the HIPE data set is at the core of the monitoring arrangements. There is reference in the contact to the need to use local systems for non-admitting consultants. To respond to Deputy Bernard J. Durkan's question, clinical directors are practising consultants.

Therefore, consultants are monitoring themselves.

Mr. Liam Woods

They are, but they are also overseen by their local hospital manager. It would be wrong to give the impression that clinical directors are in some way outliers when it comes to the level of public-private practice. That is not the case.

It is a source of frustration for the committee and the public that the current system is putting public patients at a disadvantage. The core of the issue is that public patients appear to be losing out in the private-public mix in the hospital service. It does not happen in general practice, but it does happen in the hospital service. People are being denied a service because they are public patients and they are being placed at a disadvantaged because they are public patients, while private patients are at an advantage because they have private health insurance. Public and private patients have the same needs, but those who have private health insurance have an advantage.

For monitoring to work there must be continuity within the management system. In my experience, the management system in the HSE is akin to a revolving door. I have spoken previously about a particular hospital in which there have been ten managers over a period of 18 years. When a manager becomes aware of a practice that is not appropriate and he or she moves to another job, it becomes the job of the new manager to take over the process. Do we have continuity in monitoring in HSE hospitals? In my experience, we have a revolving door in terms of responsibility in hospital administration in monitoring because staff are continually moving to other jobs. Has an analysis been undertaken of the average length of time spent at senior management level in HSE administration? The huge turnover of senior management staff in HSE hospitals is an issue that has not been looked at. As a result, other issues are falling through the cracks.

My second question is for the departmental officials. I am open to correction, but as I understand it, under the previous category B contract, consultants were required to work 11 three-hour sessions but under the current contract, they are required to work 39 hours and that where there are three or four consultants assigned to a particular department, each will be on-call on a one-in-three or one-in-four basis. In an area such as dermatology it is unlikely that a consultant would be called in as often as a consultant in the areas of cardiac, orthopaedic or maternity care. Perhaps the officials might provide data for the levels of on-call activity of consultants outside the 39-hour contract. We have a problem in recruiting consultants, particularly in small hospitals, because they are required to work 39 hours and be on-call on a one-in-three or one-in-four basis, including at weekends.

On admissions through emergency departments, I have heard consultants say their names have been recorded on the charts of private patients on admittance through the emergency department, even though they have never seen the patients. What is the policy in that regard? As I said, I have heard consultants say they do not know when a patient is admitted as a private patient and that it is often done in order that the hospital can charge private fees for a hospital bed. What are the rules in that regard? Is it the case that emergency departments automatically admit people as private patients? I have come across cases of people who have been admitted to a ward as the private patient of a consultant without that consultant having been made so aware. It is not that the consultants are claiming for the treatment of these patients but rather the hospitals claiming fees for the use of the hospital beds.

My final question is related to the many challenges we face in the health care sector. What percentage of elective surgery work is done in the private sector, on which we are so reliant because of the lack of access to the public sector? As mentioned by Mr. Woods, consultants who are looking for jobs want access to beds for patients, access to theatres and sufficient support staff. For example, a hospital might have ample theatre space and support staff but be unable to improve on the level of operation throughput because of the lack of intensive care beds. This is one area in which we face challenges. We are also experiencing problems in recruiting because consultants are choosing to work in facilities in which there is greater backup support and thus the opportunity to do more work.

They are some of the issues I have heard being raised by medical practitioners.

This has come back to me through general practitioners, GPs, too.

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I saw most of it before I came in. Having watched the "Prime Time" programme, I think we are all shocked and disappointed but not really surprised. Two groups of people stood out for me. Those were people who did not have private medical insurance who knew they would be waiting longer and there were reasons that they would be waiting for longer. I assume it caused much more stress to that group of people. The second group of people who stood out to me were those consultants who actually work in the hospitals and who do a great job. I have been treated by consultants in University Hospital Limerick myself. I believe they fill in the gaps in some areas where other consultants are not available. I was particularly concerned that Croom Hospital was mentioned and that some 53% of patients were being treated through the private system. The programme referred to one particular patient, Mary Comber, from Limerick. That lady was on the waiting list for eye surgery for two years in University Hospital Limerick and having waited for as long as she could with her eyesight degrading, she ended up paying €1,800 for an operation on one eye in the same hospital, under the same private system, and only had to wait for two months for that. That is a crystal-clear example of the problem we have with consultants not doing work, with private patients and with people waiting for too long.

I have a small number of questions, mostly for Ms Cowan, as she was probably expecting. The "Prime Time" programme also said that one consultant - I am not sure where that consultant was based - was doing just 13 hours of a 39-hour contract. That is 33% of the time that consultant was contracted to work. Will Ms Cowan confirm that no consultant who is paid to work with public patients in the UL Hospitals Group is working that little? Is there any consultant who is working for less than 50% of his or her contracted hours? I do not expect everyone to work for 39 hours every week. Mr. Woods referred to a monthly report. Ms Cowan stated she does it in University Hospital Limerick. Is that conducted every month? Arising from such a review, has she ever gone to a consultant who did not do his or her hours and tried to recoup money back from the consultant for not doing his or her hours? If Ms Cowan has recouped money, will she tell us how much she has recouped and if she has not recouped money, will she explain why she cannot or has not done that? If she does not have the figures to hand, she might send them on to us, and if she does, how much money does University Hospital Limerick spend annually on private consultants?

Mr. Liam Woods

I will answer Senator Colm Burke's questions first. The notion raised with us and with which I substantially agree is that there is a fair amount of movement in hospital management. It is clearly evidenced in management literature that stable leadership is a key component of progressing anything organisationally. There is no question that the Senator's contention that one needs stable management over a long time is important. It is also true that there has been quite a degree of movement. I think the Senator is asking if we have looked at that or where the HSE going with that. On the HR side, we have looked at age cohorts. On the management and administration level, particularly in more senior grades, as many people left in or since 2010, there has been a lot of movement relating to the exit arrangements in place at that time and since by way of the age pyramid operating in management and administration in the HSE. The director general has been leading out on this directly. We recently put in, with HR doing the detailed work, a leadership academy, in effect, within the HSE, to consistently develop leadership. In the NHS, there is a Nye Bevan institute, which is designed for that purpose, to develop consistent leadership approaches which build the right value sets and good experience with operational management and process management, with a strong focus on care and compassion. That happened last year and this year and is important for the future. Some of these posts are promotional. One may find somebody moving from a smaller hospital to a larger hospital because of a promotion or because it is closer to home. My broad experience of working in the acute system is that people broadly seek to return to where they come from, which can also cause movement. It affects our clinical recruitment and I accept that it is a big issue.

I accept the point that admission through an emergency department to a ward without the admitting team or consultant knowing should not happen. On the designation of the patient as private as additional to that, I accept that would be a concern for the consultant because he or she may be over-reported as doing private work or have private work happen to him or her. There is evidence, when I look at our national level data and try to compare it locally, of cases where people come in and are recorded as private but are then not billed as private because they have indicated that they do not wish to be. I am surprised about the admissions issue and we would be happy to follow it up but people should be coming under the care of the admitting team. The elective surgery in private-----

I will have to leave the Chair for a number of minutes for a prior commitment. As Senator Colm Burke will take the Chair, the delegates can address the Chair directly until I return.

Senator Colm Burke took the Chair.

Mr. Liam Woods

There was a point about elective surgery, the total in private hospitals and what the volume is, from Senator Colm Burke. We do not have direct access to private volume information. We do not have access to information about activity in private hospitals so we do not know what the total throughput of private hospitals is.

Mr. Woods does not need to. All he needs to do is concentrate on public hospitals.

We will allow the replies and then Deputy Bernard J. Durkan might want to come back in.

Mr. Liam Woods

I am seeking to answer the question that was asked. We do not know the volume. A point was made about intensive care unit, ICU, capacity in the public system which is a critical capacity deficit for us. We invested a little in Cork in the last year. We are doing a little more this year in the Mater hospital. Our national lead for that area, Dr. Michael Power, has indicated clearly and strongly that we should invest. The contention that this can be a restriction on surgical activity within the acute system generally is entirely correct. It is a critical area for us as it is in the event of any mass casualty incident or any such thing. That is an area for which we will continue to pursue investment. To be helpful, the Health Insurance Authority publishes information on total numbers of patients treated and the total amounts of money paid by the insured population for their insurance, which is approximately €2.5 billion. The acute system, publicly, costs approximately €5.3 billion. I do not know more about the activity than that. I agree about the point on the ICU capacity. There were a couple of questions specific to Limerick. One was about Croom Hospital. I will ask Ms Cowan to address it but I think Croom Hospital is operating with a ratio of 36% private patients, not 53%, but Ms Cowan might like to address the specific questions about time management in contracts.

Ms Colette Cowan

I thank Deputy Maurice Quinlivan for his queries. On the consultant on a 13-hour week, that is not specific to UL Hospitals Group; therefore, I cannot comment on that issue. However, I assure the Deputy that I am aware of the movement of all my consultants around UL Hospitals Group. We have a unique system where all our patients are treated on the sites of the six hospitals because we do not have a private hospital in the region to monitor. I can supply the Deputy with the consultant contracts. I think his question was how many consultants are private consultants. Most of my consultants are category B consultants. In effect, they work in the public hospital system and may do some off-site work for outpatients. While a very small number were there pre-2008, the majority are on 2008 contracts. I will share that with the Deputy, if that is helpful, in the coming days. He also asked about monthly reports. We take our data from the hospital in-patient enquiry, HIPE, system and it is reviewed on a monthly basis. Those reports are aggregated and looked at. They are not only site-specific but are across the hospital group. As we reconfigured in 2009, all of my consultants work cross-site through the system. We have a full management team on-site in UL Hospitals Group and the clinical directors with me. Skin and hair flies when reports are read, on which I assure the committee.

The Deputy's other query was about recouping funds. There was one historical incident when funds were recouped from a consultant in UL Hospitals Group. That money is put into a research fund to develop research and development. I have not recouped funds from consultants myself and am going into the fourth year of my contract.

I find that month on month, when I address individuals and say their ratios are changing, they look at their patient ratios and address it. As I said, that is a difficult conversation, because I have to ensure all patients, whether public or private, get care at UL Hospitals Group.

I will allow Ms Cody in first before supplementary questions.

Ms Teresa Cody

I will go back to some of the issues that were raised earlier. There was a reference to perverse incentives. Mr. Woods has already stated this but I will reinforce it by saying it is absolutely not the case that the generation of income should take precedence over ensuring access for public patients in the public health system. I will refer to the rationale for the Health (Amendment) Act 2013. In 2010, the Comptroller and Auditor General identified that for 50% of private patients, no private in-patient charge applied because they were accommodated in either a designated public bed or a non-designated bed. The inability under the law to collect a private in-patient charge in such instances represented a significant loss of income to the public hospital system and taxpayers and represented an indirect subsidy to private health insurance companies. The Health (Amendment) Act 2013 was implemented to address the issue identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and provided for the charging of all private patients in public hospitals irrespective of the type of accommodation used. Patient choice still applies to whether one is treated on a public or private basis. That Act came into effect in 2014 and the Department carried out analysis earlier in the year on trends in public-private patient activity in the acute hospitals. The conclusion was that while overall hospital activity continues to increase on an annual basis, the proportion of patients treated privately remains very stable. We both referenced that in our opening statements. The new charging regime introduced in 2014 has not had an effect on the public-private mix.

There is definitely no cosiness in the court cases that are coming up with regard to that. The Government has made quite clear it is contesting those cases.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked about the broader issues on the Health (Amendment) Act. In his opening statement, although he did not get to read it all, Mr. Woods addressed some of the issues of the effects of the designation, particularly in the context of those who are still on the 1997 contract. Issues around the monitoring of off-site private practice were mentioned. They are some of the issues with which we are engaging. That was raised initially earlier in the summer and we are responding to proposals made by the HSE in September, which predated the "Prime Time" programme. As the issues on monitoring the contracts have been well rehearsed by my colleagues from the HSE, I will leave it at that.

Deputy Maurice Quinlivan also wishes to raise a supplementary question. Will the witnesses outline the contract obligations? Under the old contract, it is 33 hours in addition to on-call hours. What is the on-call issue? It is an issue that is not out there in the public domain. I am just wondering what that issue is.

Ms Angela Fitzgerald

All consultants have an on-call commitment. The frequency of call depends on the size of the team. Cardiology was referred to. If there is a team of five cardiologists, for example, in those circumstances, one's frequency of call would typically be one in five. One of the challenges, which was referred to earlier, is that in many smaller hospitals, the number of people on a team is quite small so because of that the frequency of call is very significant. That does not get captured as part of the 39 hours. It is accepted as a requirement over and above it. It means if one is in an area where one could be called in, as Mr. Woods mentioned with regard to cardiology, one could find oneself frequently having to come back to the hospital overnight and then do one's day's work. It comes back to the number of consultants we have and the distribution of those consultants. It is well understood and accepted that we have fewer consultants than corresponding OECD countries. We are well down on the number of consultants per head of population. One of the objectives for us is to grow the number of consultants we have rather than rely on junior doctors, which has been a feature. The on-call arrangements are specified by site. It is a contentious issue. When I worked in St. James's Hospital, when we changed to the specialty-take model, one concern was the frequency of call would increase for some people, which means they are up overnight and back in the next morning. The broad terms are prescribed by the contracts and the specifics are site-specific, depending on the number of people in individual teams and whether one works in a clinical directorate. It is fair to say that when consultants are on call, they are expected to take calls from junior doctors and to come in and do post-take ward rounds. If I am on call tonight, I could get a number of calls from junior members of the team. I may be called in if I am a surgeon and the following morning, I will come in and do a post-take ward round. That happens initially in the emergency department and for anyone who is admitted overnight. It is over and above one's prescribed duties in one's work practice plan.

Can Ms Cowan confirm that all consultants at UL Hospitals Group hospitals are doing 39 hours or whatever hours they are contracted to do when they are supposed to?

Ms Colette Cowan

Yes, I can confirm that is the case.

What percentage of consultants have not been fulfilling their contracts? Has that been worked out? It appears that this is normal.

Mr. Liam Woods

We would have to get that information at the local level.

It might be helpful.

Mr. Liam Woods

Some of the systems that do that are only local.

Ms Angela Fitzgerald

There was a question asked earlier about the streamlining as a result of the establishment of groups. We still have a number of consultants who work across groups. For example, in the Dublin area a consultant could work in the Dublin Midlands hospital group but could also have links to Cappagh hospital, which is part of the Ireland East hospital group. It is important not to double-count. The percentage is very small no matter what lens one applies on the public-private mix. If one looks at the total volume of activity, including emergency activity, elective activity and in-patient and day activity, the percentage of private patients is fairly constant. It is around 20% but for elective day cases it is far less, which confirms the level of non-compliance is quite small. We can make that information available if required.

I have an observation. There are 680,000 people on one waiting list or another. They are primarily public patients. That is out of a population of approximately 2.7 million people. For those people who are going through inordinate delays and in many cases suffering, the information in the "Prime Time" programme would exacerbate their difficulties. They would feel like second-class citizens in this republic. At the very least, the delegates must ensure there is full compliance with those contracts and sanctions if not to ensure that people who are on waiting lists do not feel they are second-class citizens.

I thank everyone for his or her contribution. I thank the representatives of the HSE and the Department of Health for the work they are doing. I thank the delegates from Limerick for the work they are doing. We are facing into a difficult time over the next few months. Normally in the winter period there is more demand on the health service. I thank the witnesses and ask them to convey our thanks to all the people who are working in hospitals and the HSE.

I wish everyone a happy Christmas and hope our hospitals will be quieter than in previous years. I thank the delegates for the contributions they have made and all the Deputies and Senators who asked questions.

Sitting suspended at 11.10 a.m. and resumed at 11.20 a.m.

I apologise to our guests for the absence of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. I understand the Chairman will be back in a few minutes but rather than delaying the delegates, we will start with their presentations.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Peadar Gilligan, Mr. Anthony Owens and Ms Susan Clyne of the IMO and Dr. Tom Ryan and Mr. Martin Varley of the Irish Hospital Consultants Association to discuss the oversight and monitoring of hospital consultants contracts, including enforcement, impact on waiting lists, stretch income targets and issues relating to the role of clinical directors and hospital management.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I also wish to advise that any opening statement made to the committee may be published on its website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome the delegates and ask the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, to make its opening statement.

Dr. Peadar Gilligan

The IMO, on behalf of doctors in Ireland, thanks the committee for the invitation to this meeting following on from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme which aired on 21 November 2017 on RTÉ. We are happy to engage with the committee on the content of that particular programme. However, at the outset, it is important that we advise the committee that litigation is currently before the courts in relation to the failure by the Government and the HSE to implement contractual pay increases to consultants. Having taken legal advice on the matter we will be unable to comment on the issues or matters before the courts.

In relation to the issues which the committee wishes to discuss we highlight the following points. The committee will be very much aware that there is no single uniform consultant contract. Currently, there are seven clinical consultant contracts held by active working consultants. The earlier arrangements dating from 1991 and 1997, respectively, are still held by several hundred consultants and allow those consultants to engage in off-site private practice with limits determined by the type of contract held.

Over 80% of consultants now hold a 2008 contract. The 2008 contract was several years in the negotiating but also was predicated on co-located hospitals allowing consultants to provide care to patients in a co-located private hospital on public hospital campuses. With a small number of exceptions, these facilities have not materialised. That has presented a significant challenge for capacity in the public hospital system. The contract types offered in 2008, A, B, B* and C, allowed for up to 30% of a consultant's time to be set aside for private practice depending on the contract that the consultant signed. This in turn may have depended on the type of contract held by a consultant prior to signing the 2008 contract.

Deputy Michael Harty resumed the Chair.

Dr. Peadar Gilligan

The most commonly held contract is the 2008 type B contract which is held by over half of consultants. If a consultant who currently holds a type B contract held a contract prior to signing the type B contract in 2008, that consultant will have the right to off-site private practice, and may also spend up to 30% of his or her time engaged in private practice in facilities operated by the employer. If the consultant, who now has a type B contract, did not hold a contract prior to 2008, he or she has a right to devote 20% of his or her time to private practice in facilities operated by the employer. It is worth noting too that if an employer cannot provide a type B consultant with facilities on the hospital campus for outpatient private practice “the employer shall make provision for such facilities off-campus, on an interim basis, pending provision of on-campus facilities.” In many cases, such on-site facilities were not forthcoming.

As can be seen, the contractual landscape against which consultants operate is a complicated one. The position of the IMO is clear: contracts must be upheld. The "RTÉ Investigates" programme presented several extreme examples of alleged non-compliance with contractual obligations and suggested that this was representative of the practices of "a significant minority" of consultants. It is worth remembering that there are approximately 3,000 consultants in the system, suggesting that the apparent actions of a very small number of consultants is in anyway representative of the group, as a whole, is simply not tenable. Indeed, we note that both the Minister and the HSE, in responding to the programme, accepted that the overwhelming majority of consultants worked beyond their contractual commitment.

In respect of the mix of public and private patients in hospitals, while consultants have limited determination over who is admitted, we would point out that the Department of Health’s own report on trends in public and private activity in public acute hospitals found that public patients accounted for approximately 83% of hospital discharges over the period 2012 to 2016. The National Treatment Purchase Fund is daily evidence that not only does the Government know that public hospitals are unable to provide timely care, but that it is willing to use public funds to pay the private sector to provide care that should be available in public hospitals, but is not, due to inadequate resourcing of the acute hospital system in Ireland. This under-resourcing, which is the default position of the Government, results in ward bed closures, closed operating theatres, cancelled planned admissions and delayed emergency admissions, with the resultant patient hardship and staff being frustrated in their efforts to deliver timely optimal care.

Hospital management has, within the 2008 consultant contract, the ability to first notify a consultant if his or her private practice ratios are in breach of the public-private ratios set out in their contract, and to advise that these ratios must be met within six or nine months. However, hospital management is in the invidious position of simultaneously having to advise consultants if they exceed their allowed private public ratio, while at the same time needing to maximise funding for the hospital received from private patients and their insurers. Each year, the HSE sets each hospital a target for private practice income to be generated. The HSE’s very own service plan for 2016 requires that acute hospitals' private income receipts vary from the planned target by no more than 5%. Approval was given by the HSE, and the Minister, to promote the generation and collection of private charges income.

Let us be clear, the inconvenient truth is that private practice in public hospitals helps to pay for the delivery of care to public patients. Yet again due to the lack of capacity in the acute hospital system it is not uncommon for a public patient to be in a designated private bed due to clinical need which has income loss implications for the public hospital and in turn implications for funding of care in the hospital. In excess of 44% of the population of Ireland hold private health insurance and as such can opt to be treated as a private patient in hospital. Consultants cannot deny a patient an emergency admission to hospital because he or she holds private insurance and so the consultant's ability to control his or her public-private mix is challenged by the number of patients he or she admits on call as emergencies who elect to use private health insurance for that admission. Typically consultants are unaware, and rightly so, that a patient under their care as an emergency admission is a private patient until such time as he or she is made aware of this by hospital management in order that the hospital can then bill the patient’s insurer for his or her hospital stay and generate much needed funds.

At present, we in the public health service are experiencing a recruitment crisis when it comes to consultants. We simply do not have enough consultants and are struggling to recruit new highly trained colleagues into consultant posts. The National Task Force on Medical Staffing from 2003 suggested that we would need 4,400 consultants to deliver specialist medical care today. However, we have just over 3,000 approved consultant posts, of which 200 are filled on a temporary basis only, and an indeterminate number, approximately 400, are either vacant or otherwise filled on an unclear basis. We are not recruiting consultants in sufficient numbers to deliver a specialist medical service or to meet required replacement rates. In 2016, eight advertised consultant posts received no applicants; a further 22 posts received just one applicant and 21 posts received just two applicants. Overall, 66 advertised posts received five or fewer applicants.

Most damningly, perhaps, figures produced by the Public Appointments Service, which runs recruitment campaigns on behalf of the HSE, show it was “unable to identify a suitable candidate” for 22 of the 84 posts that were advertised in 2016. If we propose to have a health service delivered by suitably qualified medical specialists this cannot be allowed to continue. Using financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation and other devices health service management has driven down the pay of consultants. We are not competitive internationally and the recruitment figures would suggest we have given up even trying to compete.

With all due respect to the makers of the programme, to focus on the alleged actions of a tiny number of unidentified doctors is to miss the much larger point.

I thank Dr. Gilligan and call Dr. Ryan.

Dr. Tom Ryan

The Irish Hospital Consultants Association, IHCA, welcomes the opportunity to attend the committee's discussion on the recent "RTÉ Investigates" programme. With regard to contractual obligations, the IHCA wishes to be absolutely clear that its consistent stance is that consultants must abide by the conditions of their employment as outlined in the various consultant contracts. If consultants who do not fulfil their contractual hours, it must be clearly understood that any such consultants are not representative of the profession.

The agreed administrative procedures for dealing with such matters are clearly provided for in various consultant contracts. The Irish Hospital Consultants Association, IHCA, is of the view that such matters should and must be addressed through the contract mechanism by hospital management.

In reality, the vast majority of consultants work well in excess of their contracted hours and this has been confirmed over the days since the programme was aired by the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, and by Mr. Liam Woods, HSE national director of acute hospitals. As a consequence of our commitment, in the past decade the IHCA and its members, in collaboration with health service management, have delivered significantly increased productivity in the acute hospital system at a time of extraordinary cuts to health sector funding. It is worth considering that while acute hospital budgets were cut steeply compared with 2008, the total number of inpatient and day-case patients treated has increased by approximately 275,000, or by 22%. In other words, consultants have been instrumental in dramatically increasing productivity in the health sector. Over this same decade, when our population expanded by 12%, and the cohort aged 65 years and over increased by one third, the number of inpatient acute public hospital beds was reduced by more than 1,400. The result is that our hospitals are almost continuously full with patients. OECD data confirms that they operate at 95% occupancy, which is way above the OECD average of 77%. The OECD average is recommended so as to prioritise consistent safe patient care and to guard against resistant and cross-infections.

As a direct result of the lack of hospital beds, the average hospital stay in Ireland, at 6.2 days, is much shorter than the OECD average of 8.2 days. Ireland hospitalises far fewer patients - 139 per 1,000 - on an annual basis than the average OECD country of 169 people per 1,000 of population. That is because of the overwhelming shortage of beds in Ireland. Department of Health data confirms that hospital consultants make up less than 2.5% of the overall public health service work force, which contrasts with 4% in the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, which is equivalent to our size and which has a population that is just 13% greater than Ireland’s, there are more than 5,000 hospital consultants, compared with approximately 2,600 permanent consultants in post in Ireland. There are significantly fewer hospital consultants in Ireland on a comparable population basis.

The association is emphatic that the paucity of hospital beds and the shortages of hospital consultants are the fundamental causes of waiting lists for patients in Ireland. Department of Health data confirm that currently 80% of acute hospital admissions are emergencies and the volume of elective surgery performed in acute public hospitals has progressively declined over the past decade. Accordingly, hospital admission in Ireland is increasingly only feasible for patients with emergency medical and surgical conditions due to the shortage of beds in our system. This is exacerbated year-on-year because of demographic trends with our ageing society. Against the backdrop of an under-resourced and understaffed public health system, the association continues to recommend to its members that they report to their relevant clinical director so that they can work in teams with their clinical colleagues to an agreed practice plan. This is important to provide the best possible patient care during daytime hours and as part of organised on-call services at weekends. The IHCA is strongly of the opinion that the vast majority of consultants work in accordance with an agreed practice plan and are more than fulfilling their contractual hours.

The 2008 contract delegated certain clinical governance roles in the acute hospitals and mental health services to clinical directors. Frequently, however, clinical directors encounter significant difficulty in fulfilling their role, as they have not been provided with the necessary support staff and infrastructure. It should be clearly understood that consultants who do not fulfil their contractual hours are not representative of the profession. There are agreed administrative procedures for dealing with such matters, which are clearly outlined in the contract. The IHCA is available to engage with hospital management, as necessary, on such matters. With regard to the ratio of public and private patients in public hospitals, it was agreed in the 2008 contract that the ratio should not exceed 80:20, with a provision allowing some consultants a 70:30 ratio. These ratio provisions were incorporated in the 2008 contract, with a clear reference to the Government policy of that time in 2008 that co-located private hospitals would be built on public hospital sites. The Government policy committed to putting in place an additional 1,000 such co-located private hospital beds, and furthermore the 2008 contract explicitly permits hospital consultants to treat patients in co-located hospitals. However, in 2011 the co-location policy was abandoned by the then Government, and as a result the additional 1,000 acute hospital beds in co-located private hospitals have not been commissioned. The concomitant closure of a further 1,400 inpatient beds in our acute hospitals has clearly driven the waiting lists to their current levels.

Crucially, it is widely acknowledged that the methods used to measure public to private ratios are both inaccurate and unreliable. This was identified as a problem in an independent management report commissioned by the HSE in 2007 during the contract negotiations. In 2011, the IHCA and senior HSE management agreed that those serious flaws in the systems and methodology needed to be rectified, but that has not happened as yet. The annual revenue from private patients in public hospitals amounts to more than €600 million, or some 15% of the public acute hospital funding. This may be higher in some hospitals. The revenue private patients bring to the public hospital is an essential source of funding. One should bear in mind that without this revenue our public hospitals would collapse. Public acute hospitals could not deliver the current level of service to the public without this revenue, let alone hope to expand or improve the clinical service that we aspire to deliver to patients.

Health service management and consultants were blamed in a recent RTÉ programme when the proportion of private patients admitted to public hospitals apparently exceeded 20%. We know from Department of Health data that over 80% of patients admitted to acute hospitals are emergencies. Given that more than 45% of the population holds private insurance, and more than 50% of patients in the over 40 age group hold such insurance, the proportion of private patients attending a public hospital may exceed 20% as a routine. Under these circumstances, blaming hospitals and consultants whenever the ratio of private patients exceeds 20% is not a reasonable stance to adopt. In effect, such hospitals are blamed for providing care to the cohort of patients who present for care, and which reflects the demographic composition and insurance status of the patients in their catchment area. Neither consultants nor hospital management has any control over such matters.

The demand for patient care is increasing due to demographic factors. A recent ESRI study projected a 37% increase in the need for inpatient and day-case capacity by 2030. In real terms, this means our current 10,000 bed capacity must be increased to approximately 14,000 beds. In contrast, there are growing public hospital capacity deficits due to the cumulative lack of investment in hospital infrastructure and equipment over the past decade. This is the root cause of the unacceptable waiting lists in Irish health care. It is a distraction from the reality of the effects of long-standing underfunding to blame hospitals and their consultants for current waiting lists when they are, in effect, being prevented from providing care. With regard to elective waiting lists, patients should be treated exclusively based on clinical need. Waiting lists are the norm in the hospital where I work and in the vast majority of other public hospitals.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend this session.

I welcome the delegates and thank them for the presentations. Representatives of the HSE and the Department attended a previous session this morning. This emanated from an RTÉ programme. I assume the witnesses have seen it and are aware of its contents. It is not just about that as the matter has been discussed at this committee for some time. It concerns stretched budgets and the perverse incentivisation at the heart of the public hospital system, which has been referenced by Dr. Ryan. More than €600 million every year comes from treating private patients through the public hospital system. It has been correctly pointed out that if that was not there, the public hospital system would collapse.

However, the "RTÉ Investigates" programme focused on several issues that are of critical importance. Both contributions referred to the 80:20 split provided for in consultant contracts, but what we are talking about goes beyond that. The issue concerns the commitment of a small number of consultants who do not seem to be performing their full contractual duties. We are not just addressing the 80:20 split across the system, but also individuals within that who are not performing their contractual obligations. As referred to by Dr. Gilligan, there is also the bigger picture in terms of court cases on the broader issues. However, we are just talking about the issues highlighted by "RTÉ Investigates".

With that in mind, what is the process for bringing a case where a consultant is not performing their contractual obligations to the attention of the clinical director, the hospital manager or the HSE? Is there a process? Does someone pick up a phone and say that a certain consultant is not performing, since he or she is only doing 13 or 14 hours a week instead of 33 hours? Is there a process in place? Has there ever been a consultant who was disciplined because he or she did not perform his or her contractual obligations?

The reason I ask is that there are 685,000 people on waiting lists. I can assure the delegates that I am not blaming any consultant, or the consultant bodies represented here. Primarily a lack of capacity across the public health system, both in physical infrastructure and personnel, is the reason for the 685,000 people on waiting lists. However, the delegates can understand that if one was among the 685,00 people on a waiting list, one would be extremely angry to think that a consultant was not carrying out his or her full public duties under his or her contractual obligations. One would be extremely angry if one was waiting for a long period of time while at the same time we are sending people to Belfast for cataract operations and people are applying for treatment abroad schemes under the cross-border directive. There is an obligation on everybody to ensure that there is as much fairness in the system as possible, accepting the limited capacity, and that all consultants fulfil their contractual obligations.

Both submissions referred to the issue of recruitment. In all the manpower planning assessments over the years it is accepted that we are short of at least 2,000 consultants. There are changing demographics and an increasing population to consider. The situation is not going to improve in the short to medium term. There will be high demand. Reference was made to the fact that we cannot get suitable candidates for vacant posts. In 2013, the Irish Hospital Consultants Association said that the type C contract would be able to attract consultants to posts if it was available more frequently. It would improve the ability of the country to recruit. Is that a factual situation, or is it an aspirational view on the part of the Irish Hospital Consultants Association or the Irish Medical Organisation?

That brings me on to the next question. If we cannot recruit, we face huge difficulty in addressing the problems that are out there, including the 685,000 people we can identify who are on some form of waiting list, although there are probably more we cannot identify. What do we need to do to attract consultants? I assume that turning a blind eye to contractual obligations is not one of the solutions to the problem of retaining and attracting consultants. In the witnesses' view, what would be required to attract consultants? There is a remunerative element. Let us be under no illusions. I said this when the cuts were originally brought in. We compete in an international environment. We do not necessarily compete against Germany, France and the Nordic countries. We compete primarily with English-speaking nations to retain our consultants. That is the market that we are in. I would like to get some views on what we need to do.

The role of clinical directors was also raised this morning. They are paid an extra €46,000. Let us be honest, given the responsibility involved in being a clinical director, one can certainly argue that these remunerative arrangements are required. However, the directors are meant to be at the heart of the delivery of health care, managing the organisation of consultants and the seamless flow through public hospital systems. Is this role working in the way that was envisaged, that is, primarily to ensure consultants were involved in the management process and had a say in how hospitals worked? Equally, it was intended that they would uphold their contractual obligations, and that through the clinical director there would be seamless interaction between the management and the clinicians. They are actually overseeing the enforcement of the public-private partnership.

Reference was made to co-location. Of course, that was a change of policy. There was a policy until the election of 2011, and with many other proposals, it was changed fundamentally. Some of those proposals have not happened, and will not happen because there have further changes. However, the Sláintecare report is the template that has now been accepted by the vast majority of people, although admittedly there are some deficiencies in it. If we do not fund its proposals, it will be just like any other report that has been drafted. It will remain on a shelf and will have no impact on patients and the health system in general. Do the delegates accept that the Sláintecare report's recommendations are the right way to go about addressing the challenges facing the public health system? At the heart of the Sláintecare report is a recommendation that we would disentangle the private from the public system. There was also an impact assessment study into the effects of this disentanglement at the heart of that report. That study is now being carried out by Dr. de Buitléir. Do the delegates accept that public hospitals should be for public patients, assuming that we can address the other issues of recruiting and retaining consultants and attracting them to primarily work in the public hospital system, without having to dangle C contracts in front of them for the years ahead?

I thank the delegates for coming . There are a couple of points I wish to raise following on from this morning's session. Dr. Gilligan mentioned that a tiny number of doctors have been carrying out the practices outlined in the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. Earlier this morning we asked if this number has been quantified. This was raised by Deputy Bernard J. Durkan. We were told that the number behaving in this way had not been quantified. Dr. Gilligan said it was a tiny number. Has he quantified it and if he has, could he tell me the number of consultants who are "not representative of the profession", to use his words? What proportion of consultants are behaving in this fashion? I am fully aware many consultants work above and beyond their rostered hours. Do the delegates have any metrics on the number of consultants who work longer than their scheduled obligations?

Dr. Ryan brought up the bed stay times. Our bed stay time of six days is below the OECD average. Did he say that admissions were 139 per 1,000?

Dr. Tom Ryan

That is the admissions rate.

What impact do these things have on outcomes for patients? If our figures are not ideal in comparison to other OECD countries, is there a sort of a vicious cycle at work? If we have fewer beds, more demand, shorter hospital stays and a hospitalisation rate of 139 per 1,000 while the average is 169 per 1,000, and leaving consultant practice out of it, is the combination of these things fuelling the problem?

I apologise for my absence at the start. I was on local radio discussing the topic of seaweed in Bantry Bay. We all have our own worries.

I welcome the delegates. It is important to note that most consultants do not act in the way protrayed on the RTÉ programme. There are bad apples in every walk of life, but everyone is not the same and all consultants are not like that. Why did it take an RTÉ programme to highlight the problems? Consultants are not taking up positions in a lot of places, which leads to temporary contracts. Are those with temporary contracts as efficient as full-time consultants? Is there a potential conflict between the operation of the National Treatment Purchase Fund and the consultants' public contract? Since the programme was aired, has anything been done to ensure this will not continue? What will be done about it? Why is it happening at all? Is there undue deference shown by administration officials, in particular, towards consultants? It may have a traditional basis, but some people think it is still shown. I would like to hear the delegates' comments on the issue.

Perhaps we might deal with those questions.

Dr. Tom Ryan

I might deal with the questions out of the order in which they were asked as they overlapped a lot. I might deal with Deputy Kate O'Connell's question about beds first.

It is clear when one looks at the hospital system, with only 10,000 beds in it, that we do not have enough beds for the population. We have about half the OECD average. As an association, we compare the figure in Ireland to the OECD average. What we are comparing in that regard is mediocre rather than the best solutions around Europe. There is no attempt to achieve excellence here. If we were to achieve excellence and have a superb health care system as in France, Germany or Holland, we would have almost double the number of beds. As we have so few, hospitals are continuously full. They are at 97% all the time. Patients are discharged very quickly from hospital and there is no room to squeeze extra capacity out of existing hospitals. Even with the absence of extra capacity, we are not hospitalising very many people in Ireland compared to other European countries. We hospitalise approximately 25% less than the OECD average. If we compare Ireland to Germany, France and the Netherlands, we hospitalise about 30% or 40% less.

We do not have a particularly hospital-centric system. However, we are stuck because the population is increasing and ageing. The demographics show that increasing numbers of 60 and 70 year olds will drive the need for hospital care. The ESRI stated recently that in the next decade we would need to increase hospital capacity by 37%. If we have 10,000 hospital beds now, we will need an extra 3,500 to 4,000 by 2030. That is the core problem in the health care system and it is what leads to waiting lists. The lack of capacity makes it difficult for people to work in hospitals and makes them unattractive to consultants. There is obviously a problem with remuneration, while there is a huge problem with capacity, particularly where surgeons are unable to gain access to theatres because there are not enough hospital beds, operating theatres and ICU beds.

What has to be accepted is that 50% of the population have private insurance in the 40 to 80 year old age group. The reality in Ireland today is that there is a dual funding model health care system. That is where we are. The word "perverse" has been used about this model, but it is difficult to characterise the behaviour of 50% of the population as perverse. That thought process is a problem. If one accepts what the ESRI states about the need to increase hospital bed capacity by 37% and OECD comparisons which suggest we need even more hospital beds than that number, these matters were not recognised in the Sláintecare report. Consequently, it would drive health care costs significantly in the next decade if we were to provide for that hospital bed capacity. It may very well be that the Sláintecare report was under-costed. There are problems with Sláintecare in recognising that ours is actually a dual-funding model and recognising the need to increase capacity dramatically and somehow figure out how we will fund it in the next ten to 15 years.

All of this makes it difficult to recruit consultants as there are not enough facilities available. It makes it particularly difficult for clinical directors who are the people who make everything hang together. If the clinical director spends all of his or her time trying to patch a broken system, it is very difficult to hold him or her to account when things go wrong. I have a great deal of sympathy for clinical directors, given the role they fulfil in Irish medicine in just trying to get things to work.

I hope I have answered the Deputy's questions.

Perhaps I missed it, but did Dr. Ryan say whether it had been quantified how many consultants were acting outside the terms of the contract, either in a positive or a negative way?

Dr. Tom Ryan

The Deputy asked if there was a consequence. I apologise for not answering that question.

I was not asking about consequences regarding consultants' hours. That was separate.

Dr. Tom Ryan

Yes. Let us deal with the OECD data again. A publication was highlighted in the media from 2016 which looked at outcomes in the health care system. Importantly, we are all living longer and in the past ten or 15 years our life expectancy has increased by approximately five years. The OECD commented that the Irish health care system seemed to be particularly good at dealing with life-threatening problems but had a problem in dealing with commonplace issues which generated waiting lists. As such, the lack of capacity and consultants generates waiting lists. There are very few consultants who are not working in excess of their contracted hours. Those who work in excess of them manage to prop up the whole system, given that we have far fewer consultants than most other OECD countries. As late as last week, there was another OECD document looking at the proportion of specialists in each country. We have the lowest number of specialists in Ireland as a proportion of the overall number of doctors compared to every other OCED country. Only 40% of doctors here are specialists, whereas 60% are generalists. Most other OCED countries have the inverse proportions.

Is the lack of specialists down to people leaving the country and moving elsewhere or is it that we are not providing adequate training in this country?

Dr. Tom Ryan

There is good training provided in the country, but we all move abroad. I moved abroad for six years and many of my colleagues move for three or four years. It is regarded as finishing school. We get someone who comes back with new thinking, fresh ideas and some initiative who may have answers to some of our old insoluble problems. If he or she is an orthopod or a surgeon operating three or four days a week, he or she comes back to Ireland and is given a half-day operating slot every week. He or she will not come back to that arrangement or stay at it. He or she will try to tough it out for a year or two to make the system work and in complete frustration will leave and either move back to North America or the private system. It is worth realising that when many surgeons are appointed, they are given an outpatient slot but no operating theatre time. As such, they immediately generate a waiting list and have no capacity to deal with it. We are not going to attract highly trained, high calibre, motivated consultants back to that scenario. To sort out the system and the recruitment problem, the State must provide more beds and more outpatient facilities, open more operating theatres and double the size of ICUs.

Perhaps Dr. Gilligan might respond to Deputy Billy Kelleher's question on the monitoring of contracts process.

Dr. Peadar Gilligan

As per the 2008 contract, consultants are answerable to hospital management and their clinical directors with regard to their private-public ratio. The Irish Medical Organisation is aware of consultants having regular meetings with their management to be advised as to their public-private ratio and their adherence to same. It is worth repeating that 83% of patients seen in public hospitals are in fact public patients. The Deputy made the point that public hospitals should be for public patients. I put it to him that public hospitals should be for patients. I thank the Deputy for acknowledging that primarily the issue for the system is the lack of capacity within it.

With regard to consultants fulfilling their contractual obligations, as per contract law all employees should fulfil their contractual obligations. Equally, the employer has a role with regard to fulfilling its obligations under the contract. On the Deputy's second question about recruitment and whether the offering of type C contracts would help in this regard, the reason we have a problem with recruitment to consultant posts in Ireland is that it is unfair. By that I mean, since 2012 consultants appointed are remunerated at a lesser level than their pre-existing colleagues who are also paid at a lower level than their contracts stipulated. For both of these reasons, we have a huge problem recruiting. There is an issue of trust at senior doctor level with regard to their employer and the lack thereof because of the fact that the contract has not been honoured, the cuts superimposed on the failure to honour that contract and the disparity in payment depending on when the appointment was taken up. Those issues need to be addressed in order that we can recruit to consultant posts.

With regard to the clinical director question and whether the role is working, my response is that the role can work and work very well. We have seen examples of this throughout the country. The challenge, as acknowledged and stated by our colleagues in the IHCA, is that this role is not supported to the extent it should be. For example, they do not have the business managers that they need and they do not have support within the management structures of the hospital and as well as being clinically busy individuals, they also take on this management role. The role needs to be more supported than is currently the case.

On Sláintecare and the untangling of private and public care, as already stated just because a patient has private health insurance does not mean he or she should be disadvantaged. Equally patients without it should not be disadvantaged. To address this, we need adequate capacity within the system. On a daily basis, as an emergency medicine consultant I am in the fortunate position that whether a patient is private or public makes no difference to me in terms of the care I deliver. I deliver care on the basis of a patient's clinical need. I would want a system that allows this to be the case. Sadly, in that same role I see patients who are disadvantaged by the system and the under-resourcing of the system. We know from a recent survey of in excess of 11,000 patients and their experience of the hospital system in Ireland that only 30% of them managed to get through the emergency department and into a ward bed within the six-hour limit that has been set. That is a national disgrace. Across the water in the NHS 95% of patients can expect to be either admitted or discharged from the emergency department within four hours. The NHS also has capacity issues but not to the extent that we do. It is a huge frustration to consultants and senior doctors in the system that we do not have the resources that we need to provide care in the way we would wish to provide it.

On Deputy Kate O'Connell's questions, from the "Prime Time" programme we know that three doctors allegedly were behaving in a manner whereby they were not fulfilling their contracts. As explained in our opening statement, there are different types of contracts. There are doctors who are on part-time contracts and doctors who have rest entitlements given the onerous nature of their work. We know of only three doctors who it is alleged were not fulfilling their contracts. The experience of the IMO is that our consultant members are working well in excess of their contractual requirements. We sometimes become aware of this because their employers are failing in their delivery of the entitlement of a consultant, for example, with regard to on-call work and entitlements with regard to rest relating to that.

Deputy Margaret Murphy O'Mahony asked why it took an RTÉ programme to highlight this issue. With regard to the issue of, for example, a patient having to wait for a protracted period and having to make an out-of-pocket payment for the delivery of care, this is an issue of which, as doctors working in the Irish health system, we have been aware and by which we are disturbed in reality. It should not be the case that because a patient does not have health insurance or is not in a position to pay for his or her care that such care is significantly delayed. That patients with hip osteoarthritis, which is a very painful condition, are on waiting lists for two years should be a matter of national shame and should be addressed but this requires resourcing of the system. The Deputy asked about temporary contracts as compared with full-time contracts and their implication for delivery of service. There are excellent doctors employed as consultants on a temporary basis in the Irish system. The challenge for them is that given the temporary nature of their contracts, they will largely concentrate on service delivery as opposed to the strategic development of their service, which is an absolute requirement to try to move things forward. It is not a position in which most of those doctors wish to find themselves.

With regard to the conflict created by the National Treatment Purchase Fund in comparison with the public system, it has always been the IMO position that funding allocated to the National Treatment Purchase Fund should be used to provide for care in the public system. We should not have a situation whereby we are paying private institutions to provide care in the public system because of an under-resourcing of that system. We would like to be in a position to provide that care to public patients within the public system and, as previously stated, to all patients.

The Deputy also asked why such practices occur, on which our colleagues on the IHCA touched. It is hugely frustrating for a consultant with many years of training, having made a huge personal and family sacrifice, to arrive at the level of expertise he or she is at and find themselves unable to access clinics and theatre space and time. That frustration may sometimes be evidenced in the manner that we saw. That should not be the case but it may sometimes be so evidenced. We need to have a system wherein consultants are fully employed and have available to them the required operating theatres, outpatient clinics and beds to admit patients on the basis of clinical need.

I thank Dr. Gilligan.

I thank the delegates for their opening statements and I apologise for my coming and goings but I had to follow up on a number of matters. During the committee's discussions earlier this morning with the Department of Health and the HSE, I raised the issue of turnover of administration and managerial staff in HSE hospitals. Is this an issue for the IHCA and the IMO and, if so, is it causing inefficiencies in the system?

Are data available on the number of consultants working privately only in private clinics or hospitals compared with the number of consultants working in the HSE? Is there a breakdown regarding the numbers of those who are working in private clinics or private hospitals?

Many people have raised the possibility of part of the National Treatment Purchase Fund going outside the country. Have private hospitals in Ireland the capacity to take on some of that work under the National Treatment Purchase Fund? I accept that the money should be going into the public hospital system, as has been said, in order to try to speed up the delivery of services but in some cases that is not easily done because it involves the provision of extra theatre space and beds, which cannot be done immediately. What are the views of the delegates on the National Treatment Purchase Fund and the capacity of the current private hospital structure to deal with some of these challenges?

I thank Senator Colm Burke.

All members understand that the majority of consultants working in Ireland at a minimum work to their contract and many or most exceed that. There is no doubt about that. The frustration generated by the "Prime Time" programme and shown by the committee and the public is that it seemed to indicate that public patients were disadvantaged because of some consultants not fulfilling their contract and in respect of the private-public mix in our hospitals. There is a perception that if one has private health insurance, one may have an advantage in getting treatment more speedily in public hospitals. All members know medicine is a very unpredictable profession. Anything can walk through the door and there is no such thing as always or never. Things change very rapidly and it is a very difficult discipline in which to work, in particular in accident and emergency departments, but it is an unpredictable profession throughout the system. A time limit cannot be put on a doctor's work because things can go out of control and doctors quite often work to try to stabilise patients and deliver a proper service. It is an unpredictable profession.

Whatever one may think of Sláintecare, its purpose was to reform the health service and to make the system work. It sends the health system in the right direction. There are many moving parts and much sequencing and phasing involved. There was an effort to cost what was being proposed and that is open to review. However, the Sláintecare proposal is that health care should be delivered based on need, not the ability to pay and that there should be a separation of public and private medicine in public hospitals. I take heed of Mr. Gilligan's comment that a patient should be treated regardless of whether he or she has insurance and Sláintecare proposes that the provision of care in public hospitals should not be influenced by whether one has health insurance. There are private hospitals that can supply elective private care but if one turns up to an emergency department it should not matter whether one is a public or private patient.

There have been zig-zag policy changes in the health service and we have moved from co-location and universal health insurance. Sláintecare proposes to clean the sheet and have a coherent ten-year plan for the health service and that is what we are trying to deliver. The purpose of Sláintecare is to ensure there is a ten-year plan whereby one can add year on year, know exactly what is happening and have multi-year rather than single-year budgets. The main frustration voiced in the "Prime Time" programme was that private patients seem to have an advantage over public patients in respect of how care is delivered.

I would like to bring in Senator Bernard J. Durkan to whom I apologise.

I thought the Chairman was demoting me. He gave me a terrible fright. With all the references to ageism and so on, that would worry me greatly.

I have been watching developments in the health service for a considerable time. Long waiting lists are not new. Ten years ago, people were waiting two, three, four or five years for hip operations. I know that because I dealt with such people. Long waiting lists are not new but have worsened in the meantime. The economic crash was of no help in that regard.

We are not the lowest spender on health issues per capita in the OECD but, rather, are in the higher echelons. We need to be able to tell the public that we are getting value for money and have the best and most streamlined system to so do.

I seek clarification as to what is the problem in the health services at present. Is it a lack of theatre space throughout the system? There are theatres in the country that have never been used. I know of clean air theatres in one hospital that have never been used, despite being the most expensive and up to date in the world. I cannot understand why we lack theatre space when it is possible to have theatre space readily available.

Some consultants have told us in meetings of similar committees that fewer hospital beds is the answer. I do not agree with that but the question that arises is that although beds, corridors and waiting lists are full, is there space available in closed wards in some of our hospitals? My information is that is the case and that the utilisation of existing beds should be a priority. If it is not a priority, why not and how can it be done?

All members recognise the hugely important job and responsibility placed on all deliverers of health services and that, as the Chairman correctly stated, once a patient gets into the system, it works extremely well. The problem is how to navigate the maze before the patient gets into the system. Several years ago there was a concerted effort, of which consultants were at the forefront, to get rid of politicians who were allegedly clogging up the health system and creating problems. It was said that it would be far better to get rid of those redneck politicians and have the system dealt with by the professionals. The result of that was not as was anticipated. The system has become considerably worse. I made reference in passing to my previous proposals that the HSE as it is now constituted is not going to do the job and requires a regional structure, which we do not have. Such regional structures must be made up of politicians and professionals and there must be accountability at local level such that everybody knows what is and is not happening.

My final question is to ask what percentage of the professionals interviewed for the RTÉ programme were compliant with their contract?

I thank Deputy Bernard J. Durkan. I will now bring in those who have not yet contributed.

Ms Susan Clyne

In response to Deputy Bernard J. Durkan on the waiting list problem, yes it has been ongoing for several years. However, it is becoming significantly worse and is a multi-factoral problem involving demographics, our ageing population and people living longer and the incidence of chronic disease. Many patients are referred into the acute system because services in the community are so poor. Some of those patients could be dealt with in the community, which would require funding of GP contract and other community services.

Additionally, the lack of consultant posts and our inability to recruit consultants will continue to have a detrimental and negative impact on waiting lists. It is unsustainable to have increased demand and fewer and fewer doctors operating in the system. We earlier touched on recruitment problems and I wish to make the additional point that the recruitment issue not only affects the current cohort of consultants but also our trainees and non-consultant hospital doctors, NCHDs, who are looking at this and deciding to go away, not for training or fellowships as has been the case in the past and as our colleagues in the IHCA outlined, but permanently, with no plans to come back to work in the system.

Shortage of bed capacity is a fact. We have lost 1,400 beds in our acute hospitals at a time when more beds are needed. I have mentioned that GP services and the lack of community care facilities also contribute to the long waiting lists.

While people accepted that there was a waiting list problem, the idea was that we would try to sort out that problem. Instead we have a situation where the population demographics have caught up with us and we have not sorted out the problem. All the other issues that have happened in the health service have made it worse. That is what is happening.

On the Chairman's comments on value for money, there are very few medical professionals working in the system and they provide value for money, given the work that they do. People have accepted that consultants work over and above their contractual duties. An IMO survey of its consultant members has shown that, on average, a consultant will work up to 20 additional hours per week. It is not unusual and is in fact the norm to see consultants doing rounds on Saturdays and Sundays in hospitals. The HSE hospital activity shows that private patients are not displacing public patients on waiting lists. The waiting list issue is one of funding and capacity. On the issue of theatres, it is all very well to have a physical room but if there are not staff and the resources to fund the staffing required for that room, the medical professionals and the bed or ICU bed that will be required for that patient afterwards, these physical rooms will not change anything. The Chairman is right that wards were closed down and there are physical rooms and wards present. In some hospitals, some of the closed wards have been turned into offices.

Ms Susan Clyne

There are no resources or staff to work them.

I do not accept that at all because it has been suggested to me that it is more economical to park patients in corridors and waiting areas and to close wards at the same time. I do not accept that. I think it is far more effective, efficient and comfortable for everybody, both those working in the system and those in receipt of services from the system, to at least have the wards open so that if patients are waiting for long periods, they can at least be in an area other than the reception area or whatever the case may be. I hate to be argumentative but I am not afraid to be argumentative either and there are times when it is necessary. We have reached that time now. We have a serious problem with how we run the system. We have asked for audits and experts and have had all sorts of things said to us in the past few years. I am not an expert but I am reasonably good with time and motion and I am not satisfied with the way the system is working and running now. It is not efficient or effective in delivering speedy access from the public's point of view, and it is expensive relative to the degree to which that service is being made available to the public.

If everybody continues to criticise the system itself, there will be no system because there will be no job satisfaction. Nobody will want to work in it. Nobody wants to work in a general practitioner, GP, practice any more because it might close down. Nobody will want to work in a small hospital anymore and the standards will drop as a result. All of these things have been tried in other jurisdictions, for example in the United Kingdom. It has already failed there. The time has come to look closely at how we deliver on the basis of the money and the expectation arising from it. We are not the worst with regard to cost in the OECD countries.

Will the Deputy let the delegates reply?

I am sorry. I have to leave, as the Chairman knows. I ask that, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, we have another meeting to discuss this issue and to find out if we can monitor the activity in the system and identify the snags that some consultants make known to me that I think are simple to resolve, and I am only a simple guy, apart from the fact that my hair has gone grey now.

Ms Susan Clyne

Doctors are not making the decisions to close wards or theatres. It is the opposite. Doctors are calling for more wards to be opened, for more theatres and more staff. It is not just a matter of recruitment of doctors, but also recruitment of nurses. A team of people needs to work in opening these wards and services. The IMO would agree with Deputy Bernard J. Durkan that patients should be provided with a better service and more timely access. We completely agree with the Deputy and would like to see funding and resources going into the service to allow that to happen.

What percentage of those were interviewed on RTÉ?

Ms Susan Clyne

I am not aware of any consultants being interviewed on RTÉ for that programme. Dr. Gilligan was.

Dr. Peadar Gilligan

There were two consultants. The rest, as I recall, were former NHS employees. Of the two active Irish consultants on that programme, I am one. I am compliant and I know the other, who is also compliant with the contract. We go above and beyond in both cases, I think it is fair to say.

Mr. Martin Varley

I will address a few of the earlier questions. Deputies Billy Kelleher and Kate O'Connell raised questions vis-à-vis deference to consultants and what can be done to address the recruitment crisis. On deference to consultants, in the past ten years in my position, I have never observed deference of the sort referred to. I think the opposite has happened. Certain aspects of the contract are not being adhered to by employers and, dare I say, by the State. There are major issues, one of which is subject to a High Court hearing, vis-à-vis the salary component. Even aside from that, there are other aspects where consultants work half-days and full days on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays when they are on call and it has taken the best part of a decade to get some hospitals to start to pay consultants in accordance with those working conditions and terms of their contract to the extent that we have consultants working eight or nine-hour days on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays and not being paid in accordance with their contracts. I know of no other employment in the State where that would happen and would have persisted for the best part of a decade. That unfortunately feeds into the recruitment and retention crisis.

We have extremely mobile and highly-trained doctors, specialists who are in demand worldwide, even to the extent that 20% to 30% of graduation classes take up positions immediately after their internships in Australia, Canada etc. They are now moving in big groups. They are leaving a system that they see as being dysfunctional and leaving their senior colleagues without the basic resources to treat patients. They say they will examine elsewhere and are unfortunately actually staying there in greater numbers than before. They move from hospital to hospital and have very good career opportunities. More importantly, they have the resources to treat their patients. Two things are at play here, which are the lack of resources to treat patients and that contracts are not being honoured. Remuneration, as it happens, is more attractive in other jurisdictions.

What can be done? One basic and important thing is to honour agreements and contracts entered into with professionals. The day an employer goes down the route of breaking a contract is when it crosses a line and nobody can trust that employer thereafter. Unfortunately, in this case, people cannot trust the State and we are practically ten years past that breach. The second important thing is to end the discrimination against new-entrant consultants. They are on discriminatory salaries. They do like-for-like work with their senior colleagues. They are attracted abroad. Some take up positions in public hospitals then leave and go back into the private sector or abroad. Those are the two key components, together with, most importantly, providing them with the resources to do their work. Doctors, surgeons and consultants get very frustrated if they cannot treat their patients. Deputy Kelleher rightly asked about type C contracts and whether they are part of the solution. They are part of the solution but not the full solution. It relieves some of the frustration if one comes back into a position but has insufficient surgical operating time. One is young, is capable and can do more, is used to operating three days a week and would like to do it in one's public hospital. That person can do a certain amount in addition after completing his or her hours in a private hospital. It can work effectively, especially if we have a scarcity of consultants, as we have. Generally speaking, we have approximately half the number of consultants we need. In some specialties, we only have one third of what we need. It is only part of the solution. I suggest we continue to use it but let us not rely on it being the full solution.

We surveyed our members about hours a number of years ago. It is a little dated but the vast majority of consultants are working beyond their hours and the range, from memory, was between 5% and 50% above their hours. I suspect it would be even higher if we surveyed them again today. We are not counting in that the point that since the new contract came in, people are working structured, planned, half days and full days on Saturdays and Sundays when they are on call.

In the past the on-call status was solely to deal with emergencies, but it has now become practically a full day's work or a full weekend's work. There is no other jurisdiction where doctors and consultants are providing that level of input and they have bigger teams and are fully resourced numbers wise.

I move to the issue of insufficient capacity. The examples are country-wide. In Galway the two orthopaedic theatres in Merlin Park hospital were closed repeatedly due to an influx of water into a clean air environment month after month for a period of years. Inadequate resources prevent orthopaedic surgeons from operating. There is, in effect, no elective work being done there and that will continue for months.

In Limerick University Hospital until recently the isotope bone scanning equipment required to treat cancer patients was not working. It has been replaced and the hospital is now waiting for a physicist to be appointed in order that it can be used. The other major issue for consultants is rolling closures, whereby planned closures of theatres, as well as unexpected closures, take place owing to a lack of beds.

When we surveyed our members two years ago, planned closures were running at the rate of 10% in Dublin hospitals and between 25% and 35% in hospitals nationally. They were normal Monday to Friday working hours. Why were they closed? It was because of there being an insufficient number of beds. Doctors and consultants were willing to carry out procedures. We had an incident earlier this year in a major cancer hospital where on a Sunday evening 23 patients had procedures cancelled at approximately 8 p.m. Some of them were repeat patients who had experienced previous cancellations. The vast majority were cancer patients. Again, cancellation was due to there being an insufficient numbers of beds. The entire surgical team was available, but the cancellation happened at the last moment.

What we need is an investment plan for the health service similar to the one introduced for roads previously. We need a clear, well funded plan to put in place an additional 4,000 acute hospital beds to allow us to treat patients on waiting lists and avoid ever-increasing numbers of patients on trolleys. Looking at the figures in front of me, I note that most of the waiting list figures have doubled in the past three years or so. The numbers of patients on trollies have more than doubled since they were declared to be a national emergency and a crisis. The root cause of the problem is the lack of beds. In the €80 billion capital plan which is to be announced soon, if the health service is not provided for properly, the State will be condemning the population to an ever disimproving acute hospital service, not just for the decade 2018 to 2027 but for several decades to come. If we do not act now in the face of an obvious escalating crisis, we will miss the opportunity. I hope the State will put the necessary funding in place.

I was asked about the number of full-time private practice consultants. We think it is in the region of 400 and increasing.

Someone commented on the National Treatment Purchase Fund, the issue with which is that it is not a sustainable solution. We need basic capacity in public hospitals. While private hospitals can carry out more procedures, it is not the full solution.

For clarity, I was not suggesting necessarily that the C contract was the solution to the problem. I was asking whether the IHCA saw it as a solution to the problem of recruitment or retention. On top of that, everyone around the table accepts that the vast majority of consultants work exceptionally long hours and go above and beyond the call of duty. However, if that is the case, I assume that each and every delegate is exceptionally angry at those who are not fulfilling at the very minimum their contractual obligations. I assume that is a given. With that in mind and getting back to the C contract, there is a committee on which Mr. Liam Woods sits which is called the C contract committee. That is where primarily consultants make applications to move from an A contract to a C contract. Is that the case?

Mr. Martin Varley

Probably a B contract more so that an A contract.

They will move from a B contract which allows for a certain amount of treatment of private patients in public hospitals to off-site private treatment. Is that the case?

Mr. Martin Varley

Yes.

Is there an increased number of applications from consultants at Mr. Woods's committee to move from a B contract to a C contract? If so, is it not an immediate undermining of the long-term goal and strategy of the Sláintecare report which is aimed primarily at disentangling public and private care? I do not know for how long a C contract is awarded. If we are changing B contracts to C contracts, are we undermining the public element of consultants' obligations?

Mr. Martin Varley

I should declare that I am a member of the type C committee and quite familiar with its workings. The Deputy is correct that there has been an increase from 2013 onwards in the number of applicants who have been recommended by the committee and approved by the HSE. We should look at this issue in the full context. In the NHS, throughout all of its jurisdictions, a consultant works his or her contracted hours and is free thereafter to practice privately as he or she wishes. That is generally the practice worldwide. We are unique in actually restricting consultants in practicing outside their contracted hours. The key component is that consultants carry out their public contract hours and I hope they are given the resources to do so productively. Some of the problems in the health service relate to the fact that they are not being given the resources they need to have a sufficient number of operating hours. There has been somewhat of an increase in the number of type C applicants, but it has abated in recent times. There was pent up demand from 2008 to 2013 and it has subsequently come at a more steady, reduced flow. I do not see the numbers escalating significantly. It will only happen where individuals can marry their public contracts with work off-site. I do not have concerns in that regard and, in fact, consider it beneficial to the public at large if we have a shortage in a specialty, as we generally have, that once consultants have completed their work in public hospitals, they can work off-site privately. In fact, their work off-site is clearly in addition and separate. I see that private practice as separate from their work in public hospitals.

Is there a health and safety issue? For example, pilots are only allowed to fly for so long, while truck drivers are only allowed to drive for so long. If someone is a consultant with a C contract who is obligated to work 33 hours a week, can he or she work as many hours as he or she likes outside of that number or is there an obligation to turn up half awake? Are there health and safety concerns if a consultant is working hard for 33 hours a week in meeting his or her commitment to the public system and then works in a private hospital? Is there a cap on how many hours he or she can work there? Does he or she come in on Monday morning after a weekend of performing round-the-clock surgery?

Dr. Tom Ryan

I might talk to the Deputy about the acute hospital system. There is no cap on the number of hours someone works in the acute hospital system. One is still expected to cover weekends when one is on-call for 24, 48 or 72 hours. It is not unusual to do a working week and then work eight to 12 hours on Saturday, the same on Sunday and come back to work on Monday. I speak from personal experience in the hospital where I work. I think of a particular night when I had four other consultants in at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning and two others on the telephone. We all came back to work on the Monday morning and worked away. If one goes down the health and safety route, the amount of work we are doing in public hospitals does not comply with the working time directive. That is because there are not enough consultants in the system. We are short 2,000 or more consultants. It is not safe or healthy for the consultants who work in the system and as a result, they leave.

I want to raise an issue regarding hospital management and the difficulties leading to turnover in hospital management. It is a big problem in smaller hospitals.

Dr. Peadar Gilligan

It can be a major issue. One may develop an understanding and relationship with a management colleague but that person could move from the hospital or out of the health care system. An area that has suffered within the hospital system is not at the middle or higher management level but rather the administrative staffing level. For example, there is something as simple as the typing of letters, which can be much delayed in many hospitals because there is not the administrative support to the clinical team. The result is the GP would not be aware of what has happened in the hospital because the letter would not be received. It is just one area where the stripping away of staff in the context of cuts in the acute hospital system has had a very significant impact in clinical care provision and communication around that provision. Does this create inefficiencies? The short answer is that it does. Having a working relationship with somebody in order to move things forward is the way we would all like to work but it is not always the case.

I apologise for not being able to be here for the initial presentations. I have questions for both representative groups but forgive me if they have been already answered. I can look at the record for the answers in that case. Do the representative association members have any objection to their time being monitored? I worked in a union when a process of clocking in and out was introduced. I was delighted this happened, although I was a little upset that nobody looked at the hours I was working and gave me some time off as a result. Are there any examples of where this monitoring might be in place. I am aware that the non-consultant hospital doctors are monitored with respect to the European working time directive.

The other issue is resourcing, which is linked with monitoring. If time is monitored and a person is available for work, an employer may not be able to provide the means to carry out the work. A builder may turn up for work but the employer may not provide the bricks. He or she would be available for work and be entitled to pay. That builder would be able to do the job but would not have been given the resources for it. It is my understanding, from speaking to consultants, that very often there is an issue with resources. The consultant may be able to perform a procedure but a recovery bed is not available. I suspect such cases account for quite a considerable amount of work not getting done. Is there a way we might be able to monitor that? I am aware the HSE does not routinely collect data on theatre use. I know it is not all about operations but it is a big chunk of the problem. Is there a mechanism for recording that the organisations would be happy to use? Could it be built into a process that a certain consultant turned up on Monday morning, for example, and was available for work but the employer could not provide him or her with the means to carry out the work?

Mr. Anthony Owens

Currently there is no mechanism by which consultants would clock in or clock out. One must bear in mind that consultants would work, in a large part, across several sites and there would need to be some joined-up thinking there. There are also instances where a consultant would arrive to provide some kind of emergency treatment so how would that be captured? There is no mechanism for this and as of yet we have not received proposals to engage with on that issue. The Taoiseach took to Twitter to suggest something might happen but there is nothing we are aware of that is leading to that yet.

The Deputy mentioned non-consultant hospital doctors and with their clocking in process we found it was a very good means of capturing the hours worked, both in terms of European working time directive compliance and ensuring they were paid for the hours worked. If consultants were asked to be on some kind of timing system, it would capture the hours worked. We believe consultants work well in excess of what their contracts set out. We recently surveyed our members and found that up to 60% were working up to 20 hours over the contractual commitments. It was almost a perfect bell curve, with the contractual commitment on one end of the axis. If the time would be captured, we would have to consider what to do with the details. I am sure there would be a feeling among the consultant body that capturing the time should lead to some kind of remuneration for the time. I know contracts allow a payment for structured on-site attendance at weekends and so on but they are not always honoured. If we were to capture them, we would have to look at something like that.

It is something of a double-edged sword as there is something in it for the employer, which can be satisfied that the work is being done, and there is something in it for the worker, who can say he or she turned up and was available for work.

Mr. Anthony Owens

Yes, of course. As we are talking about medical specialists, we would also need to consider data protection, etc.

Dr. Tom Ryan

In the public health care system, we see approximately 3.2 million people in outpatient departments per year. We do 1.25 million surgical procedures. The work is either performed or supervised by consultants, which amount to 2.5% of the work force. Data indicate that in the past ten years, our productivity has increased by 25% despite resources being restricted. There is no problem with consultant performance but there is a problem with capacity. Our efforts should be directed towards increasing the capacity of the system and attracting more people to work in it.

One can monitor consultants and we will find that they work way in excess of their hours. It will not help, as we know. We know that the problem is there are not enough consultants. Whatever we do, we should ensure it is designed to attract more consultants into the system. In that respect, monitoring consultants and getting them to clock in and out would just be a mask of the underlying problems. It would not deal with such underlying problems. We need bigger hospitals, more consultants, more beds and more operating theatres. It is a very good distraction but this does not deal with the core issue. It will not help patients in the end.

Is it Dr. Ryan's contention that the real issue is capacity in beds, nursing and consulting staff, and unless that is addressed, the health service will not get out of its dysfunctionality. Is the first step increasing capacity and staff numbers?

Dr. Tom Ryan

If we want to deliver a single-tier, universal health care service where nobody in their right mind would take out private health insurance, we would have to dramatically increase the capacity of the public health system. It is the over-riding matter and everything after it is of secondary importance and just a distraction. Unless we deal with the core issue, any health service policy will fail.

Dr. Peadar Gilligan

We absolutely concur with the Chairman that it is a matter of capacity within the system. We all want to work in a system as senior specialists in the acute hospital sector. With our colleagues in general practice and public health, we want to be in a system where we can provide the level of care that the patients of Ireland deserve to receive in a timely manner.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegates for coming and providing expert comments. It can be confusing to differentiate between surgeons and ordinary doctors.

There is nothing ordinary about doctors.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 January 2018.
Top
Share