Skip to main content
Normal View

National Treatment Purchase Fund.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 22 June 2004

Tuesday, 22 June 2004

Questions (2)

Olivia Mitchell

Question:

2 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children if each consultant has been requested to provide the national treatment purchase fund, NTPF, with the list of public patients awaiting surgical treatment; if so, if such requests have been universally refused; his views on whether the provision of the lists of public patients to a State agency providing health services breaches patient confidentiality considerations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18518/04]

View answer

Oral answers (6 contributions)

The national treatment purchase fund was established to identify patients who have been waiting longest for surgical treatment and to arrange treatment for those patients. The NTPF works closely with health boards and individual hospitals to obtain information on patients and the specific surgical procedure required in each case. Currently, the information collected by the NTPF is collected by hospital and specialty rather than by individual consultant.

The NTPF carried out a validation exercise on patients reported to be waiting for surgical treatments. As a result of this exercise it became clear that the number of patients reported to the Department includes those who are not immediately available for treatment or who would be unable to accept an offer of treatment for medical or other reasons. Therefore, the figures reported to the Department overstated the actual position at hospital level.

In collecting and providing data to the NTPF, hospital management depends on the co-operation of individual consultants. To date, the NTPF has treated some 15,000 patients. This could not have been achieved without the co-operation of hospital consultants. It would be fair to say that the NTPF did not receive universal co-operation in the beginning. There were difficulties with James Connolly Memorial Hospital and the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Dublin, as regards the small number of patients being referred by these hospitals to the NTPF. The NTPF is hopeful of a positive outcome following recent discussions with these hospitals. However, the NTPF is concerned at the very low level of referrals from St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, and the Mid-Western Health Board. If a higher number of patients were referred by both St. Vincent's and the Mid-Western Health Board more patients would have been treated and their respective waiting lists could have been reduced dramatically.

It should be remembered that patients who have been waiting more than six months for treatment can contact the NTPF directly or through their general practitioners to arrange treatment.

When the NTPF initially began to collect information, concerns were raised by some hospitals about patient confidentiality issues. Clarification was sought and received from the Data Protection Commissioner in this regard. In the overall interest of patient care and treatment, as well as on the basis that hospitals collected the patient data for the purpose of patient treatment, the commissioner was of the view that disclosure to the fund is compatible with the purpose for which patients gave the details in the first instance. The commissioner has considered, therefore, that the Data Protection Acts do not prohibit the disclosure by a data controller — the hospital, in this case — of patient data to the treatment fund. Information supplied to the national treatment purchase fund is treated in the strictest confidence.

The fund does not request or retain the medical histories of patients. Medical notes associated with patients are not sought by the fund. It is in the best interest of patient care that details sought by the fund are provided by health boards and hospitals so treatment can be arranged for the patients concerned.

I recognise that some hospitals are co-operating with the treatment fund, but following the Minister's reply it is not clear to me whether hospitals or consultants are providing lists of patients. I find it utterly ludicrous that a State agency has to spend enormous sums of money on advertising on national radio to identify those public patients who are waiting for a public service, and that we cannot identify such people without recourse to advertisements on national radio. It seems to be a total waste of money. If consultants are not co-operating with the treatment fund, they are denying patients the opportunity to choose. They are making decisions on behalf of patients.

The Minister should take a strong line on this issue. Does he agree that the lists do not belong to consultants? The patients do not belong to the consultants. As patients of the State, they are entitled to receive treatment in whatever way the State can deliver it to them. It is totally unacceptable that such money — over €1.5 million last year — has to be spent on advertising. I do not know what the relevant sum is this year. My question was prompted by hearing advertisements for the national treatment purchase fund every time I turn on the radio.

I disagree with the Deputy's comments on the advertising, which is necessary and good.

It would not be necessary——

It acts as an additional lever for the system and helps people to know what they are entitled to. We should not underestimate the need for strong public campaigns to make people aware of what they can access and how they can access it. The treatment fund has received telephone calls from 9,272 people, of whom 2,145 were found to be eligible and were subsequently treated. I accept the Deputy's point about consultants giving lists of patients to hospitals. I pay tribute to the officials of the Department of Health and Children, from the Secretary General down, who orchestrated the mechanics of the establishment of the fund. I take advice from the chairperson and the chief executive officer of the fund on a regular basis. They advised me some time back about how best to proceed to get the fund up and running. The result has been very positive as up to 15,000 people have been treated.

We have identified a number of hospitals that have not co-operated to the extent that we consider necessary and correct. The chairperson of the treatment fund has advised me about how best to proceed. I have followed that advice to a certain extent and significant progress has been made from the beginning. That 15,000 people have had operations to date demonstrates that the vast majority of consultants are co-operating. There have been significant improvements in waiting times in many hospitals. I have a list of up to ten hospitals that are referring patients for over three months. A further nine or ten hospitals are referring patients for over six months. Progress is being made. It is not acceptable for the other hospitals——

The time for this question has elapsed.

Top
Share