Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 9 Dec 1993

Vote 41 — Health (Supplementary Estimate).

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this Supplementary Estimate before the committee for examination. The sum required is a net additional figure of £58.804 milllion. In 1993 the original gross sum provided by the Government for health services was £1,746.952 million. When account is taken of the Supplementary Estimate, the total gross provision for the health service in 1993 will be £1,805.756 million. The additional moneys now sought are necessary in order to fund adequately a number of items within the health services which have given rise to additional expenditure which was unforeseen or could not be computed accurately when the original Estimate was passed by the House earlier this year.

By far the single largest item in this Supplementary Estimate is the provision of £33.075 million to cover the payment of arrears due under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to public servants in the health servides. Pay increases due to public servants under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in 1992 and 1993 were capped at £5 and £6.50 per week respectively. In accordance with the Minister for Finance’s statement on public sector pay on 17 January, 1992 and the subsequent agreement with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, losses of income arising from the capping of public sector pay will be recouped to public servants in 1993 and 1994. The Supplementary Estimate provides for the recoupment of these arrears in full for health services personnel before the end of this year an in part for civil servants employed in the Department of Health. The balance outstanding to staff in the Department will be paid early in 1994.

In addition a further £5.198 million is sought to meet increases to general operatives following an understanding which was framed between the ICTU and the public service employers on pay for general operatives employed outside the Dublin area as part of the agreement on pay and conditions under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Following conciliation talks an agreement was reached to introduce a phased increment of £16.04 per week for this group. Phase 1 of the increment, £6 per week, is due to be implemented with effect from 1 January 1993.

In this Supplementary Estimate I am seeking a total of £21.656 million in respect of demand led schemes which are the responsibility of my Department. These schemes include the drug refund scheme, the drug cost subsidisation scheme, long term illness scheme, disabled person's maintenance allowance and a number of other smaller allowances. The additional funds now being sought are to cover shortfalls in the funding of these schemes for 1991, 1992 and 1993. The figures originally submitted for the 1991 and 1992 Supplementary Estimates were the best estimates that could be made by the health boards at that time. The subsequent outturn figures which were audited reveal the shortfalls in 1991 and 1992 to be some £7.654 million more than had been estimated.

The 1993 vote provision was computed on an agreed basis. There were however, no provisions made for growth in volume or price increases. I explained that to the committee when I introduced the original Estimate. The additional revenue now sought is based on the most up to date information from the health boards on the likely year end outturn. My Department is undertaking a number of studies in order to ascertain the contributing factors to the continued rising costs of these schemes.

In the area of child care services I am looking for an additional £5 million. In the area of child care and protection the Government responded swiftly and decisively to the central recommendation in the report of the Kilkenny Incest Investigation that the necessary resources be provided for the implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991, particularly those provisions which will greatly strengthen the powers of the health boards and the Garda to intervene effectively in cases of child abuse. The committee will be aware that the Government has agreed to my proposal for the full implementation of the Child Care Act over a three year period and have made available to me an additional £5 million to begin this process. That is the £5 million now before the committee for sanction. I would remind the committee that this is the largest ever investment of resources in the child care area in a single year and demonstrates in the most tangible way possible the commitment to the development of a comprehensive range of services and supports to assist children and families in need.

I have approved a package of new developments for each health board area which are being funded from this special allocation. The developments are preparing the groundwork for the assignment of additional functions under the Act to health boards and will greatly enhance their capacity to respond to the needs of children and families. The scale of these new developments is unprecedented and includes the creation of over 100 new posts of social worker and child care worker; the creation of three new posts of consultant child psychiatrist for the child and adolescent psychiatric services; the creation of over 20 new posts in the child psychology services; the expansion of the home maker and home help services to assist families in difficulty; the establishment of community mothers' programmes in a number of health boards; increased financial support for pre-school services in disadvantaged areas; additional hospital places in services for homeless children; improvements in services for victims of family violence in rural areas; the development of foster care services and the improvement in staffing levels in a number of children's residential centres.

I have asked the health boards to take urgent steps to put these developments in place as quickly as possible and I am confident that the various new initiatives which I have appproved will result in significant improvements in child care and family support services in each region and will lay a sound foundation for further developments in future years.

A sum of £3.906 million is required to meet the cost of subscriptions to the medical defence organisations. Hospital consultants in the public health service are required by their contracts of employment to indemnify themselves against claims for negligence, etc. Their contracts also provide for between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the cost of subcriptions to medical defence organisations to be reimbursed by their employer. In 1992, the medical defence associations announced increases in the region of 40 per cent in their subscription rates for 1993. A sum of £4.350 million represents the cost to health service employers of the reimbursement to consultants. Provision is also included for the payment of premia for general practitioners under the GMS scheme.

Increases in annual GMS drugs expenditure for the year 1989 to 1992 have been between 10 per cent and 13 per cent per annum. In late 1992 agreement was reached with the Irish Medical Organisation to the effect that there were opportunities for rationalising State expenditure on drugs and medicines under the scheme. It was agreed between the parties that target expenditure for 1993 should be based on the 1992 outturn figure which at that time was projected at £132.5 million.

The indicative drug target scheme, which was introduced in January 1993, has resulted in GMS drugs expenditure to the end of September 1993 amounting to £103.581 million as compared to £99.215 million in the same period last year — an increase of 4.4 per cent, as compared to an increase of 12.5 per cent in the same period in 1992. It is estimated that if this trend continues excess expenditure on drugs and medicines in the GMS in 1993 will amount to a net £5.6 million over the target originally set.

This excess is being partially offset in 1993 through the once off payment of a cost over-run rebate by the pharmaceutical industry through payment of the increased manufacturers rebate which was negotiated as part of the new FICI agreement.

The Government has decided to grant a bonus of 70 per cent of a week's allowance to social welfare recipients and those in receipt of health cash allowances, subject to a minimum of £20. The cost of implementing the decision for those in receipt of health allowances is £1.85 million.

It is proposed to allocate an additional £560,000 for AIDS/drug abuse services. Drug misuse continues to be a serious social and public health matter and our strategy is geared towards addressing this together with the associated problem of the spread of HIV. A significant part of the funds now being voted will be allocated towards meeting the unavoidable additional costs of satellite clinics which have been established in the Dublin area.

These clinics provide treatment services for drug abusers including methadone maintenance, urine analysis, free condoms, needle exchange and counselling as well as outreach services for specific groups such as gay men and prostitutes. Not only do the clinics provide a treatment service for drug abusers but they form an important element in the battle to prevent the spread of HIV since 51 per cent of those who are HIV positive are IV drug abusers whose behaviour can often put them at risk. The strategy of dealing with combined problems of drug abuse and the spread of HIV is, of course, based on the recommendations of the National Co-ordinating Committee on Drug Abuse.

The provision of additional satellite clinics in the Dublin area as well as the extension of other services available for drug abusers will continue to have a high priority in the allocation of funds in the coming years.

The 1993 Estimate provided £116.908 million for balances due to health agencies for services provided in previous years. The figure in the 1993 Estimate was calculated prior to the inclusion of the special pay arrears in the 1992 Vote at the end of last year. Based on the final out-turn, a further £1.532 million is due to health agencies in respect of balances.

An outbreak of hepatitis A occurred among the haemophiliac population in a number of European countries including Ireland which may have been related to possible contaminated Factor VIII and Factor IX blood products. The Blood Transfusion Service Board immediately suspended use of the products obtained from the then supplier. Similar action was taken about the same time in other European Union countries. It was necessary to immediately place a short term contract with an alternative supplier to ensure the continued supply of quality products. The only alternative supplier was on average 28 per cent more expensive with the result that there has been an additional cost of £1 million to the health service.

In 1992 an agreement was concluded with the Irish Haemophiliac Trust, approved by Government, to pay compensation to haemophiliacs who contracted AIDS from blood transfusions prior to 1986. The agreement covered 103 cases. After the agreement was completed and compensation paid another case was discovered. Compensation of £77,000 has been agreed to on the basis of the original settlement.

The income under Appropriations-in-Aid is now likely to be greater than was originally anticipated and this is now reflected in the adjustment of £17.9 million shown in the Supplementary Estimate. This adjustment is mainly accounted for by higher receipts from health contributions than had originally been estimated. This increase in receipts is due to buoyancy in tax receipts and to a technical adjustment in the percentage being paid by the Revenue Commissioners in respect of health contributions. There has also been an increase in the amounts paid to the Department by the United Kingdom in respect of the recovery of health costs under European Union regulations.

This Supplementary Estimate reflects the commitment of the Government to adequately fund and maintain the highest level of care within our health services and, where necessary, as for example in the case of child care, to expand and develop these services to ensure the health and welfare of those in need. I, accordingly, recommend the Estimate to this Select Committee for its approval.

I thank the Minister for his contribution. I would have thought that because of the events of the day that he might have departed from his script and made a comment on the shocking news from the Department of Health on the misuse of the funds from the national lottery. For many years Opposition Members suspected that there was a certain amount of impropriety on the matter of disbursement of the lottery funds. It was raised in the Dáil on numerous occasions and the Government was at pains to stress that all these rumours and suspicions were totally without foundation. The Committee of Public Accounts has now established, beyond doubt, that there was a serious fiddle within the Department of Health and the Minister should comment on the steps he has taken since becoming Minister to ensure that the type of transparency so sadly lacking since 1987 is in place in the Department of Health. A full and frank statement is required of the Minister.

Having regard to the fact that the Taoiseach is ultimately responsible for the members of the Government, and their actions, he should engage in a formal communication with the Committee of Public Accounts and assist in the disclosure of all lottery files from the Department of Health before he deals with other areas. It is scandalous, particularly at a time when there is so much talk about ethics in Government. What the Committee of Public Accounts has discovered is nothing short of a serious scandal.

In relation to the Supplementary Estimate, I would be most concerned at the level of the health budget being spent on administration. I note that a considerable amount of the £58 million will again be spent on administration. The front line services will not receive as much money is they might under a reformed system of health care delivery. It is timely 20 years on that a full appraisal of the role of the health boards should be considered. What is required is a clear definition of roles, relationship and accountability of members of health boards, chief executive officers, the Minister, the Department and the many other agencies involved in the delivery of the health care service. The present system is not well managed and I question whether there is real value for money within the health care area.

I accept — this is a matter on which the Minister and I have crossed swords on numerous occasions — that long term cries for more money and higher rates of spending are not in the best interest of overall Government policy. I must accept that there is a strict limit on the amount any Minister for Health can wrangle from his colleague the Minister for Finance. That said, improved technology, longer life spans and a demand for better services will always be features of the health service in any developed, democratic State. It is important, therefore, to evaluate the root system that operates in the delivery of this service. The process of decision making is too remote from the application of the service. Fundamental to any restructuring is a planning and evaluation system which produces clear service objectives against which delivery can be measured. In this regard I believe that health boards should be abolished. There is merit in establishing a new semi-State body, An Bord Sláinte, with full responsibility to deliver health care services which could function successfully along the lines of An Post or Telecom Éireann. The results would mean far less duplication and conflict than in the present system. Each hospital would have its own board of management with an allocated budget for the provision of specified services. Recent surveys show that 83 per cent of people think money in the health service could be better spent, a perception that there is waste and undue bureaucracy within the health service which requires the Minister's attention.

On the specifics of the Estimate, I query the amounts paid to health boards, much of which, I understand from the Minister, are subsumed in the pay area. The Minister is aware of total overruns within the health board service of many millions of pounds. I refer to a report of a recent meeting between the Minister and chief executive officers of health boards wherein he stated no extra money had been allocated for this year. At the same time we are awaiting details of a £74 million refinancing package to deal with the health boards' debt. Will the Minister clarify how and when these funds will be disbursed? Prior to agreeing any fresh cash injection, the Minister should explore the circumstances of each individual health board and the manner in which it organises its finances. I am sure the Minister is aware that at any given time the Southern Health Board, for example, owes between £6 million and £7 million to suppliers. As I have said elsewhere, health boards are notoriously bad risks as far as small businesses and suppliers are concerned.

On the matter of pay, I fail to see any mention of the long outstanding grievance of clinical psychologists. I accept the Minister's role in this is not absolute in so far as he is dependent on negotiations between him and the Minister for Finance. Nevertheless, he must explain why there is such a pay disparity between psychologists working the health service and those under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education.

In spite of the Minister's comments and actions I am not sure if we appreciate the urgency in regard to child care. This week the publication of yet another study shows an alarming increase in child sexual abuse. It requires innovative and radical action of a type we have not yet seen. Money is welcome but it will not change attitudes. It is time to set up a national children's council, independent of the Department of Health, which would be accountable for child care services. Such a council would set in place specific programmes to increase awareness and knowledge of the brutal savagery that is child abuse. Some 95 per cent of these cases are dealt with by social services, underlining the clear need for these services to be beefed up. I accept what the Minister said and I look forward to the disbursement of increased resources he allocated. Earlier this year the Kilkenny group strongly urged the need to implement the Child Care Act, particularly sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 dealing with emergencies, care proceedings, and children in health board care. How many of the 79 sections of that Act have been implemented and what are the targets for 1994? It is important to have specific targets and goals in this area. Child care cannot be confined to a 40 hour week or an eight hour day. An independent national children's council would certainly be an advantage in tackling this problem.

It is regrettable that we are pumping more money into medical defence organisations, an area requiring the Government's urgent attention. Is the Minister in a position to publish the recommendations of the inter-departmental report completed earlier this year? We are paying something in the order of £16 million a year to British companies. We must ensure an alternative system involving some form of tribunal to deal with complaints more speedily, efficiently and cheaply than at present.

The Southern Health Board's hip operations issue has been a sensitive one. I sympathise with the patients and wish them well but I must revert to the question of cost, particularly the cost of transport and after care. It costs a lot of money to ferry people by helicopter on a return trip from Cork to Belfast and I would like a breakdown showing how this job can be done for the stated sum of £500,000 sterling.

Between now and the budget the Minister must engage in serious discourse with the Department of Social Welfare on the vexed question of the disabled person's maintenance allowance and the discrimination in means testing. The cost of resolving this would not be great. Regional variations in the level of awards are unacceptable. The disabled person's maintenance allowance should be treated in the same light as unemployment assistance when assessing the income of a spouse and the same exemptions allowed. The present scheme is fundamentally unjust because all the income is assessed for disabled person's maintenance allowance claims but not for unemployment assistance. What is the problem with this matter and why are we discriminating? I am pleased the Minister is voting a further sum in respect of HIV-AIDS which is a matter we can revert to later in the debate.

Overall, there is much to be done for the mentally handicapped who are not favoured by way of a supplementary Vote. This leaves us in a similar situation to that in which we have been throughout the year. The solemn commitment given by the Labour Party has been abandoned. There is not much joy for the physically handicapped, the old and the vulnerable in the Supplementary Estimate.

A greater degree of equity will not be apparent within the health service until we tackle the basic structures to eliminate duplication, over-bureaucracy and administration by injecting more accountability to the service. We need to eradicate the perception that so much money for health boards is being gobbled up in adminstration, while the front line services for people who need care are losing out.

I appreciate the difficulties which any Minister for Health has, given the conflicting demands of keeping a tight control on the public finances and generously responding to demand-led schemes, particularly those relating to child care and HIV. All budgets are a matter of making choices and I am delighted that, at last, a shift favours child care schemes and improving resources for child care. Child abuse has been with us from time immemorial and has been known about in this State for many years. The difference between knowing about it and making money and services available to deal with it, needs to be acknowledged at budget time, it is as simple as that. The money allocated to implement the recommendations of the inquiry into the Kilkenny incest case is welcome.

It is true to say that the Department of Health should be called the Department of Health and Social Services. Many of the schemes we are talking about today relate to social services. The extra £58 million will be spent very quickly with the provision of these enhanced resources. It is timely that people are being appointed at health care level right around the country because that is the front line in dealing with child sex abuse. The recent report by the ISPCC has shown us the bleak landscape, the term used when referring to the high level of incidents, both past and present, of child abuse in Ireland.

What is set out here is what the money is actually buying. It is not only about money, it is about putting in place management structures which will deal with practices which came to light in the very thorough investigation in the Kilkenny incest case report. There was a litany of slippages and lack of integration on the part of the various health professionals dealing with that case. I am sure it was not unique. Apart from the money provided to set up and employ extra specialist personnel the Minister must guarantee that management and accountability structures are put in place so that reporting will lead on to action and that there will be no slippage such as occurred in the Kilkenny incest case.

I would like to raise another point with the Minister in relation to an evaluation of the children who are in the stewardship of the State, i.e. children who are in care already. I read recently an Eastern Health Board report on youth homelessness which showed that from January to June 1993, 280 young people under the age of 18 were homeless; 139 of those were sleeping rough and 156 were in insecure accommodation. The figures showed that 44 of those children had left our health care institutions — children who had been in care but were now no longer the responsibility of the State — and found they were homeless. That is a fundamental flaw and a reason for concern about our child care services. When we take children away from parents who are not looking after them and place them in the care of the State, if at the end of our stewardship those children are incapable of being safe then we will have to evaluate our child care responsibilities. Is the system working? Does it need to be improved? What sort of follow-up is there for those children who cannot be forced to stay in care after a certain age? Where are they going? They are becoming homeless and resorting to drugs and petty crime. I would like the Minister to respond to that.

I would like to refer to the improvements in service for victims of family violence in rural areas. This is welcome. I would like the Minister to give me a breakdown of where the new centres are to be based. In the Dublin area we have some facilities for battered women and children. At the last City Council meeting in Dublin Corporation we were disposing of property. Sonas is a sister organisation of Women's Aid. For three years Sonas had worked tirelessly putting a proposal together. They had gone through the planning process both at local level and An Bord Pleanála and had got planning permission and the goodwill of the City Council for 25 units of secure third stage refuge, basically social housing, under the national scheme for voluntary housing bodies. There was a lot of opposition from local residents. One Deputy in the constituency supported the residents in opposing the siting of these 25 units in this area. He succeeded in deferring the disposal of the property and actually managed to negotiate with Sonas with the result that they lost on their total number of 25 units and were reduced to 12. I believe they caved in, in the absence of political support and leadership on the overall social objective of the State to support battered women and children.

A precedent has been set that residents can object outside the planning process in relation to the disposal of property, via their elected Deputy. It was a sad day for that objective. It was a sad day that one particular Deputy could motivate and fuel local residents against these people, who are already victims, as if they were some sort of encroachment on their residential amenities. The Minister should look into this and try to nip it in the bud. If it is accepted that battered women and children constitute some sort of planning or environmental problem which can be objected to by residents, then it is a very bad precedent and we will never get off the ground. This was the first third stage refuge in the north side of the city and a very bad precedent has been set.

I would like to refer to the drugs bill. This is a good initiative. Could the Minister say whether any GPs have reached their targets and whether they have benefited by way of receiving money back to improve their own practices? How is that to be calculated? Are the payments to GPs to be calculated on the basis of a global figure saved on the national drugs bill or related to each individual GPs reaching their target?

I welcome the £560,000 provided for HIV and AIDS victims. The improvement of satellite clinics is very welcome. This is something that is going to be with us and is going to require more money. One thing that has been brought to my attention is that terminally ill AIDS patients are not accepted into hospices. We will have to look at whether or not the State is responding sufficiently well and providing for the needs of terminally ill AIDS patients who should die in dignity and comfort in the same way as other terminally ill patients who are provided for in the State. I welcome the spending of this money.

It should be noted that this Supplementary Estimate is for £58.8 million which is a lot of money. I find it strange that the Department, albeit a large spending Department, could not estimate more closely its costs for the year. While the finance commitment has been made by the Minister — and it is welcome in relation to the Child Care Act — the reality on the ground is that the services are under far more strain than ever before. Under the Child Care Act social workers are responsible for young people up to the age of 18. I do not believe that the publicity relating to various child abuse cases has meant that the existing services of the health boards are being swamped. There is no doubt that additional social workers and administrative staff are needed, but this has not worked its way through the system. Will the Minister, who has repeatedly said he is investing money in staff recruitment, give us information about when these appointments will be made, what resources will be available, what hospital places will be provided and what improvements there will be made for the victims of family violence? He has set out these markers and I congratulate him for getting an extra £50 million. What changes are being made? I am afraid this amount of money will not be sufficient, given the increase in child abuse and child neglect cases.

I received reports from social workers and voluntary bodies that in some areas social workers are dealing solely with child abuse and child neglect cases and as a result are unable to deal with other elements of their work. One cannot get through on the telephone to the local health clinic in Bray, County Wicklow, because the number of telephone lines is inadequate to provide the necessary service. The situation is chaotic. There have been three major industrial disputes in the Eastern Health Board in the past 12 months. Unless these provisions are put in place soon we could have further industrial unrest.

In relation to the situation in the Eastern Health Board and the care for homeless children, is the Minister aware that the social workers who operate the out-of-hours service at present have been in dispute with the health board for the past six weeks? This has been happening at a time when the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, believes the homeless problem has been solved. This self delusion needs to be confronted and the Minister for Health has also suffered from it in recent weeks.

Last spring I and members of the medical profession spoke about the dangers of a measles epidemic due to the failure of the vaccination programme. However, the Department did not acknowledge the seriousness of the situation or the urgent need for this programme. Towards the end of the summer the Minister finally acknowledged the extent of the problem and the need for a public campaign. I was glad he decided to do something. However, in the meantime, two children have died from measles and there is an epidemic in parts of the country. It is distressing to think this could have been prevented.

A proper vaccination programme saves money as well as lives. The IMO is also concerned about this situation and it has threatened to withdraw from the scheme at the beginning of January. Will the Minister give us information about an immunisation programme because he cannot continue with the present system as it has not met the urgent needs of the people? A new system must be devised where births and vaccinations are recorded so as to prevent measles and the terrible conditions associated with that disease. It is outrageous in this day and age that a developed country with a good health system should have cases of measles, let alone on the scale we have experienced during the past year.

I want to refer to child abuse cases because the Minister now has an opportunity to adopt various measures in this area. Will the Minister consider improvements in foster care services? It is difficult to find foster parents, particularly for teenage children who are often disturbed as a result of child abuse. The amount of money which foster families receive does not meet the cost of keeping a child. Those who have reared a teenage child know it is expensive. However, when a child is fostered we, as a society, must ensure that people are not out of pocket and that there is no financial worry beyond the normal concerns related to fostering. We should encourage families who are willing to foster because it is a valuable service. I would like to know the Minister's plans in relation to fostering because this requires investment, not just publicity.

Another matter I wish to raise relates to indemnity and insurance. The figures for medical insurance have escalated. What will the Department do to tackle the increasing insurance costs? The Department must solve this problem. Not only is the cost of insurance increasing for doctors, but there is now a development towards defensive medicine, which has an inherent cost. More tests are being proposed and more investigations are being carried out. Many of these are unnecessary, but they are essential to ensure that doctors are protected from being sued. The Department should consider this. If extra investigations are carried out to prevent litigation, the extra cost must be taken on board.

The US has huge litigation problems and it spends twice the percentage of GNP on the health service. We are moving quickly in that direction, but we must stop or the scarce resources needed to provide health services will be used in litigation costs. This also relates to the cost of having a baby. Obstetrics is a medical area which is riddled with litigation cases and insurance costs are high. This means the patient must pay the costs. We cannot afford an American style indemnity system in Ireland. It is an unnecessary cost which is distorting the cost of the general health service.

What specific measure is the Minister taking to save the country from these costs? Perhaps an insurance scheme should be introduced to protect doctors and patients, but which will not be abused in a way we cannot sustain.

What does the Minister intend to do in relation to lottery funding? Last December I raised the question of the use of lottery funding by the previous Minister for Health, Dr. O'Connell, in his constituency. I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General has voiced his concern about this matter. The Committee of Public Accounts is carrying out an investigation in relation to the alleged abuse. In my opinion it is clear what has happened and I stated this on 12 December. The use of public money in this way undermines the credibility of what we are debating today, particularly when people realise that money can be easily hived off. This matter must be dealt with and I am sure the officials of the Department of Health do not like it anymore than I do. It is disgraceful that this money can become part of normal currency when a person contests a general election. This must be investigated. I hope the Minister co-operates with any further investigation.

The Minister mentioned support for refuges for those who suffer family violence. In the past six months the Eastern Health Board held up payments to many organisations, including private companies and voluntary organisations. Let us take one example, a refuge in my area provides shelter on a voluntary basis for battered women, the pittance they receive from the Eastern Health Board is like getting blood from a stone. They get it a year late, the Health Board decide when it will give it; it is never as a matter of right or in recognition of the 24 hour emergency service that a refuge like this provides. That is the reality and the way the health board operates.

The last point I want to make relates to the indicative drug budgeting scheme. I am concerned about the savings made by the Minister because I am fearful that they may be made for the wrong reasons. I tried to extract information from his Department to see if the reductions in the increase under the indicative drug budgeting scheme were on a par with, for example, the drug refund scheme and it looked as if they were not. There is an inherent danger in that if we use cost cutting exercises like this we will end up with a two tier system and doctors, regardless of how well they want to treat their patients, will be inhibited in prescribing the appropriate drug for the appropriate need. I am sure people are clapping themselves on the back for having reduced the overall increase in drug provision but, at the end of the day, if that interferes with the relationship and the best professional judgment of a doctor in prescribing for patients, then it is a wrong kind of cost saving. In other countries it has been shown that the reductions in drugs have been far more effectively brought about by educating and training doctors and ensuring that they are fully aware of the best way to manage drug costs rather than the stick and carrot approach used here about which I am concerned and intend to pursue.

I wish to refer to three items included in the Supplementary Estimate, the first is the demand led schemes. Quite a substantial sum has been provided for them and I wonder if any progress has been made in trying to transfer — particularly the disabled person's maintenance allowance — to the Department of Social Welfare, where it should be. There is an unemployment benefit scheme and an unemployment assistance scheme in the Department of Social Welfare. There is a disability benefit scheme but there is no disability assistance scheme. There is duplication of effort and, indeed, long delays for clients waiting for a transfer from disability benefit when their contributions hav expired for the health board to process a new claim for what is really disability assistance and which should be in the Department of Social Welfare. I would like to know if any progress has been made on that.

The Minister refers to a number of schemes — the drugs refund scheme; the drug cost subsidisation scheme and the long term illness scheme. There has also been concern for a long time that certain groups in society, people with heart disease or skin disease are often not thought about. Their medicine and drugs are very expensive but they do not benefit from the long term illness scheme. At the same time, people are included in the long term illness scheme who are capable of doing a full day's work. For example, diabetes is very well controlled at present and some diabetics are capable of earning quite large incomes. Perhaps it is time to look at all those schemes with a view to introducing equity to them to ensure that people on low incomes and in need of continuing treatment benefit.

The other point to which I would like to refer is medical indemnity. More and more of the limited resources available are being spent on what we might call defensive medicine. In order to protect the doctor from litigation it is necessary now to refer patients for X-rays and investigations they normally would not need. I will give an example — long ago if somebody playing a football match on a Friday night sprained an ankle, one would bandage the ankle, tell them to rest it over the weekend and to call back on Monday morning when one would have a look at it and send them for an X-ray. That would not be detrimental to the patient but now the pressure is on to refer the patient on the Friday night for an X-ray with all that involves in terms of disruption of the hospital X-ray service, etc. I would like to know what progress the Minister is making — I know he is concerned about it — in addressing that very serious and critical issue.

On the question of the cost of drugs, while extra money is being provided in the Supplementary Estimate were it not for the fact that a very worthwhile effort was made to have a more economical prescribing of drugs over the last two years the Minister might be looking for a lot more in the Supplementary Estimate. I make the point, and it is important in the light of what Deputy McManus said, that obviously — and I think doctors are conscious of it — the obligation is on doctors to provide the necessary medicine for the patient for the particular illness. I do not think anybody disputes that. Doctors discharge that obligation, but there is also an obligation on them to be ecconomical in their prescribing, in other words, if there is a drug of equal efficiency that costs less then there is an obligation on them as good citizens in a high tax paying society to prescribe that drug. However, I would not like to see a situation develop, nor do I believe it exists or that it will develop, where patients might be short changed because doctors, in an effort to reduce the cost of medicines, did not prescribe what the patient needed.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his excellent work in achieving any target set in the Joint Programme for Government in such a short space of time. From the figures given by the Minister, effectively £33 million is included in the Estimate for a rise under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I was wondering in general terms, I think Deputy McManus referred to it also, why that could not have been foreseen. In other words, why do we have at the end of the year a Supplementary Estimate not alone for that — I know that a substantial portion of the total is down to that and the drug led schemes as well for 1991, 1992 and 1993 but why is it not possible to estimate that without bringing in a second estimate at the end of the year?

The medical indemnity insurance schemes seem to be developing along the same lines as for the local authorities where the emphasis will be placed on insuring doctors as it is currently placed on public liability insurance for local authorities. Such insurance is getting out of hand for local authorities and if it continues for doctors at the current rate there will be a substantial problem. I ask the Minister to say what steps have been taken to curtail this, whether targets have been set and how the Department is approaching it.

I am glad to see progress has been made under the Child Care Act. Could the Minister let us know what targets have been set by the Department for applying the further sections? I understand they are to be introduced on a phased basis over a given period.

Finally I ask the Minister to give information about the drug targets which were set down. Is a positive trend envisaged? Does he see the targets set by his Department in the programme being met and what plan does he have?

I have two brief questions on the demand-led schemes which are costing a further £21 million. From an administrative point of view I ask the Minister to re-examine the regulations for the disabled person's maintenance allowance. There may be differences in speed of response between health boards. Most of the disabled person's maintenance allowance applicants I deal with have experienced extremely long delays. A saving to the State might be argued as a justification but a majority of such applicants are in the interim period receiving supplementary welfare. They are continually called by community welfare officers to present further evidence of their financial standing and for medical examinations.

It is unfair that many applicants for the disabled person's maintenance allowance wait for 12 months or more before a decision is made on their application. If something can be done about that it would be welcome because it would not cost the State any more than the supplementary welfare allowance. The typical applicant for the disabled person's maintenance allowance would like his or her application dealt with in a relatively short period.

We referred to the smaller allowances and presumably the mobility allowance would come under that subheading. While the total paid in allowances comes to a substantial figure, £8 might not pay for one taxi journey. It is called a mobility allowance but £8 per week would not make one mobile. Since it does not involve many people, I ask the Minister to do something for mobility allowance recipients in the context of next year's Estimates. I realise I should not harp on about the Estimates. The Minister should make the term mobility mean something by increasing it from £8 per week. It would help that small number of people.

I should speak about what is before us but one aspect which is not addressed is orthodontic services. It has been raised in Dáil questions and may be included in one subheading here. This service is totally underfunded and the Southern Health Board area is probably no different from other areas. People are coming to our clinics on a weekly, if not daily, basis with genuine problems. There is no way to address them unless the private option is taken and in many cases that is a huge financial burden. The Minister has made progress in relation to hip replacement and similar areas but I ask him to do something for orthodontics in 1994. No matter where he would have to send the patients, progress would be welcome.

I welcome the funds being put into the child care services following the Kilkenny incest case. It is gratifying to see the Minister respond to that and implement the Child Care Act.

A sum of £20 million has been allocated to the waiting list initiative. Will that be fully expended? Will the target of 17,000 additional operations be achieved?

IV drug users are the most significant category in the groups at risk. Could the Minister clarify what is being done for this group? Their numbers are increasing every day and we have to deal with them.

I ask the Minister to expand on the improvements in the services for the victims of family violence in rural areas. As a rural Deputy, many women and children affected by this have approached me. I am glad I can now advise them on where to go. Urban areas had such services before but rural areas did not. I ask the Minister to say where these services are.

This is a supplementary to the main Estimate which comes to almost £2,000 million, a considerable amount of money. It was a year for big expenditure in the health board I represent because we were behind on some schemes. When we presented solid proposals to the Minister he responded positively and I am grateful for that.

The survey of manpower in acute hospitals was presented to the health boards this year. It caused some worry because it showed that the Eastern Health Board had twice as many consultants as the Midland and Southern Health Boards and three times as many as the North-Eastern Health Board. It also found that 34 per cent of non-consultant hospital doctors were non-nationals. The report recommended a ratio of one consultant to one non-consultant hospital doctor. That is apparently the ideal because health boards could then use consultants in day hospitals and in clinics. I hope the Minister will follow that advice and increase the number of consultants.

I have a reputation for speaking about drugs over the last 20 years. I was glad to see the increase reduced from 12.5 per cent last year to 4.4. per cent this year. Every year, even when the inflation rate was only 2 or 3 per cent, there was an exorbitant 12 to 15 per cent increase for this item. I asked our health board to follow the others and engage in central purchasing, not only for drugs but for equipment. It might also be possible to share equipment where surpluses exist.

In the US and Great Britain, it was insisted that generic drugs be used provided the quality was as good as brand name drugs. That should also happen here. People are getting highly expensive drugs and they do not know how much they cost. The Minister should insist that the price be indicated on the jar or bottle in large figures. If that was done many people would be ashamed. At present may people get drugs which they think cost about £2 or £2.50 and if they saw the drugs cost £22.50 they would not put them at the back of a clock or in a jug on the dresser never to be seen again. Economics and the amount of money we are getting was mentioned. I notice in the North and in England they operate the contractual system and there are Trust hospitals in Craigavon. We should look at that too with a view to getting the best value for money in every area of health care. The carrying out of hip replacements in Belfast was mentioned and there is much discussion about this. I back the Minister 100 per cent on this. I am one of those sufferers who had to get not one but two hips replaced and the operation was very successful. I was glad other people were given such an opportunity. The consultants in our health board area, as soon as the Minister announced that money was available, co-operated fully with us to ensure the money was taken up. There wass a 40 per cent subscription increase in medical indemnity insurance in 1993. We seem to get all the bad habits from England and other places. Litigation is causing a real problem in every aspect of life.

On health care, the Minister has been very helpful to and forthcoming with health boards who put a programme and suggestions to him. Our health board adapted old buildings. The day is gone when boards can consider greenfield sites and spend large amounts of money on planning and so on. A great deal of work can be done to bring buildings back into use again rather than buying greenfield sites. Economically we cannot afford many services we thought we could afford years ago and we will have to cut our cloth to suit our measure and get good value for less money.

If the Government can afford an executive jet it can afford to provide decent health centres.

The only comment I wish to make regards the immunisation programme which starts at one year of age. I thought, perhaps, that it should start at two months of age and fund it from there. That would give better results in the long run.

The indemnity question has been raised. I suppose we could have a national indemnity programme within the health service itself and that might get around the fact that so much money goes out of the country in indemnity.

Deputy Leonard asked about drugs. The only danger in putting a price label on drugs is that we might have a problem with drug trafficking within households and within different regions when people see how expensive drugs are. Someone with a drug worth £30 might sell it to his friend who has a cold, or other ailment, for £5 or £6. I would also be interested to hear how the orthopaedic, plastic and the ENT programme is progressing.

I tried to take note of as many points raised as possible and I will try to give a comprehensive reply even to those Deputies who are not present but who posed good, interesting questions because I know they will read my answers carefully in the official report.

I wish to thank the Chairman and the Members who contributed to the debate. Obviously, a great deal of consideration went into the Supplementary Estimate and, in fact, some comments went beyond it. With the Chairman's indulgence, I will try to address those also.

Deputy Flanagan raised an issue that has become current today which predates my coming to office. Not only is it not relevant to the Supplementary Estimate, it is not relevant to this year's Estimate because it was a matter which occurred in a previous year. I am referring to the suggestions of misuse of lottery moneys. I would be concerned at any such suggestion. I will ensure within the Department that the most careful analysis is made of any application for lottery funding, that all applications will be treated on their merits and that the funds will be allocated where they are most needed. Needless to say the volume of applications to my Department, not less than to any other Department that handles lottery money, is by a huge factor greater than the amount of money that is available to us. It might help the select committee if I gave some details. This year a total of £29.4 million was available to the Department of Health and of this only £1.4 million is given any discretion. I will break down the issues of the £27.5 million that are earmarked in advance.

Of the moneys available to me this year £11 million went on capital; £5.7 million on the elderly; £1 million on services for the mentally handicapped; £800,000 on services for the physically handicapped; £2.1 million on improvements in child care services; £1.6 million was allocated directly to the health boards for distribution; £500,000 to health promotion; £800,000 to public health; £1 million to the National Social Services Board and £3 million in substitution for other funds which were Exchequer funds in normal circumstances but were funded from the lottery this year.

The element of discretion is very small for any Minister and even of the £1.4 million that remains there are ongoing commitments in a multi-annual programme that gobbled up much of that. I have given details of every allocation under my discretion in answer to a parliamentary question in the past couple of weeks. Every shilling given in allocations from the Department of Health is on the record of the House and that is the way it should be. I assure the select committee that we have carried out a very careful review of all procedures in my time in the Department and we will follow up each allocation to ensure that the money is spent for the purpose for which it was allocated.

As from 1 January, I have instructed my Department to institute a new procedure: all applications must be on a standard application form so that we can make objective comparisons between all applications. I was also concerned about the fact that people made application for a lottery grant, received an acknowledgment and heard no more. I am determined to finalise allocations in a given year so that everybody who was unsuccessful will be notified and can reapply the next year. In terms of my Department, we will start afresh in 1994 on a standard application form which will be carefully vetted by officials in charge of finance in my Department. I assure the select committee that there will be a follow through of every pound allocated. I hope that will set peoples' minds at rest.

I receive strong representations from every side of the House in relation to lottery grants. If I went through the files I could produce letters signed by a good many Members seeking funding, and rightly so, for very worthy projects. Would that I had the resources to allocate to them all. That is the way it is. The discretionary funding in relation to the lottery is very limited.

Deputy Flanagan also commented on administrative costs. I do not think I should allow his query go unanswered because the whole area of administration is something, even in Opposition, I was very keen to defend. I am looking at the administration structure of the health boards in the context of a national health strategy and I hope all the strands will be pulled together before the end of the year and that the plan will be published early next year. It will also address the area of organisation. However, Deputy Flanagan has not substantiated his claims. I have heard claims for years from all sides of the House — and outside — that health administration is excessively bureaucratic.

We examined health administration in many comparable countries. For example, Wales — which, culturally or physically, is not too distant from us — has a population of 2.8 million people and employes 70,000 people in its health services which does not include, for example, personal social services which are included in the 60,000 people employed in our health services. The cost of administration of health services in Ireland is under 4 per cent, considerably less than in Wales or many comparable jurisdictions.

I often come in for criticism for skimping on administration, resulting in bad management and not only ineffective but inefficient services and money wasted. I beefed up the value for money unit in my Department this year because I thought investment there would save a great deal of money, which has proven to be the case.

The other issue raised by Deputy Flanagan in relation to administration was the indebtedness of health boards, we had a long discussion in the Dáil on this matter. I am happy to have concluded a discussion with the Minister for Finance on an issue which has been talked about since 1984. Those debts have existed since then and everybody complained about them. I am in a position to address them in 1994, as I have already told the House. The exact details of how the moneys are to be allocated and repaid will be unveiled shortly.

It will allow us to have a much better system of dealing with suppliers to health boards when we do not have these dreadful indebtedness problems which have characterised the health services. I agree with much of what Deputies have said but we have all said this for a decade and it is time to get that matter off the agenda. Part and parcel of that, as I already indicated to the House, will be a tightening up of the whole administration of health boards so that, for example, overruns will not be tolerated in future.

I do not agree with Deputy Flanagan's suggestion that the health boards should be abolished. His analogy that we should have An Bord Sláinte similar to An Post is not appropriate for the health service which is multifaceted and reaches every family and household. A huge effort went into making it regionally based so that there could be a concentrated comprehensive service, as far as possible, within the region with some national specialities.

Deputy Flanagan also referred to the clinical psychologists who are not mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate but I am optimistic that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached in this matter. I have already indicated by way of answer to the House that the disparity in pay between clinical psychologists employed in my Department and those employed by the Department of Education is being addressed. From 1 January they will get a substantial increase in salary of the order of 25 per cent. The only outstanding matter is retrospection. I understand that the third party has looked at that and made a recommendation which I hope will resolve the matter. I do not know how close we are to finally resolving it but I am optimistic.

In relation to the area of child care, which was probably the issue raised by most Deputies, on publication of the report on the Kilkenny incest case I announced that the Government had agreed to my proposal to have the Act fully operational by the end of 1996. I also said that priority was to be given to those parts of the Act which gave improved powers to the boards and the Garda to deal with child abuse. It is intended that all those parts will be in operation during 1995.

I made no secret of the fact then that I would have preferred a faster rate of implementation of the Act but I have already indicated to this committee and to the House that that was the best timeframe I could be given. I was told it would, realistically, take that length of time to allocate the resources and have the personnel and required physical structures in place. I am determined it will be undertaken at that fast pace.

A number of Deputies asked me to be more specific about what has been achieved by the expenditure of £5 million so I will give some more details. For example, with regard to the creation of the new post of social worker and child care worker, all health boards have advertised the posts and approximately half of the appointments have been made. There are ongoing interviews in some health boards and all staff will be in place early in 1994.

In relation to the creation of new post of consultant child psychiatrist, the staff are now in place in the North-Eastern, North-Western and Mid-Western health boards. In relation to the new posts in child psychology, about half of the new posts are already in place and the remainder will take up appointment in the early part of 1994. The expansion of services has been approved on the lines I indicated of homemaker and so on and are all in or about to be put in place. With regard to increased fianacial support for pre-school services, the Eastern Health Board has increased its subvention rate to day nurseries from 70 to 80 per cent.

In relation to hostel places, Streetline hostel is about to open. I met representatives of Focus Point earlier this week and they are ready to open their new hostel early next year. I hope that their new developments in relation to homeless children will be ongoing. I have also approved a grant of £100,000 to equip Termon Residential Care Centre for girls in Cork city which is now open.

Improvements in services for victims of family violence was raised by a number of Deputies. A flavour of some of the new institutions which are already in place is that a new service is being developed in Castlebar, a grant has been given for a new refuge in Letterkenny, a grant has been allocated for the enhancement and development of the existing service in Athlone and improved funding has been granted for the women's aid shelter in Navan. I will give a comprehensive overview early next year.

A Deputy referred to the difficulty in relation to the after hours service. I am aware there are certain difficulties in relation to the after hours social worker service for young homeless people in the Eastern Health Board area. However, I am advised by the Eastern Health Board that it has not been told of any industrial action by IMPACT, which represents the staff concerned. Apparently, the staff are taking unofficial action which is affecting the service at night and weekends, which is unacceptable to me.

I have asked the Eastern Health Board to let me have an urgent report on the situation and I think this committee will share my determination to have this problem resolved as quickly as possible. I will return to the Deputy who raised the matter with a more comprehensive answer as soon as I hear from the Eastern Health Board.

My information is different from that which the Minister received and I suggest that while he should go back to the Eastern Health Board, he should also check with IMPACT.

I have just checked again with my officials that the information which I have just given this committee came from the Eastern Health Board this afternoon. However, I will check again.

I suggest using another source.

If there is an industrial dispute, one would imagine that it is incumbent on the union to tell the employer that it is in dispute with them.

It is a serious matter which needs to be dealt with once and for all.

I do not want to bypass the health board involved because it is the employer, but, on foot of the Deputy's request, I will ask my officials to make direct contact with the union.

Thank you.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of medical indemnity. We have agreed a special scheme for non-consultant hospital doctors and therefore, entry and their costs have been covered for 1992, 1993 and into next year. We have had discussions with the medical defence organisations which has resulted in a more competitive market for next year for the areas not agreed, the consultants. Actuaries have been engaged to look at the claims experience and reserve policies of the two medical defence organisations. We are currently developing proposals to pilot clinical risk management programmes in the major acute hospitals. I have also established an interdepartmental committee to examine future options in dealing with this problem. Other countries have adopted measures such as the one proposed here, State indemnity, or no fault compensation. Our research to date does not suggest that any of those schemes would necessarily mean a saving for the taxpayer which obviously is of importance. There are two issues: the growing cost of medical indemnity and the growing practice of defence medicine, both of which are of great concern. When our reviews are concluded I hope to be able to continue the cost saving measures in relation to that without adversely developing the notion of defence medicine, a practice which is not very welcome.

Did the Minister publish the report?

The interim report is a recommendation to the Department and it lists options. There is a lot of commercially sensitive data in it in relation to the organisations providing medical cover and they would not be pleased if the report was published. It is an analysis of their operation for my benefit so that I can make decisions and they would not be very pleased if it was published. I would prefer if it was not published because we have had their co-operation and I would like them to continue to cooperate fully with my Department in that regard. I will provide information on a confidential basis that any members of the committee want for their own purposes, particularly the spokespersons for the Opposition.

The cost of hip replacement operations in the south was raised. I have dealt with this matter at length. I regard this as a very important development in itself because it underscored — for the few people in the country who were doubtful — my determination to achieve the targets. I will take in the question asked by my own party Deputies in relation to achievement of the targets. I was determined when I published the 17,000 plus target procedures to be carried out under the waiting list initiative that it would not be a token figure but would be achieved. I am now confident it will be achieved. Part of the signal to all and sundry that I was determined in this matter was my approval for the proposal from the Southern Health Board where they could not provide the service themselves, they could not do the extra 300 hip replacement operations themselves, that they go elsewhere to get them done. They exhausted the options within the State. The cost effectiveness of going to Northern Ireland was evaluated and approved and the allocation of a little over £500,000 sterling is the inclusive cost. It is an effective way of relieving the pain of those 300 people. That was my only requirement in relation to this matter. I have already approved, in fact the contract signed, for the improvement of the facilities at St. Mary's so that in future the work can be carried out within the region itself. In August I approved the additional orthopaedic surgeon required. The only remaining question to me and indeed to the Southern Health Board was whether we should all sit and wait for these new facilities to come on stream or whether we should have 300 people treated. As far as I was concerned, there was no moral question involved, the same applied to the Southern Health Board. It wanted 300 of its patients treated and I applaud it for the way it went about doing that.

What was the cost of the helicopters?

It was £300 to £350 per person which, of course, is only a fraction of the cost of the hip replacement operation. It was good value for money taken as an inclusive cost for each procedure. If other occasions arise where people can be treated outside this jurisdiction it may happen again. That is a reality. The underlying objective of my Department will be to bring the greatest benefit to people dependent on our health services.

I will deal with the question asked by Deputy Flanagan in relation to mental handicap. I am a bit fed up hearing it for the last number of months, the solemn promise, as he put it, of the Labour Party in relation to £25 million.

It is no longer solemn.

Hear me out and the Deputy might be enlightened in these matters.

I look forward to a different answer but I know from the introduction it will not be.

It is great to be not only an Opposition spokesman but to be psychic as well.

Prove me wrong.

In the Deputy's party you need certain gifts that go beyond the norm. I am determined that the commitment my party gave if elected to Government will be delivered. I have said that and put it on the record. I do not give commitments lightly and I honour commitments given. The £25 million was a commitment by the Labour Party. We did not unfortunately — although we made a substantial advance in the last election — quite make a majority Government. There was a requirement to negotiate a programme for Government and not everything in the Labour Party or Fianna Fáil manifestos was transposed to that programme. One sentence in relation to mental handicap was and is a substantial improvement in mental handicap services and means a substantial improvement in funding. I would have thought the biggest single increase in moneys ever given in the history of the State would have been applauded. I can understand, for political reasons, that the level of generosity is not always available but £8.5 million additional money was provided in 1993. Let me say by way of solemn commitment Deputy Flanagan should keep his breath to cool his porridge because the Minister for Finance is currently announcing the 1994 Estimates and he might have further good news in this regard.

He will need it.

I am sure whatever increase is included the Deputy will be very gracious in his comments in relation to all targets achieved.

As always.

In relation to the comments made by Deputy O'Donnell, I dealt with the child care issue and I accept what she says in relation to management structures being as important as money. I assure members that the management stuctures are in place. I was very anxious, for example, to have a single driving force for child care policy. I have established a child care policy unit within my Department to achieve that objective. For the first time we have a single unit dealing with child care policy and running it on that basis.

The evaluation of children leaving care and the Eastern Health Board report was one of the issues I discussed with Focus Point during the week and it is a worrying factor. I am sorry that Deputy O'Donnell is not present but the number of young adults or adolescents who have left care and are homeless is worrying and will be addressed by my Department and the health board. I dealt with the victims of family violence.

The GMS scheme and indicative drugs was raised by Deputies O'Donnell, McManus and Leonard. I was concerned that the annual increase, as Deputy Leonard indicated, in the GMS drugs expenditure for the years 1989-92 has been of the order of 10 to 13 per cent per annum. In late 1992 agreement was reached with the IMO to the effect that there were opportunities for rationalising State expenditure on drugs and medicines. It was agreed between the parties that the target expenditure for 1993 should be based, as I indicated in my speech, on the 1992 outturn figure which was estimated at that time to be £132.5 million. It was envisaged that this target could be achieved through the operation of an incentive-based indicative target scheme allied to the provision of educational information support to individual general practitioners. The aim of the indicative drugs target scheme was to provide guidelines to individual GPs on rational prescribing.

The targets were issued to individual doctors following agreement with the Irish Medical Organisation on the methodology for determining these targets. Deputy McManus raised an important point, the reply to which is that the doctor's right to prescribe whatever he or she deems necessary is preserved. The scheme is incentive based. Doctors will be allocated funds for practice development on the basis of any savings made under the targets set. Unlike some drugs budget schemes, the targets set are purely indicative and there will be no sanctions against doctors whose drug costs for the year exceed the target set.

The indicative drug target scheme was introduced in January of this year and has resulted in GMS drugs expenditure savings. To the end of September 1993, the amount expended was £103.581 million as compared to £99.21 million for last year. The comparative increase is 4.4 per cent as compared to 12.5 per cent in the previous year, which is a considerable reduction in the level of inflation. It is estimated that if this trend continues on drugs and medicines in the GMS in 1993 for the remaining three months, we will expend about £6.4 million more than the target we set.

Individual drug targets were issued to each GMS doctor in 1993. Any doctor who achieved savings on the 1993 drug target will be entitled to 50 per cent of the savings for approved practice developments and the remaining 50 per cent will go to the relevant health board for overall general practice development. It will be channelled through the GP units I have established in each health board and co-ordinated by the national GP unit in my Department. A substantial start has been made in controlling the massive inflation in drug expenditure that has been part of the system for a number of years. The drugs bill is still rising at a rate greater than inflation but for the first time we are giving real responsibility to doctors to take action and they are the best people to do it.

I reject the notion that doctors will not take whatever action is in the best interests of their patients. I genuinely believe that this scheme will in no way prevent a doctor prescribing exactly what he or she feels is in the best interests of the patient. However, is will make them think of the cost and hopefully make the most cost effective as well as the most medically efficacious decision in relation to any patient they may be treating.

The Minister has not quite dealt with the point about the two tier approach. I have no argument with a doctor having to be aware of costs but there is a danger in the system the Minister is promoting that doctors may feel inhibited when prescribing.

With regard to the two tier approach, what system does the Minister have in place in the Department to assess the effect of this scheme as between the public patient in the GMS and the private patient? Has the Minister set up a monitoring system to examine whether or not a two tier approach is developing when it comes to drug costs? Many drugs are expensive and there is not always a cheap drug that is as good as the more expensive drug. Many drugs may do the job but they may also have side effects. I do not want to see a GMS patient experiencing side effects because they are a GMS patient. That is my concern.

I totally reject the notion that any doctor would decide to prescribe a drug with side effects for a patient because it was cheaper. That is not the experience of anybody who has dealt with doctors in Ireland. I have heard anecdotal evidence of people who have been with their GP who has wrtitten a prescription; when the GP was told that the patient was paying for it, he or she decided to give them a cheaper drug.

People get first class care in the GMS system in Ireland. However, that does not mean that there is no room for making cost effective improvements. If we have the co-operation of those who are making the clinical decisions on the grounds, the GPs themselves, we can make those savings and we clearly are doing that.

The Minister did not answer my question.

I am going to answer it in a second but I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. It is wrong to say that any doctor would make a decision that would have an adverse health effect on their patient on the basis of cost. I reject that totally.

In terms of monitoring, we have established a GP unit within every health board area with a national unit to monitor them. All the data will be assessed and prescribing practice will be analysed for further improvements. The scheme is only in its first year of operation and I think it has been a qualified success to date. I hope to make great advances in the future.

The Minister did not answer my question.

I have answered it to the best of my ability. If the Deputy does not want to hear the answer or if she seeks to put her own construction on it, that is her own business. Deputy O'Donnell talked about child care resources. I have dealt with the improvement of services and the drug bill initiative.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of HIV and AIDS. We have expended more money on this area. In the original Estimate we increased the allocation to HIV and AIDS by 35 per cent over last year, which was a phenomenal increase. I am asking this committee to approve a further £0.5 million, a significant new allocation.

May I just indicate what I want to do with the money so the committee will be in a position to make its judgment? The IV drug abuse area is still the greatest cause of concern and Deputy Moynihan asked me about this. The IV drug abuse group continues to be the largest reservoir of HIV infection and poses the greatest threat to transmitting the disease to the broader community. In view of this, measures have been taken to prevent the transmission of HIV within this group and from within this group to the broader population.

The Eastern Health Board's network of primary care satellite clinics has now been increased to three, Cherry Orchard, Baggot Street and Amiens Street. These clinics provide a full range of risk reduction and other services including nutrition, counselling, advice and so on. They provide risk reduction services including methadone treatment, needle exchange and condoms. Methadone is provided under very strict and controlled conditions involving urine analysis and other control systems.

I envisage that the treatment of drug users will eventually take place through primary care doctors once the drug user has been stabilised through the satellite clinics. A treatment card will be issued and one designated GP and pharmacist will hold the treatment card for the purpose of prescribing and dispensing methadone to the individual IV drug user.

The provision of the satellite drug clinics has been an enormous success. The clinics are inundated with clients and there is currently a waiting list for the service. This is a welcome development because it will reduce the demand for street drugs. It also, however, puts pressure on me to expand the service and I propose to have further clinics provided by the Eastern Health Board in the near future to service specific catchment areas.

With regard to other target groups, I have established the plain talking TV and radio campaign this year. We have put advertising messages and public information leaflets on AIDS in places of convenience. Some 250 copies of the video "Don't Turn Away" have been circulated and are available on free loan from the health promotion unit of my Department. In relation to gay men, convenience advertising messages have been written to include both the homosexual and the heterosexual message and a range of specific messages for convenience strategies have been targeted at gay bars. Outreach workers for gay men have been appointed by the Eastern Health Board and there is also a gay outreach project in Cork.

I launched the SIPTU pamphlet which is aimed at employers, union representatives and union members and was funded by a grant from the health promotion unit of my Department. We have distributed 10,000 posters, published spot advertising in the media and given grants to the non-statutory sector, for example, to the Dublin AIDS alliance, to world AIDS day fund raising activities. We have also promoted the red ribbon day, the Cork AIDS alliance, AIDSwise and so on. I intend to continue to develop services, particularly consultant secondary care services for AIDS and HIV sufferers in the Eastern Health Board area, and I am looking at proposals from other health board areas, particularly the south and the mid-west. I do not want to give the full details of everything but I can circulate a more comprehensive reply to anybody requesting information. We have made a very dramatic start on tackling what is a real problem and I believe that is being recognised. I hope to be able to continue it during the course of 1994.

I will deal with some of the issues Deputy McManus raised. She talked about the Department being in a better position to estimate needs — this matter was also dealt with by Deputy Bell — so that we would not need such a large Supplementary Estimate. It was a decision of Government to bring forward payments which were due in 1994 into 1993 that caused the very large pay element of my Estimate. The Government decided to allocate £75 million in 1993 which was not due until the beginning of next year, so there will be a number of public servants getting a Christmas bonus which they did not anticipate. Of that £33 million will be in the health area where all health care workers will get the difference between the £5-£6.50 capping and the amount they were due and that will be issued immediately. The health area got the largest tranche of the £75 million available, amounting to £33 million, and I am glad that health board workers and health care workers will benefit as a result. That accounts for the large Supplementary Estimate.

The other element largely relates to items that could not be foreseen because of the demand led schemes. We do not know how many people are going to present and demand entitlements that they have in law of drugs, drug refunds, for disabled person's maintenance allowance and other services.

I hesitate to deal with the notion of self-delusion that Deputy McManus accused me of but I will, in her absence, recognise that she was instrumental in underscoring a very important issue — the measles problem. Following the last meeting of this committee where I presented my full Estimate I immediately addressed the issue and I want to thank the Deputy for focusing my attention on it.

Deputy O'Hanlon talked about the demand led schemes and the possible transfer of disabled person's maintenance allowance to Social Welfare. I have had discussions with the Minister for Social Welfare and we have exchanged letters on this. We both support the idea and it is now a matter of joint agreement betweeen both our Departments and the Department of Finance. I agree with his notion of looking at the long term illness scheme and certainly it is something we can do. I have addressed the issue of medical indemnity.

Deputy Bell talked about arrears and so on. I have dealt with child care and indicative drugs. Deputy Bradford talked about disabled person's maintenance allowance and underscored the problem in relation to orthodontic services. The whole dental area generally is one which has not got the attention it should have since the start of the health board system. It is something I hope to be able to address in 1994 and I will make an announcement about that early in the New Year.

Deputy Moynihan asked me about the waiting list targets. We have made great progress on this and I expect all £20 million to be allocated and distributed before the end of the year. I expect the 17,000 procedures to be exceeded. I have talked about HIV abuse and AIDS and I have also dealt with family violence.

I thank Deputy Leonard for his kind comments. In relation to the manpower survey, there are issues that have arisen in relation to the distribution of consultants and NCHDs. I have already indicated in answer to a parliamentary question in the Dáil that I am not happy concerning the long time a doctor spends in training before he becomes a consultant — NCHDs are technically in training — and the ratio certainly is something to be improved. I hope that can be addressed. There are many groups who have strong views on this matter and I will certainly listen to all the views expressed. He also raised the issue of labelling drugs showing the right cost. It is a good idea and I will see if we can do it.

I think I have covered every issue raised.

That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate from the Department of Health. I thank the Minister, his officials and the Members for their contributions.

I propose the following draft report:

The Select Committee has considered the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Health. The Supplementary Estimate is hereby reported to the Dail.

Report agreed to.

Ordered to Report to the Dáil accordingly.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4.30 p.m.

Top
Share