Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Health díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 2023

Vote 38 - Health (Supplementary)

This meeting has been convened to consider the 2023 Supplementary Estimate for Vote 38 – Department of Health. Apologies have been received from Deputy Burke at the last minute.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Donnelly; the Minister of State, Deputy Butler; and their officials to the meeting to consider the Supplementary Estimate. I also thank them for providing a briefing note related to the Estimate.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are also 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 also remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present in the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via MS Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making their contribution to the meeting.

To commence our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate, I invite the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, to make his opening remarks.

I will give detailed opening remarks on the Supplementary Estimate but before I do, seeing as we are at the health committee, I wish to take the opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by our healthcare workers over the past few days in response to the horrific attacks on three children and their carer on Thursday and in caring for others who got injured during the subsequent protests and riots. I had the honour of meeting with our healthcare workers in the emergency departments and intensive care units in Temple Street and the Mater earlier this week.

It is fair to say that these are healthcare professionals who are used to seeing pretty tough things coming through their doors and dealing with tough situations in the context of patients. They see serious injuries and deal with the aftermath of road traffic accidents and many difficult things on a daily basis. Despite that, and everything they see and do for all of us, they found Thursday very difficult. They found the nature of the attacks hard. They responded magnificently. Between the different hospitals, they worked together flawlessly.

I spoke to many of our international workers in the two hospitals. They are shook by what happened. They were worried leaving the hospitals on Thursday night. I know several of them were harassed on their way home. An Garda Síochána responded superbly to several hospitals where they were concerned, and our healthcare workers were full of praise for the Garda response in helping them to keep the hospitals and patients safe. I put that on record. To the people who were on our streets chanting "Foreigners go home" and in the context of some of the vile social media messages and posts we saw such as someone declaring we were "at war", I wonder with whom we are at war. With our international healthcare workers? Children's Health Ireland at Temple Street, where the children were cared for, has people of 65 nationalities working there; Irish, of course, being just one of those.

We are very fortunate to have healthcare workers from all over the world. As I said in the Dáil last night, and I hope committee members do not mind me saying it here, I send a very clear message to all of our international workers that they are always welcome in Ireland. I know colleagues on this committee and the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, will do so as well. These workers are hugely valued for everything they do on our behalf every day, and we are very lucky to have them. Long may they stay in Ireland and continue to come here. Those on the streets chanting those racist slogans about people going home to other countries should know that were their wish to come true, we would have to shut down every hospital. Whenever these very same people shouting their racist slogans need hospital care - as, inevitably, we all do, or our children, parents, or brothers and sisters do - they will be cared for by fantastic international healthcare workers. I just want to acknowledge that it was a difficult few days for our healthcare workers.

Moving on, I thank the select committee for the opportunity to bring the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 38 before it. I am seeking total additional funding for this year of €1.034 billion. The Supplementary Estimate comprises €913.5 million for HSE core current expenditure, €121 million for HSE Covid-19 current expenditure and €22 million for capital expenditure, which is offset by €22 million in savings on expenditure by the Department in other non-HSE agencies. It should be noted that the Supplementary Estimate requirement is €1.034 billion on a gross basis. I have agreed with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, that €70 million in capital funding, that will be unspent at end of this year, can be carried forward into next year. This means that the net cash draw down by the health Vote for this year will be €964.4 million above the original allocation.

The health sector has experienced significant increases in demand across all areas, averaging volume increases between 5% and 10%, particularly in our hospitals. This increase in demand is driven largely by demographic changes; in particular population growth which has outstripped previous projections, as well as the fact that the proportion of the population over 65 has also increased placing increased demands and therefore costs on the health sector. The second driver of the deficits is the impact of inflation on the health sector, with the non-pay acute deficit comprising approximately two thirds of the overall deficit. Inflation in the health sector is significantly more than the headline inflation rate projected by ESRI of 5% for this year, being an average rate of 10% across the non-pay acute areas, and significantly higher in areas such as medical and surgical supplies where we are seeing 17% inflation. Notwithstanding the above, I remain committed to strengthening the performance management relationship between the HSE and my Department, and to improving overall financial performance.

I will now set out the items making up this year’s Supplementary Estimate. Subhead 1 deals with net pension costs of €67 million. Pensions is an area that is difficult to predict with accuracy as it is demand-led and once people make a decision to retire, they are entitled to claim their superannuation benefits. As well as the demand element, the additional €67 million is required to fund projected pension spend to year end and as a result of the demand-led nature of this expenditure, the public sector pay deal, and a reduction in retained superannuation contributions as a consequence of the single public service pension scheme.

Subhead J1 - HSE, including service development - refers to the additional €694 million required. This subhead covers all the main HSE core operations service areas, including acute hospitals, primary care, social inclusion, palliative care, mental health, older persons, community services as well as national and support services. I am also joined by the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, here today, who, as colleagues will be aware, has delegated responsibilities across mental health and older persons. Subhead J1 requires a Supplementary Estimate of €693.5 million for this year. This comprises €1,031.4 million of additional expenditure, offset by a €311 million movement in HSE cash and working capital, and €26.8 million related to transfers to Vote 40, Department of Community, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

While there are deficits across a range of core services, the majority of the ask, €988 million, relates to our acute hospitals. These deficits in core services are offset somewhat by other operations expenditure which is forecast to be in surplus by €113 million. This primarily comprises an underspend in the office of the chief clinical officer, of €55 million, an underspend in the national support services of another €59 million. The support services surplus partially reflects the fact that funding held centrally by the HSE, for certain measures such as new developments, has yet to be allocated out to the relevant service areas. When this budget is distributed, the surplus in support services will be lower, and the deficits in those service areas will be somewhat reduced.

Under subhead J2 - HSE Covid-19 actions - €121 million additional is required. Covid-19 expenditure requires a Supplementary Estimate of €121 million. This is driven by expenditure in acute and community settings. Costs associated with the continuation of specific Covid-19 response measures across service areas in acute and community settings are estimated at €260 million. This is offset by savings in other lines of Covid expenditure such as PPE, test and tracing and vaccinations. Such responses in acute and community settings were implemented in the initial phase of the pandemic based on public health and infection prevention and control guidance. Projected 2023 expenditure on embedded Covid-19 response measures across acute and community settings is €260 million against a funding allocation of €48 million, leading to a Supplementary Estimate of €212 million. This is offset by savings in other lines of Covid-19 expenditure such as PPE, test and tracing and vaccinations, to bring the overall requirement to €121 million. Based on the outcome of a review of Covid-19 expenditure in acute and community, a significantly reduced allocation of core funding has been made in 2024. It should be noted that the overall projected spend of €685 million is significantly lower than the €1.8 billion spent on Covid-19 in 2022 and the €2.5 billion spent in both 2020 and 2021.

The allocation under subhead K4 - payments to the State Claims Agency re clinical negligence - is €75 million. The supplementary requirement of the SCA for this year is €75 million and the final allocation of €510 million can be attributed to an increase in the number of claims and an increase in the value of settlements awarded, particularly claims arising due to catastrophic birth injury. Some €75 million is required to fund the total cost of claims which will be settled in respect of 2023.

Subhead L1 relates to the primary care reimbursement service and local demand-led schemes at €109 million. The primary care reimbursement service, PCRS. administers a number of demand-led schemes such as the general medical services schemes, community demand-led schemes, and the national drug management scheme. A projected shortfall in PCRS funding of €40 million is related to overspends on these areas, which have been partially offset by surpluses in the hepatitis C programme and smaller surpluses on other schemes.

The local demand-led schemes deficit of €69 million is largely attributable to a combination of the increase in demographics - therefore increased activity under the eligibility schemes - and price inflation predominantly across high-tech medicines, the long-term illness scheme and hardship medicines. Subhead M2 is capital of €22 million. Supplementary capital funding of €21.7 million has been provided in respect of the Department of Health-HSE Brexit capital apportionment for the OPW phase one and phase two projects which relate to storage facilities in Dublin and Rosslare ports and Dublin Airport. This supplementary funding is based on figures presented to my Department by the OPW and is eligible for reimbursement under the EU Brexit Adjustment Reserve, BAR, fund.

In closing, 2023 has seen a surge in post-pandemic patient demand. The amount sought would bring the total expenditure in 2023 to €22.393 billion. The value of this investment in delivering crucial services to people is immeasurable. I now seek the committee’s approval to the Supplementary Estimates of €1.034 billion for Vote 38.

As some members have to leave early, I will give them 15 minutes each.

I welcome the Minister, Minister of State and their teams. I strongly support the Minister's comments on what happened last Thursday. The remedy some people have to address the issues which they see a need to address is starkly at variance with the national image heretofore. As a nation, we became known as the island of the welcomes. That is in stark contrast to what we saw on our streets in our city just a week ago. There is no excuse for what happened or for attacks on people going about their business, whatever their race, creed or colour, in this or any country. It is the most basic form of hatred known to democracies. Some say there was cause and that people had enough or whatever. We do not want to degenerate into that kind of atmosphere as a means of promoting ourselves on the international stage and encouraging people to come here to live, work, give their expertise and services. If we want to continue international investment and foreign direct investment here, that is not the kind of message that needs to go out. I strongly support the Minister's views on that. I hope the situation that arose will not arise again ever.

On the Estimates, I asked why were we coming in so quickly with the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister pointed out the reasons. However, it is time we got fairly accurate Estimates of proposed expenditure before we go to budget - not the day or week before or anything like that. I know the Opposition will seek to exploit the situation and blame the Government but this is too serious an issue to play around with. There have been huge demands and strains on our health and emergency services over the past three or four years. The people on the front line in the health services made a huge commitment to the demand as it arose and went above and beyond the call of duty. We need to record that and point it out. Concerning population growth, we must be able to reasonably accurately identify population trends. We should be able to do it in advance of most situations and have it reflected in our schools, health services and anywhere there is a demand for services. It is not rocket science to identify trends in any of those areas. While there is an element of it being a demand-led service, it is also a necessary service and important for the support of the economy and the people living and working here.

There is a €75 million provision for medical negligence. Is there any reason for that? Does it represent a growth above and beyond expectations? Is it in line with expectations? Is it because of an increase in the number of claims or the value of settlements awarded, particularly arising due to catastrophic birth injury? Is there a noticeable trend, with a view to implementing measures to obviate the likelihood of that continuing? I would like at some stage to follow up on the average settlement; I do not want to know anybody's business. What are the ingredients under that heading such as legal costs and so on? What were the surrounding causes? As public representatives, we are all familiar with situations in the past concerning difficulties from time to time in maternity hospitals. We need to know a little more about the trends and how to isolate problems causing difficulties from the perspective of budgeting and the health of women and babies.

Another area is reimbursement services. I mentioned at the meeting with the HSE that there will be incidents in hospitals, which we accept, but the trend must go in the right direction. I was critical in some sense of medical cards, which should be issued to victims of hospital incidents beyond their control, in order to identify them and ensure some responsibility is taken regardless of legal actions or anything else. Simply issuing a medical card could help to alleviate suffering and trauma for patients. It is not for life, it is for now. It must be dealt with so patients and their families can see a response to their particular situations and not be treated as if they were a general, run-of-the-mill inquiry. There are particular circumstances that apply to them. I would like to see them addressed.

There was a huge increase in staff in the HSE, which was needed in any event. It should not go out from here that it is vastly inferior to demand; it is not. There is a massive budget for health. We were criticised previously by economists for allegedly allowing the budget to escalate, or as they said, go "out of control". I do not agree. The Department of Health must respond to the health needs and demands of the population. While we accept a certain amount of that has to be demand-led, and there will be a bit of waver from time to time between the posts, as it were, we must expect that we keep to the best projections possible and that the people who do the projections are well-rounded in what is required.

We must not allow a situation whereby the public might see that the Department and the HSE are at sea, do not know what they are doing, going from day to day on the basis of this being demand-led and not getting to grips with the situation. I know that that is in hand and that it is a difficult job to weave between the posts of the necessity to respond to the demand and, at the same, to recognise that it is not an unlimited budget that anybody or everybody has to bear.

Those are my opening remarks.

I thank the Deputy for that. To the various points he has raised, we had a very good conversation about the State Claims Agency at this session last year, and colleagues pointed out that there was a very significant increase in that regard. We see it again this year, and the projections we have do not suggest that that increase will diminish unless we take action. There are actions we are taking. Two things are driving this: the number of claims has gone up and the amount being paid out has gone up. A lot of the payments are in obstetrics. There is a smaller number of claims there but the awards are very significant. The Deputy will be aware that there is a new incident review team - Dr. Peter McKenna is leading that - to look at any of these serious obstetric events to immediately learn from them and put in place measures to reduce to the greatest extent possible some of these really tragic outcomes in obstetrics. The Deputy will also be aware that I appointed Dr. Rhona Mahony to chair a piece of work to look at exactly this. We are coming at it, in the first instance, from a patient safety perspective. That is how we have to think about this. Yes, we need to reduce the amount of money. That is money we could be using to buy new medicines, hire more nurses or provide more services to patients. Medics have said to me - and the committee has probably heard testimony to this effect - that they feel that in some cases they are practising defensive medicine. That is not in the interests of their patients or our healthcare workers. No healthcare worker wants to be in a position where they are doing things for their patients only for fear of some lawyer finding a way to squeeze money out of them over it, so we are looking at that. I do not believe the current increase is acceptable. We have a high level of litigation in this country. It is high compared with international standards, particularly when one considers that the quality of our services is excellent compared with those in large parts of the world.

As regards medical cards, I fully agree with the Deputy on reducing the costs. As we all know, through the lifetime of this Government there has been a radical reduction in patient costs. We had a really important moment just a few weeks ago whereby now, for the first time ever, over half the population have access to free GP care. The latest half a million GP cards were targeted at the squeezed middle, those people who needed to see a doctor, needed to see their GP or needed to bring their child to a GP but could not afford the €55, €65 or €70 and the other associated costs. I hope that makes a difference. We have rolled out free contraception and free IVF. We have abolished inpatient hospital charges and significantly reduced the drug payment scheme maximums from, I think, €124 to €80. I agree with the Deputy's comments on an ongoing reduction in costs for patients. I think we have seen a lot of that. Some would argue that medical cards should be available for particular diseases - let us say cancer. While we all understand that at a human level, as regards the clinical advice on this, there was a review done on it some years ago that stated that we should not create a hierarchy of disease such that a cancer patient might get a medical card but someone with a neurological condition might not get one. The view was to base it on ability to pay. As we all know as TDs, discretionary medical cards are available.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I was not referring to the situation he has just mentioned; I was referring to hospital mishaps or conditions incurred while in hospital as a result of which the patient is now on extra medication, extra costs, etc. That applies to people with specific life-changing diseases. They do expect in that situation to be treated slightly differently. The reliance on a means test solely should be looked at carefully. I know that the Minister is a compassionate person. They need to be looked at carefully. Small things make a great difference to a patient who has cancer and may have terminal cancer. They may not know that yet but they are in the waiting area for that outcome. They should be treated particularly sympathetically in a whole lot of ways. I am sorry for interrupting.

That is fine. I agree with the Deputy's intent. There are currently about 185,000 discretionary medical cards covering a range of issues. I know we all, as TDs, help constituents apply for those. We have schemes whereby those who we believe have been injured by the State get medical cards and enhanced care packages. We have seen that for various patient groups. I fully appreciate the Deputy's position.

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State and their officials. I will start by echoing the Minister's comments on immigrants who work in the healthcare service and the many people who keep our health services going who have come from so many different countries around the world. In the past 18 months, I have visited 18 hospitals and have met a lot of staff. I am blown away by the talent and the energy we have, even though there is a lot of feedback as regards burnout, which I am sure the Minister hears as well. They have been through a very difficult period with Covid and then into very difficult times in emergency departments, with demand and pressures on hospitals. I am also taken by the very talented people we have from multiple different countries working in our health services. Not only are they very welcome, but they are needed. If they were not there, our health services would collapse, and people need to really reflect on that. I think the vast majority of people do and accept it, so we are talking about a tiny minority of people who have very extreme views that are not acceptable. I should add that it is not just in hospitals but also in community care, home help and so on. We have many people who come from different countries who provide those services as well. They are all welcome and play a vital part in our health services.

If I may move to the Supplementary Estimate, when Bernard Gloster was here two weeks ago, I think, I put it to him that there was a difference between the cash deficit for the end of this year and what he described as accruals. He put it very bluntly that the deficit is the deficit, that whatever is owed is owed, and that, whether it is paid in January, February or March of next year, it is still expenditure arising from 2023. He made it very clear that the deficit is likely to be closer to €1.4 billion to €1.5 billion and that, even though the Revised Estimate is just over €1 billion, there is still a shortfall of about €400 million or €500 million. He has said that, from his perspective, the first charge for 2024 will be that carryover, the difference between that €1.5 billion, or whatever it might end up being, and that €1 billion that has now been secured. First of all, does the Minister accept that?

With a caveat. I think we are talking about two slightly different things. The Supplementary Estimate is the cash to the end of the year.

I understand that.

The cash is a little under €1 billion. Then there is the income and expenditure deficit, our latest estimate of which will come in at a little under €1.5 billion. Going into next year, the difference between this Supplementary Estimate - call it €1 billion - and the income and expenditure at, say, €1.5 billion is that this Supplementary Estimate is not relevant to next year. It is relevant only to this year-----

-----but the €1.5 billion obviously is.

But it is basically, in very simple language, money owed, invoices that will have to be paid. The head of the HSE was very clear. What we needed is €1.5 billion; what we got is €1 billion. Bills will have to be paid, and whatever that difference is, it is not provided for in budget 2024 for next year so it has to go now as a first charge. I just put it to the Minister that that is Mr. Gloster's view.

Let us call it €1 billion. It is €960 million but for the sake of this discussion, let us call it €1 billion. That money is for all cash requirements to the end of this year. It is not the case that because the income and expenditure deficit is €1.5 billion, and we are looking for €1 billion, the HSE will start next year with €500 million in unpaid bills. That is not my understanding of the situation. I understand that the €960 million here is the cash requirement for moneys owed for-----

I am going to make one final point.

I went through this in lengthy detail with the Secretary General of the Department and the head of the HSE. The head of the HSE was clear. There is a difference between the cash deficit, which is money that is paid out up to the end of the year, and what is presented as accruals. That is expenditure that has occurred in 2023 but has not been paid. It might be paid in January, February or March 2024, but applies to costs arising from 2023. The Secretary General said he does not have that money for next year so that will be the first charge on his accounts next year. If the Minister has a different interpretation, that worries me.

I will leave that and move to my next question. I submitted freedom of information, FOI, requests to get to the bottom of what was happening in respect of the discussions between the Minister's Department and the Department of public expenditure and reform. The Minister will appreciate that was the subject of a lot of public commentary. There are, and certainly were, very sharp differences, it seems, between the Department of Health, the HSE and the Department of public expenditure and reform. The Department of public expenditure and reform ultimately signed off on the budget for this year and next year. I presented some documents to the Minister before the committee meeting and I understand he will need time to go through them. However, some interesting briefing notes were given to the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe. Before I get to those, will the Minister remind me and confirm what he, the Department and the head of the HSE said about the deficit for this year? Whatever disagreement there might be as to cash deficits and accruals, the reality is that most of the cost is recurring. That is what we were told. We were told that expenditure will recur next year. Is that the view of the Minister?

My view relates to the income and expenditure deficit. This Supplementary Estimate relates to a cash flow issue. The income-----

That is money that was not there to fund the health service and is now being given to meet the need. The Minister told us that the vast majority of the deficit for 2023 came from recurring expenditure. He said that before this committee. He also said there were a number of different elements to the deficit. He said that in the Dáil. One such element was inflation. Another was increased demand on the health service. Was that the Minister's proposition? That was his view as to why there was an overspend this year.

Yes. My view is that approximately two thirds of the income and expenditure deficit, which we think will come in at a little under €1.5 billion, is the result of inflation and demand.

I will move to the briefing note that was given to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. It states that it has become clear that the Department of Health and the HSE have done very little to materially address the rapidly growing overruns in current health expenditure. It goes on to state that the Department of Health and the HSE are focused on justifying these growing overruns as embedded in the base but the Department of public expenditure and reform does not accept that. Would the Minister push back against that?

The Deputy will forgive me but that is a difficult question because although he has given me the papers in question, I have not read them. He will appreciate that I want to read them in their totality rather than responding to individual lines. I expect the Department for public expenditure and reform to constantly agitate for more and more cost controls. That is part of the job of that Department. Part of my job is to try to achieve those cost controls while protecting patient services.

I will quote further from the briefing note because the Minister comes in for criticism, time and again. The note states that a key theme at Cabinet committee was the lack of a culture of financial control in the acute hospitals and the lack of a commitment by the Minister for Health to constructively address the spending problems. That is a real critique of the Minister's performance. I will share more examples but that was the first criticism of the Minister. From the perspective of the Department of public expenditure and reform, the Minister and the HSE were failing to put in place spending controls. Does the Minister accept that was a failing on his part?

No. I do not have in front of me what the Deputy is reading out so my response-----

I will read out the notes and the Minister does not have to respond if he does not want to. I will read them.

I am happy to respond. I am just saying I might have the context slightly wrong. If what the Deputy has read out is a view from the Department of public expenditure and reform that the financial controls within the hospitals are not satisfactory, that is something with which I entirely agree. They are not satisfactory. I have allocated an additional €40 million for next year to accelerate the roll-out of the financial management system.

So I am clear, what I read out was that there was a lack of a commitment on the part of the Minister for Health to constructively address the spending problems.

That may be the view of the Department of public expenditure and reform, or the view of an official. I can say that we worked closely with the HSE on some of these issues and some difficult decisions were made. The Deputy and his committee colleagues will be aware, for example, that when we reached 6,100 funded posts, we said the HSE had to stop. That is the same as happens in every school, Garda station and county council, here in the Oireachtas and in every business in the country. When you have hired the staff you are funded to hire, you have to stop hiring. That is perfectly normal. The Deputy will have seen that members of Fórsa are on a work to rule and are talking about escalating it as a result of the HSE stopping its recruitment when it had, in fact, exceeded its targets. The reality is that we have made difficult decisions with the HSE.

I am very short of time. The point is the Minister does not accept that criticism.

I would not accept that, no.

I have a copy of a letter that is in the public domain and which the Minister sent to the Minister for public expenditure and reform after he had received a letter from Mr. Bernard Gloster, the head of the HSE. In it, the Minister states that the substantial majority of the additional spend by the HSE this year, and potentially next year, is and will be a direct consequence of very high inflation and an unprecedented number of patients who require care. The Minister repeated that assertion in the Dáil and before this committee.

I will come to how the Minister for public expenditure and reform was briefed. This goes to the heart of how we fund the health service. If the Department and HSE say one thing, and, I presume, provide facts for saying so, and that is refused point blank by the Department of public expenditure and reform that funds the health service, there must be a complete lack of trust involved. I have a briefing note that was prepared for the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, for a meeting that took place on 4 October at which the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, and Mr. Robert Watt, the head of the Department, were present. It states the Department of public expenditure and reform does not accept the arguments on inflation and that all other Departments are managing these pressures within their allocation.

A separate briefing note for a high-level meeting attended by the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Donnelly, that took place on 6 October states that the inflation figures presented by the Department and the HSE in the bid reflect a very poorly managed base. It states that every other Department is being expected to manage its inflationary pressures and the same should be expected of the Department of Health and the HSE. When the Secretary General of that Department was before the joint committee on finance, he said he did not accept the inflation figures that were presented. How is it that the Department of Health and the HSE have one figure for inflation and the Department which funds the health service simply does not accept it?

I cannot speak for why the Department of public expenditure and reform does not accept it. I can tell the Deputy that my officials and the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, IGEES, team, which all of us and those across the Civil Service accept is a serious analytical team in several Departments, produced detailed and solid economic analyses which backed up the inflation figures we provided.

If I may say, the Deputy's question is excellent. It is a matter we have to resolve. This is cyclical. I had these conversations with my predecessor, the former Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, when I was sitting where Deputy Cullinane is sitting. He is now having these conversations with me. Who knows, he may be sitting in my seat and having the same conversation in the years to come. It is not helpful. I have commissioned a future of healthcare study. We will be bringing in independent experts. We will invite representatives of the Department for public expenditure and reform to contribute to the study.

It has to be a joint Department of Health and Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, endeavour. If we can, we need to set a commonly agreed baseline.

Can I come back to the Minister on that, please? I accept what he said but this is my difficulty. The head of the HSE, the head of the Department and the Minister have come into this committee several times over the course of this year in the context of the overspend in health this year. We know that it will be in the region of €1.5 billion and, in cash, just under €1 billion. They have all consistently said that the majority of it is recurring, will have to be provided for next year and is led by demand on the one hand and inflation on the other. Yet all of the documentation I have from the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform says something else. I will finish on this. When it comes to activity and demand, it point-blank contradicts what the Minister just said. Again, the briefing note for the meeting on 6 October says that activity levels have not reflected the substantial increases in funding. Despite an increased funding level of 37% for the acute sector since 2019, it says that the majority of activity indicators only increased by 1% to 10% and, therefore, expenditure overall in the acute sector cannot be attributed to increased complexity outpatient and ED attendances as stated by the HSE, by Department of Health and by the Minister and that there is no clear data to support this claim. That is the point. That for me creates a serious problem for us when we are talking about Revised and Supplementary Estimates, where the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform point-blank refuses to accept that the data and the Minister, the Department and the HSE present is accurate.

I will make one final point because my understanding is that the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has not had any conversations whatsoever with the head of the HSE. The head is only in the job a short period of time. If the Department was so concerned about all of these issues, why is it that there was absolutely no engagement whatsoever with the head of the HSE? I will come back in in the second round on that, if I may, with follow-up questions.

The Deputy's question goes right to the heart of everything we are dealing with where he has pretty much identified the issues. First, I will deal with the last question with regard to the chief executive officer. The Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform does not engage directly with State agencies and engages with line Departments, which do that. I would not criticise the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform for that. Perhaps it should, but that is not the policy. It goes through the line Departments and through Ministers.

The Deputy raised two important points which are probably ultimately linked. One is productivity and the other is volume and inflation. There is a difference between the advice I have and the advice the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has with regard to volume and inflation which the Deputy laid out and which is there to see. Where I believe the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform is correct on the productivity piece. It is the case and the Department is correct in saying that the very significant increases in funding, beds, primary care centres, workforce, etc., has not been matched by the same level of increase in patient care. There are two parts to this.

Over the past few years we have been following the Sláintecare philosophy around increasing productivity at a structural level. All of the investment in enhanced community care and all of the investment in general practice, chronic disease management, caring for patients closer to the home, the public-only consultant contract, and many other issues are about creating a more efficient and productive healthcare service. In other words, more patient care for the given level of money. Over the past two years, I have been prioritising the roll-out of what is called the Health Performance Visualisation Platform, HPVP, system. Basically, this is a productivity platform being rolled out in every hospital which is giving us, for the first time ever, very granular information on the level of activity, on, for example, outpatient appointments, inpatient day cases, etc., for a given level of clinicians and money. We will be publishing this information and I know, that members of the committee will be very interested in it. What we are seeing from this, where it is still preliminary, is that the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform is correct on the productivity point. That is why I am setting up a productivity task force and significant team to drive this. We have been working through structural productivity but this is very much operational productivity. The Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform is correct on that.

The Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform is frustrated about the productivity, which is an absolutely legitimate frustration, and it is correct to insist that we get more patient care for the increase in money. It may be the case that that frustration has spilled over to a general view on health which perhaps is colouring some of the other issues but I do not know and that would be a matter, obviously, for the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform itself.

Perhaps I can come back to Deputy Cullinane in the second round. Deputy Shortall is next.

I thank the Chair and good morning to everyone. I want to add my voice to the point made by the Minister at the start on the very many migrant workers who are keeping our healthcare services going, and, indeed, many other public services, including public transport. I thank them for all of the work they are doing on behalf of the Irish people. It also raises the question that the Government and, indeed, the Garda authorities, need to be much stronger in tackling the threats to migrant workers in this country, the emergence and growth of right-wing politics in the country and the need to get to grips with that. There was a failure last week to do that and to act on all of the warning signals which were there. There have been warning signals there for quite some time. I have seen it in my own constituency and we have seen it across the country. It underlines the need for all Ministers in government to ensure that this growing threat is tackled.

To move on to the business at hand today, I will start with that letter which Bernard Gloster sent to the Minister before the budget was signed off on. In that letter, he said that nobody in government should be in any doubt about the implications of what was being flagged as the budget figure at that stage. He talked about significant and punitive risks to the public. Does the Minister accept the main thrust of what Bernard Gloster was saying in that letter?

I do. Deputy Cullinane just referred to the fact that I forwarded it on to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and I essentially endorsed it. It is there in the public domain. It is going to be challenging. My focus, and that of Mr. Gloster, is to ensure that it does not have an impact on patient services. What both he and I have flagged and agree with is that it creates a challenge. There is no question about that and we are going to have to manage that very closely through the next year.

I will just come to that in a moment. With regard to what happened to the letter, it went to the Minister for public expenditure. The Minister stated he sent it on, is that correct?

My private secretary would have sent it on to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe’s private secretary.

Was that acknowledged by the Minister, Deputy Donohoe?

I do not know. I can find out for the Deputy.

It did not seem to go any further within the Department because the Secretary General denied any knowledge of the letter. There is a serious breakdown in communications there somewhere.

Was negotiating team which met with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform aware of the content of that letter?

I do not know. We have some of that team here.

Ms Louise McGirr

The letter arrived on the eve of the budget and was then sent to the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform at official level.

Was the letter sent to the Minister or to whom was the letter sent?

Ms Louise McGirr

It was sent to the Department at official level.

Is that Secretary General level?

Ms Louise McGirr

Yes.

There is a direct conflict of evidence then if the Secretary General is saying that he was unaware of the letter.

Ms Louise McGirr

I can only say that it was sent. I cannot confirm whether anyone was aware of it but it was sent at official level. There was ongoing discussion between the negotiating team for a long period of time in the lead-up to the budget. As is normal in the course of the budget negotiations, we start with a number, the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has a different number and the negotiations go on for some time. The Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform was aware of our Department’s position and the letter came from Mr. Gloster just on the eve of the budget. The number had been finalised at that point.

Did the Minister then have discussions with his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, in relation to the dire warnings that had been presented by the head of the HSE?

Well, we had been having an ongoing conversation for quite some time. The letter from Bernard Gloster to me was not dissimilar to an ongoing conversation at official level. It is a matter of public record that there was a different view being held between the Departments of public expenditure and Health in terms of the requirements for next year. I would, then, say this was part of an ongoing conversation.

Okay. Why is it the case that the HSE is not a part of those negotiations? The Minister did touch on this aspect a few minutes ago but it seems ridiculous that there is an arm's length type of relationship, to say the least, between the HSE and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Did something get lost in the telling here, or is it a case of relations between the Departments of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and Health being very poor?

Let me give a quick view. The process between the Department and the HSE has much improved, I think. If we were to go back a few years, what happened then was that the HSE would submit a bid to the Department that was very large. The Department would then, essentially, advise me as to what it thought a reasonable bid was, be that on new services, ELS or whatever. We would then engage with what was then the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. This year, there was, I think, a very constructive discussion between my officials and Bernard Gloster and his team. Actually, the HSE's position and that of the Department were not really that different.

Essentially, then, the HSE and the Department were on the same page on this.

Now, there will always be differences.

It was the case in the main, though.

I would say it was, more or less.

Okay. What negotiations was the Minister involved in? How often did he meet the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in the run up to the budget?

Any line Minister is involved at all times, so the team here and I would be talking on a daily and hourly basis over and over anyway.

Yes, but did the Minister attend any of those meetings?

Yes. I and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, attended several meetings at a political level-----

-----but there are many many meetings between officials before that.

Okay. What were the main areas in which the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform did not accept the Minister's arguments in relation to funding?

I think it is fair to say, and the officials may have a view in this regard as well, that the public record, and the documents Deputy Cullinane was referring to, show there was clearly a different view on ELS and on what is recurrent from this year, as well as, obviously, new development. Every Minister will always look for as much new development funding as he or she can get. The Deputy will have done it herself when she was a Minister of State, and the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, has done it too.

Okay. Leaving aside, however, the new development funding, did the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform accept the figures in relation to demand and inflation that impacted the budget this year?

Well, I do not want to talk about individual officials, right, and most of these meetings were at official level.

No, I am not talking about individuals.

As a matter of fact, though, we can state that the agreed budget does not reflect the level of demand and inflation that I was advised that we might be seeing.

Okay. Surely, though, something like an inflation figure is not something that is negotiable. It either impacted the budget or it did not. One example we had concerned the energy bill for the HSE. In this case, there was a massive increase when the contract was renewed. Surely these types of figures can be established and stood up.

It is more difficult than I think we would all like it to be. Let us take this year as an example. I am here looking at another €1 billion in cash, or let us say €1.5 billion. Last year, in good faith, assumptions were made around the increase in patient demand and the increase in costs. It is fair to say that this year both these are way ahead of what we thought they would be.

Forgive me, my figure will be slightly wrong, but I think we had an increase of about 16% in referrals to the acute outpatient lists. We did not believe this was going to happen.

Yes, okay. We would, though, expect that it would be a good thing if more people are being treated.

Yes, though it does make the task of reducing the waiting lists more difficult, obviously.

No, I am saying that if more people are treated, then that should, presumably, be the objective to reduce the waiting lists.

It is hard to see how waiting lists can be substantially reduced unless more people are treated.

Yes. This is a good example.

It does not make any sense to penalise the services for doing this, which is, effectively, what the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is doing.

I think this is a good example. On the waiting list action plan we will report at the end of the year, the activity, the number of patients being taken off the waiting lists, is well ahead of target. To comment on the point made by the Deputy, this costs more money. The HSE has, therefore, treated more patients than it is funded to treat. This is the case in two areas in hospitals. One is in terms of the accident and emergency department presentations, which were higher than we thought. The second concerns scheduled care. Great credit is due there. It has cost more money, however, and this is one of the reasons I am looking for the Supplementary Estimate.

Okay. Fine. We do, though, need to get to the bottom of the fact that there was a breakdown in communications somewhere along the line. The Minister is saying the letter went to officials, and the most senior official is saying he never saw it. We must get to the bottom of that situation. Based on what we know is an underfunding of health next year, what does the Minister think are the main implications of this fact?

At this point, it is hard to say. My hope is that inflation will fall back down. We are, for example, hearing that energy prices may decline. My hope, therefore, is that what we have seen in Ireland and other countries around Europe, this big surge we saw this year that was not anticipated, will die down. I hope it was, in fact, a post-Covid surge that will now go back down and we will deliver the service plan on budget. That is my hope. If it is the case that the high level of demand we saw this year continues, and if these very high levels of health inflation continue, then, as I said in the Dáil after the budget, there is every possibility we will be here looking for a Supplementary Estimate.

I am sorry to cut across the Deputy, but I want to make one important point. I am absolutely of the view that we will not be curtailing patient services.

Well, it is very hard to see how this can possibly be the case. I mean, it is fine to express that view as an aspiration. It was expressed this year as well, back in March. It was written into the service plan, and we know it does have implications this year-----

-----in terms of recruitment freezes and a slowing down coming up to the end of the year. This is going to be inevitable next year again. At some point, someone will have to recognise the reality of what it costs to run a health service, especially one doing a lot of catching up and trying to do reform as well. This is a fundamental point that has not been accepted. May I ask the Minister-----

If I could just respond to that point-----

I am sorry, but I am almost out of time and I just want to ask Ms McGirr a question. When she was in with us last, I asked her about a supplementary allocation going into the base for the following year. She told me that had happened on a couple of occasions in recent years. Is this still a possibility? Is there any possibility of this happening now in relation to the €1 billion?

Ms Louise McGirr

At official level, no discussions are ongoing about this being recurring. That is at official level.

Why is that the case? Surely this is what the Department should be jumping on. I refer to a recognition, even if less than full, that there is a need for a supplementary €1 billion. Surely, then, given the pre-budget campaign was not successful, the campaign now should be to get this funding into the base allocation for next so that it would become recurring.

What is being done to achieve this?

Ms Louise McGirr

A couple of days before the budget, the non-core funding was expanded considerably to allow for extra funding for 2023. That was in recognition of the issues and challenges facing us next year. There is a need on all sides – it is a grey issue, not one that is black or white or on which people are right or wrong – to have trust and confidence that the expenditure is being used in the best places and in the best way and is delivering value for the public, and that we are maximising it and have appropriate controls. Equally, there is a need to see what happens with the inflationary environment and what kinds of savings and efficiencies can be achieved in procurement.

We are not going to find that out by January.

Ms Louise McGirr

No, but there is a need for us to focus on that through 2024 so that we can understand-----

That is a general point, but I am asking a different question. What kinds of discussion has the Minister had with his Cabinet colleagues, in particular the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, on looking for this supplementary funding to go into the base next year?

It would not be helpful to get into the detail of it, but there is a conversation going on at political level for exactly the reasons the Deputy has articulated.

I will contribute again on the second round. I thank the Minister and Ms McGirr.

I wish to remind members that we are supposed to be directing questions to the Minister, not his officials.

But we usually-----

No, that is the normal pattern. I call Deputy Kenny.

On a point of-----

I allowed it this time, but-----

Why is that the case?

-----I am asking members to direct their questions to the Minister.

Just so we are clear, is the Cathaoirleach saying that officials cannot answer questions?

No, I am not saying that at all, but questions are supposed to be asked through the Minister. He can then ask his officials to respond.

I echo what the Minister said at this meeting and in the Chamber yesterday. It is important that we all speak almost in one voice against this horrid racism and targeting of migrants, who not only work in our health service, but everywhere else in the country. One of the best things that has happened to Ireland in the past 25 years has been people coming from different parts of the world, not only to enrich our culture, but also everyone else. It is the most important thing that has happened to Ireland for a long time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but demographics are one of the factors driving the Supplementary Estimates. They are playing a major part in demand, and that is good. What was the overrun last year compared with this year?

Following the Chair’s direction, I might ask one of the officials to provide that information, if we have it.

Ms Louise McGirr

The overrun was €1.4 billion last year.

Almost the same as this year’s.

Ms Louise McGirr

Different factors drove it, though. Last year, it was mostly due to Covid. The Deputy will remember how we had Omicron. We also had significant time-related savings, namely, areas where we did not spend the full budget. For example, we had more multi-annual funding for staffing. The trend in expenditure on acute services has been driving much of these Supplementary Estimates, and it was evident in 2022 that they were starting to cost much more.

Obviously, there are more people in the country. Could this overrun be interpreted as meaning more people are accessing public health services and, consequently, there is a greater demand on services?

The Deputy is exactly on the money. At a simple level, approximately one third of the overrun is due to demographics and an increase in patient demand. A second part of the overrun is price inflation. For example, medical and surgical supply prices increased significantly this year. A third part is a level of spending that arguably should not be happening. We are spending too much on agency staff and overtime, for example. There are savings that can and must be made. The parts are not mathematically a third each, but they are patient demand, price and a level of spending that we need to reduce and where we need to find savings so that we can provide more patient care for the same amount of money.

I understand inflation. It is probably running higher than it has for a fair few years. What are the Department’s projections for next year or the following year in terms of inflationary pressures on the health service?

I have a table with me, which I will look to if the Deputy does not mind. Here are some of the inflationary pressures: medical and surgical supplies at approximately 23% this year versus last year; drugs and medicine at 18%; laboratory costs at 16%; and cleaning and washing at approximately 14%. We believe these numbers will decrease next year. A 23% year-on-year price growth was not forecast. We are forecasting that it will be lower next year. We might see negative inflation in some areas, for example, energy costs.

My final question is on a matter I raised in the Chamber a number of weeks ago, namely, the cutbacks in funding for new drugs and treatments, in particular cancer treatments. Even Mr. Bernard Gloster recently stated that this issue would result in a significant slowdown in the further development of clinical programmes, which would not be good whatsoever. A cohort of people rely on these new medicines and treatments but cannot get them. The Minister will understand that that is not good at all. In the grand scheme of things, we are talking about a small amount of money in the overall budget, but these drugs are the difference between life and death. I would like the Minister’s comments on this matter.

I agree that is it important that new medicines and therapies be available to patients. There was simply no new development funding this year. For the past few years, there has been significant new development funding for new medicines. There has also been a much better working relationship between the State and the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. While there is no new development funding for medicines, there are savings that we can find through the existing spend. We spend a great deal of money on medicines. The latest figure I recall is approximately €3.2 billion. The officials can correct me if I am wrong.

Yes. It has increased significantly. According to the OECD’s “Health at a Glance 2023” report, which was published not that long ago, Ireland spends a great deal on medicines compared with some other countries. Part of that might have to do with price, part of it might have to do with volume. I believe there are savings to be had. I have discussed this with the Department and the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, and there is agreement on it. There are biosimilars to which we can switch. There are some big biologic medicines that we spend a great deal of money on. If we can quickly switch to biosimilars and from patented to generic drugs, there are material savings to be had.

The commitment I have given is that any of those savings will be reinvested in new medicines and therapies next year.

Will the Minister repeat that? He said €3.2 billion is spent on drugs per year.

That is an enormous amount of money.

That is 15% or 16% of the overall health budget.

Pharmaceutical companies are doing very well.

We are spending a lot. I would re-emphasise that the relationship between the industry and the State has not always been great, but over recent years, in fairness to the industry, the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association, IPHA, and others have engaged and the State has engaged. The two groups have engaged in a much more constructive way. I know those in the industry were disappointed at the lack of new development funding for next year and I understand that. They too understand the budgetary pressures we are under for next year. We will work together to identify switches and savings that can be had. For example, some hospitals have automated medicine dispensing and very strong control of stock management and the uses they have, as well as polypharmacy reviews to make sure the right levels of medicines are being given to patients and they are not getting medicines they do not need. However, that is not universal. As part of the productivity task force I referenced, my officials have already kicked off a piece of work looking at that €3.2 billion. They are not looking at how to reduce it but how to get more patients more medicines for that money, how to use generics and biosimilars to the greatest extent possible, how to make sure patients are getting the right level of medicines and are not being prescribed medicines they do not really need, how to make sure our management of the stock is as good as it can be, and how to make sure our pricing agreement is as good as it can be. We signed off a new pricing agreement with the pharmaceutical industry last year. It included very substantial savings, which are being reinvested into medicines.

I will come in there, if the Deputy does not mind. That €3.2 billion is a huge spend, as the Deputy said. It is a huge proportion of our budget. We have 1.6 million people with medical cards and 185,000 discretionary cards, so 1.8 million people have medical cards. A huge proportion of those are older people who would depend very much on their medical card for drugs. That also includes the drugs payment scheme, where families can pay up to €80 a month for the drugs they get from the pharmacy. All of that is factored in as well. We are supporting a huge proportion of people in the country to get prescription drugs free of charge.

I understand that. I just-----

Can I give the Deputy an example? It is a topical one that I was quite surprised at myself. He will be aware that we are funding free IVF as of September. We hope to expand that. What I had not realised when I was looking at funding for this and the kind of new development funding we need was that the State had already been subsidising private IVF. The medicines required for IVF might cost in the region of €6,000 to €9,000. The amount a couple has to pay for €6,000 or €9,000 worth of drugs is €80. They get it in one month or it might be over two months, in which case the State is providing, say, €8,000 worth of medicine for €80. There are already tens of millions, believe it or not, in that €3.2 billion for providing these medicines for IVF next to free, for 1% of the cost. The State is paying the other 99%.

That is a good thing. I hope people are reassured by what the Minister has said, particularly people who were hoping to get access to these new medicines. They can get access to the drug their GP or their specialist recommended or they can get a biosimilar. That is really important because people have written to me, and I am sure written to all TDs, because they are very worried they cannot get access to this particular drug because of the cutbacks and so forth.

My final question relates to the State Claims Agency. The cost is €510 million this year. I was struck by the incremental increase in State claims from last year or the previous year. It is a huge amount of money. I understand how claims can be set against a medical environment. In the past three to five years, have claims against the State relating to negligence incrementally gone up every single year?

Yes. That has gone up a lot. There was a memorandum before Government yesterday on the State claims. I had figures gong back about ten years and they have gone right up. I might ask my officials to come in and give the last few years of changes.

Ms Louise McGirr

In 2020, the amount spent was €373 million. That went up in 2021 to €461 million. In 2022, it went up to €489 million. We are estimating that this year, it will be €510 million. It is going up.

It is going up €30 million every year. Does the Department have any figures prior to 2020?

Ms Louise McGirr

We do but I do not have them with me. We can send them on.

Is there a reason this is happening? There is probably not one reason but are there any circumstances or one particular area? Is there a reason this is increasing year on year?

Ms Louise McGirr

The information we have is on the number and the growth in claims, which is probably a function of population size as well. I am not sure of the extent to which it is driven by things other than that. The rate of growth in the value of settlement is also going up, that is, the amounts of the settlements. As the Minister said earlier, the key thing with this is how we improve patient safety to minimise the harm done so that those claims fall systemically because harm is not being done. We and the Minister have done a lot on patient safety over the course of the year. The other key part is the State claims group, which is looking at the whole area of State claims, how to reduce them comprehensively and how to manage them in a more cost-effective and efficient way but, crucially, in terms of the harm done and reducing that. There will be updates on that later in the year.

It is imperative these things do not happen in the first place but things do happen in these settings. There is no getting away from that. It is concerning that this has been increasing over recent years. Some of the settlements run into the tens of millions because of pretty profound situations. I thank the witnesses.

I will follow up on the State claims issue. Is it recurring with the same medical officials or the same hospitals? Is there any pattern? Is there more than one claim against one individual? If there is, is there a system in place for that? I give as an example a hospital or whatever where there are surgeries that have to be repeated because there were mistakes made or whatever else. I am not casting aspersions against any surgeon. If there is a pattern like that, does that show up within the current system? We are getting this overall big picture of the amount of claims and so on, but what I am trying to drill down into is whether the system picks up if there is a particular problem that is recurring or if there is a problem with one official.

The answer to that lies with the State Claims Agency.

The management of these claims does not sit with the Department of Health but with the State Claims Agency. At a clinical and specialty level, a very high amount of the total is in obstetrics and the catastrophic birth injuries that are seen. As I said earlier, our approach to addressing this starts and ends with a patient safety view. The best way to bring the amounts of these awards down is to do exactly what the Cathaoirleach is saying: conduct a root cause analysis, identify where and why it is happening, and deal with that.

We all supported the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 when it went through. There are measures in that Act around things like mandatory open disclosure and transparency, which we know help. We know from the UK's National Health Service, for example, that when there is meaningful engagement with patients on things that have gone wrong they are less likely to sue. That is because for most people it is not about money but the fact that something potentially bad has happened to them and they must be engaged with.

The work Dr. Rhona Mahony is doing will be important. They are doing exactly what the Cathaoirleach is saying; they are looking at the root cause analysis and what is causing things like catastrophic birth injury. I mention Dr. Peter McKenna as well, who was the head of the national women and infants health programme. He is leading a piece of work whereby when there are patient safety incidents, they will go in, review and try to learn from them quickly. There is broad agreement on this and on what we wanted to do with the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023. The experience of too many patients has been that the State pulls the shutters down. From a patient perspective, the State has access to infinite resources and legal advice. It can be intimidating, stressful and difficult for patients. We want the courts to be a last resort and that is what the various pieces of work are looking to. They are following the approach the Cathaoirleach has laid out.

It is important that, rather than getting the message today that the number of claims is up and so on, we should be looking at trying to fix the system. As public representatives we have all got those cases of people who felt that they were hard done by or that something went wrong within the medical system. We get those cases constantly. Anecdotally we all hear stories dissuading people from going to a particular hospital or doctor for an operation, for example. There is a lot of that out there.

I will move on to the Estimates. For anyone looking at the Estimates, even the language we use is fairly confusing. Huge sums of money are involved. I mention the medical inflation and we seem to be getting mixed messages from senior officials on that, which is extraordinary. They say they were not aware of the amounts or of the scale of medical inflation. We are getting different messages in other committees on people not really understanding it. It is worth making that point again and again, particularly on the Estimates and the overspend.

One area that has not been touched on and that has had no extra funding allocated to it in budget 2024 is oral healthcare and dentistry. The Minister is on record as saying there is a traditional blind spot here but again there does not seem to be any additional money for it. If you look at other areas of the healthcare system, there have been positive increases, but in oral health there is a huge problem. There is a huge problem for those who have medical cards in that the system has almost collapsed in some areas. It is impossible for anyone who is on a medical card to try to get a dentist, and people have to travel further and further. The Minister accepts that this is a blond spot but yet there does not seem to be any additional funding.

Our school screening services have been severely restricted. Children are supposed to be seen by the public health dentist in second, fourth and sixth classes but we are hearing that in a lot of cases it is not until the fourth year in secondary school that they are seen. I do not get it. Everyone accepts the importance of oral health and yet the public system does not seem to be on a par or responding to the needs of people. It is a bit like the nursing homes that were pushing people into the private sector. Similarly, with dentistry we are pushing people into the private sector and we are not addressing the gap. A lot of people cannot afford private dentistry and a lot of people cannot get a dentist. What is the Minister's solution to this? Clearly it is not to provide additional funding. Some of it will be trying to solve the issue with dentists and the medical card. It is a huge area and it does not appear to be addressed in the Estimates.

Traditionally we have had a bit of a blind spot in oral health. Colleagues will be aware that it became a big issue last year with public patients or medical card holders trying to access dental and oral healthcare. A large number of dentists withdrew from the scheme and it was causing issues. There has been a strong response to that. The Cathaoirleach will be aware that we increased the fees to dentists by 40% to 60%, which was significant. I asked my officials to look around Europe and compare the amount we pay private providers in Ireland versus other countries in Europe for public patients. We compare favourably. We may not pay the most on everything but we are right up there in the amounts we pay. My ask of the dentists was that they would re-engage with the scheme on the basis that there had been a 40% to 60% increase in the fees and that we had kicked off meaningful engagement with the Irish Dental Association on that.

A few other things have happened. The fees have gone up by 40% to 60%, which is a large amount of money. Nearly €5 million was available for this year as well for one of the issues the Cathaoirleach raised, which is early intervention. We are kicking off an oral health package for children up to the age of seven. It essentially goes from birth to seven years old. That is being piloted. It will need significant investment into the future and it will need an expansion of the number of healthcare professionals available. I want to double the number of dental college places. We do not train enough dentists and we probably do not hire enough of them either. We are looking to double that and the Minister, Deputy Harris, and I are working on that.

On the orthodontic lists, this is a significant amount of money for a lot of parents. They are amounts that a lot of people cannot afford and the waiting lists were far too long. While they are still too long, I am happy to say there has been a nearly 50% reduction in the orthodontic waiting lists between 2019 and this year. There is more to do but there has been important progress made. We have also invested about €8.5 million this year in the waiting list action plan.

It is going to private care. Nearly 2,300 patients moved from public to private care. That is okay as a short-term measure. Obviously in the longer term, we want to be investing that money in the public service but while we have these waiting lists, we need to use every ounce of healthcare capacity we can get for people to get them the care they need. Looking to the longer term, the HSE has appointed a national lead. It is calling it a strategic reform lead. There is a national policy, smile agus sláinte. It has not had a national lead within the HSE and the advice I had from the chief dentist was that that was one of the reasons it really had not happened. I cannot remember when it was launched. I think it was quite a number of years ago but it did not really happen. It is now beginning to happen with the early intervention and the waiting list programmes.

We need a modern, fit-for-purpose contract with dentists to provide care to medical card holders as well. The current contract is old and too restrictive. We have heard healthcare professionals talk to this at length. I agree with them and that is why we are kicking this off with the Irish Dental Association. There is a long way to go on this but I hope the Chair will agree there is quite a lot of activity going on this year, which is funded into next year to continue with that.

With respect, I do not think the Minister gets it that the medical card scheme seems to be collapsing. The information we are getting is that more and more dentists are leaving the scheme every day. The fact that there is no additional funding for it means the morale of dentists who are in the public system is rock bottom. That is what we are told by those who work in the system. There is clearly a problem there. It is so important. Oral healthcare affects the whole body in the context of a person's health and I do not think it is given importance as an issue.

I am sorry to cut across the Chair. If I could just come back on that slightly, there has been a very significant increase in the money that is in the public scheme. The fees have gone up by approximately a half in one year. The dentists said they needed more money. We are paying them a lot more money. I will ask my officials to send a note to the committee but the last time I looked at this, the number of treatments on the scheme had started to increase again, which is good.

While we need to listen to, respect and acknowledge the concerns being raised by the dentists, we also need to push back on them a little. They are choosing to not treat public patients. They said they wanted more money and we have given them more money. Some dentists, to their great credit, have come back into the scheme and the number of treatments has gone up.

It was the Chair's colleagues who gave testimony in a Dáil debate earlier this year in which they said one of their constituent's dentist had refused to treat them as a medical card patient. They had tried to try to find a dentist who would treat them but could not find one. Eventually, a dentist said they would treat the constituent as a private patient. That is not okay. This needs to work in both directions.

Yes, we need to engage with dentists and listen to them, respect them and create a modern, fit-for-purpose scheme. The dentists need to play their part. The vast majority of GPs treat public patients. They do not turn around to their GP card patients and say, "I am not accepting your card but give me €70 and I will see you."

I hear the Chair and agree with what he said. The lot of us, the Oireachtas and this health committee, need to push back a little on the dentists and say they need to treat public patients. The fees paid in Ireland to treat public patients are very attractive by international standards and there is an expectation that dentists will do the right thing by their public patients.

There is clearly a problem within the school system. Those children are waiting for longer and longer. The longer the wait the more difficult it is to treat the child.

I agree with what the Minister said, that we need to hire more public dentists and bring them into the public system.

The medical card issue was mentioned and I accept what the Minister said as regards a hierarchy of health. We accept that with those who are terminally ill, particularly those who have cancer, it is only right and proper that they have access to a medical card.

One of the issues raised constantly regarding the medical card, and again it relates to cancer treatment, is the fact that the MoviPrep preparation for a colonoscopy is not covered by the medical card. Have the Minister and his officials looked at that? It costs approximately €25. A constituent who is a pensioner contacted me during the week and said that €25 is a big chunk out of her income. There is a cost for cancer care, as the Minister knows, and she is facing into this. I know people can go to the community welfare officer and so on. A colonoscopy is quite common to try to ascertain if someone has cancer of the bowel, colon and so on. Could it be looked at at some stage? I know it is probably outside the Estimates but a bit like new drugs, maybe this could be looked at? I know there has been some controversy about it. There are other preparations that are available and are probably much cheaper but probably not as successful as the one that is usually authorised by GPs and the hospital system.

Can I clarify that? Is the Chair saying that when a person is going for a colonoscopy - obviously he or she has to have that preparation - that preparation is not covered by the medical card and they must pay €25 for it?

Yes. That is what I am saying.

We will certainly look into that.

The preparation basically clears out a person's system. Maybe it is something the Minister can put on the agenda.

I have raised this before and it has to do with a societal issue, namely, obesity. I came across a situation where the waiting list for the obesity management clinic was five to six years. I raised it with the Taoiseach yesterday. Clearly the system is broken there. We know obesity is a huge problem within society. I could go into the challenges faced by people who have eating disorders and the problems related to staffing issues. The Taoiseach said he would have a look at this whole area and I urge the Minister to do so. I went to the Minister about this and the reply I got was that the constituent was told the waiting list was still five years. There is something wrong with the system if a person must wait five or six years. Five to six years is the waiting list to get into a clinic. Given that obesity is such a big issue in Ireland, maybe the Minister and his officials could take this up. It probably relates to extra funding or extra staff for the area but I think we all agree it is something that needs to be resolved.

There is some very positive news there. I had a meeting with Professor Donal O'Shea who is an endocrinologist and his colleagues who are bariatrics specialists. They made a very compelling presentation on exactly the issues the Chair raised. They referenced people heading to other countries, including Türkiye and other places, and coming back to Ireland with some significant complications. I thought they framed the outdated view of this service very well. Their view is that maybe the service never had the funding it needed because there was a slightly condescending view that suggested this was something people should be able to deal with themselves and they should not require surgical intervention. The example they gave was that it is like telling someone who has been diagnosed with skin cancer that they should wear sun cream. That is great but entirely misses the point. The person needs clinical care.

On the back of that meeting, we fully funded the bariatric and obesity strategy through the waiting list action plan, including significant recurrent funding to the point I said there would be no way Professor O'Shea would be able to spend the money he was looking for.

On the back of that meeting we fully funded the bariatric and obesity strategy through the waiting list action plan, including significant recurrent funding, to the point where I said there would be no way Dr. O'Shea would be able to spend the money he was looking for as it takes longer than that to hire in a new team. He assured me he had people all over the country ready to go and all it needed was the funding. I was sceptical, but it turns out he was correct. They have done amazing work this year. I cannot remember the exact amount, but from memory we have put in between €6 million and €6.5 million in recurrent funding for this year. They are now rolling out exactly what the Chair says we need. I fully agree, which is why we fund it.

Within the waiting list action plan we have identified three clinical areas - there are many priorities, but three get reported on at every task force meeting - which are spinal orthopaedics, gynaecology and bariatrics. What we should see, as Dr. O'Shea and his team roll out this service, is patients like the one referenced starting to get quicker access. Nobody could stand over that case, or any case of someone waiting years for access to bariatrics. I acknowledge the Chair's ongoing work in this area. I have a note that 703 additional activities have been delivered as of the end of September 2023. That is a combination of outpatient, inpatient, day case and so forth. Progress is being made for reasons the Chair has laid out.

My final point does not relate to this case, but it is worrying that more people are turning to the Internet and buying drugs online. They are putting their lives in danger with some of the stuff they are buying. I am glad the issue was raised and the Minister is looking at it.

Is it possible to identify the number and variety of drugs under investigation, as is usual, how many are generic, the particular conditions to which they are likely to apply, and how urgently that is issue being dealt with? I am talking about identifying the patient type and profile and accelerating the speed with which they can have access to the new drugs. The testing of drugs is obviously fundamental to that.

Is the Deputy looking for a note on the current pipeline that is being evaluated?

Yes, anything. I am also willing to wait if the Minister can do it now.

I cannot do it now but I can certainly provide the Deputy with a note on it.

That is to give us a profile of how matters are progressing, what is waiting insofar as new drugs are concerned, the potential conditions to which they apply, and the impact they are likely to have on the health conditions of patients.

A lot of work has been done on child and adolescent mental health, etc., and the Minister of State has done a huge amount of work in that area, which is appreciated. However, it is a massive challenge and the extent of it has increased in recent years. The reason is obviously that there are competing health issues that need to be addressed in the short term where the intervention is likely to have a substantial impact on the quality of life of the patients concerned. To what extent is that meeting anticipated targets? I know we are coming from a long way back. We had Covid and so on, which pushed things further back. Nonetheless, we cannot continue to say it is a problem area and we will deal with it. We need to deal with it now. That is the most likely way it will impact on the quality of patient care.

It is unfortunate timing because the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, has stepped out.

Perfect timing. Will the Deputy repeat the question, because the Minister of State is best placed to answer it?

Going back to my previous references to medical cards, and while I emphasise that I am taking into account the number of extra medical cards issued, it is tempting nonetheless to identify the number of vulnerable patients being treated for cancer or who are about to be treated for cancer and the extent to which, when we pursue their individual cases, we get a limited response. I have brought this up on numerous occasions, as has the Chair and everybody else on the committee. That would seem to indicate we are being heard but we are not being listened to. Somebody, somewhere says every other patient has a GP visit card, and that is great, but this is a particular category of patients who have a life-changing or life-threatening condition. Small things mean a lot to them, and they are not known to abuse the medical card system either. One such small thing would be to say they do not have to worry about unforeseen circumstances that might arise in the future, because they have been catered for and do not have that extra expenditure to take from the family budget. If they are outside the criteria to qualify for a medical card, when we challenge it we are told they fall outside the income limit by a small or large amount. That does not resonate with the patient or do them any good at all. They do not feel any better afterwards.

I mentioned hospital mishaps, and the Minister told us about a number of cases that have gone back to the State Claims Agency and so on. Hospital mishaps also impact on the patient in the first instance. It is no good telling a patient suffering from a hospital mishap or other accident that they can claim for it later on. The patient is affected by it now, and that can continue, putting more pressure on the patient and, as they would see it, unnecessary punishment, when a little intervention at that stage could alleviate a lot of stress and suffering.

Regarding cancer patients and others with life-threatening illnesses, there could be a small intervention like having a place to park the car in a hurry so patients do not come out after the treatment to find the car clamped. Patients have enough to bear and suffer with. This is an added extra that could and should be dealt with in the shortest possible time to help the poor unfortunate patient, to show that we know they have a problem they are going through and we are doing this simple intervention to make that burden a little lighter for them. This does not just affect the poor or less financially secure people. It is for everybody. The condition affects everybody. Cancer does not pass over patients. It affects everybody, and there are other similar conditions I have referred to.

I have raised questions about child and adolescent healthcare and the degree to which demand is growing. I appreciate that. I agree that the Minister of State has done a huge amount of work in that area and I appreciate that, but the progress is slow. It is not her fault but it is slow. I sometimes get the impression someone is asking why this nuisance is raising this question again and they respond by asking, "Are we not doing enough?" No, we are not and that is the problem. It falls on us too.

I thank the Deputy for the question and his interest. He is right that there are a lot of challenges with CAMHS, but a lot of good work is happening too. Out of all people hired by the HSE, there are 10,500 whole time equivalents working in mental health services.

Regarding CAMHS specifically, 820 whole-time equivalents are working in CAMHS across 75 teams the length and breadth of the country. What we have discovered and what was known for a long time was that not all the teams are fully populated due to challenges. For example, everyone will be aware of the situation in south Kerry and the Maskey report. We have had a funded post there for a consultant psychiatrist since 2014 and we have still have not been able to staff it notwithstanding all the differences we have made.

Why is that? Are the levels of remuneration we offer not in accord with expectations? Is the responsibility too great? Is the area for which the relevant people will have responsibility too large? Is the job too onerous? Do we need more people to share the burden? What can be done to intervene?

We have successfully managed to recruit consultant psychiatrists in other parts of the country. There have been challenges in the Kerry area for quite a while.

We have two pieces of good news. For the first time in the history of the State, we have a youth mental health office. Mr. Donan Kelly is the lead and he took up his post on 1 September. I met him last week. In addition, for the first time ever, we have a clinical lead – which is important – namely, Dr. Amanda Burke, who is consultant psychiatrist with more than 30 years of experience. We discovered after the Maskey report, the Mental Health Commission’s report and the HSE’s independent report that there was not a clinical lead with regard to best practice for prescribing for young people. It is important to note that when the Mental Health Commission did its review and when the HSE completed its audit, it was noted and welcomed that the overprescribing that was happening to young people in Kerry was not happening anywhere else in the country. It was not a systemic thing. There was a general fear that might be the case.

Working now with the new youth mental health office in the HSE, we have a dedicated focus and the new clinical lead. I was due to meet Dr. Amir Niazi, who leads on mental health, at 11 a.m. today.

We decided to do the following, which is important: additional funding was secured in the budget for mental health next year - €1.3 billion in total – but all the additional funding for new developments I secured working with the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, will be specifically for youth mental health. That is where the main challenges arise. We do not get many challenges in psychiatry of later life or general adult mental health services. There are some challenges but what comes across all our desks is youth mental health, which is where we are now putting the focus.

We will have a comfort break now for ten minutes.

Sitting suspended at 11.33 a.m. and resumed at 11.46 a.m.

I want to recap on some of the conversations we had during my first contribution. I am sure the Minister will agree that while he has his job to do, we have our job to do, which is to hold him, the Department of Health and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to account when it comes to the funding for health in 2023 and the consequences of whatever is done in 2023 for 2024. I agree that there will always be robust debate between the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and line Departments and very robust engagement on funding - healthy tension, to call it that. That will always be the case. There is, however, a big difference between what we see in all the documents we have, and even the performances of the Minister, and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform as regards health. There are sharp differences that do not make sense.

I will make the following point, because the Minister said he is now in the position whereby other people in his position, whomever they might be, at some point may have the same conversations. I agree with him on that, but something is either factual or it is not. ELS is meant to be scientific, a bit like safe staffing. We have a science and a framework. It is meant to deal with inflation, demographics, carryover measures, etc. It is a formula. It cannot be arbitrary or discretionary, yet there is this fundamental difference between what the Department of public expenditure and reform is saying and what the Department of Health is saying, which makes no sense. It is the same with inflation. Inflation is what it is. It is the same with the causes of the deficit. It is either caused by increased demand and inflation or it is not. Again, there are sharp differences.

Worse than that, then, it seems that trust had broken down. I refer to the first meeting the Minister had with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and his team. Officials from the Department of Health were at the meeting. I will not note all who were at the meeting. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, was not at the meeting but the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, was, as far as I can see. Here is what the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform said in the briefing note to the Minister-----

For clarification, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is now in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. I-----

The meeting took place on 4 October and was attended by the Minister, Stephen Donnelly, the Minister of State, Anne Rabbitte, the Minister of State, Hildegarde Naughton, Robert Watt and officials.

They got my name wrong.

That is all right. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, was there so.

Anyway, the note states that the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform's position is that the very maximum affordable settlement for health is €808 million into the base. That was its starting point. It was also its finishing point. Therefore, whatever negotiations took place, the Department of Health got not a cent extra - that is a fact - in terms of core expenditure. The note goes on to state that, as regards the Vote, that figure has not been given to the Department of Health, given the gap between both Departments and the lack of meaningful engagement on a revised base and the risk that this would be used as a starting point for negotiation of a higher amount.

So even at that level the view is, do not tell them what the figure is because of risk and, as I see it, they will see this as a negotiation and they are simply not doing what we have asked them to do. Does the Minister see that as problematic? I assume that he is going into meetings in good faith trying to negotiate the best he can get for the health service, and that that is the approach of the officials and the Minister for public expenditure and reform.

It is not for me to comment on the preparation or the internal notes from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. All I can tell the Deputy is that the bit that is on me, and my officials, is to make sure that we put the best possible case forward based on the evidence, and that is exactly what we did.

I will make three quick points. In the end we did get significantly more than the €808 million, not in recurrent funding.

I know about the one-off funding.

I know but I am talking about core funding.

I appreciate that. It does matter that, literally, in the days before budget day I secured an additional half billion euro and that is important. The position that they had there on the figure of €808 million did not include the €500 million that we did get. Close to the end they did move and moved considerably.

What is precise is the cashflow projection. On the Supplementary, for example, that was a very straightforward meeting between the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and the Department of Health to say, this is what the cashflow is to the end of the year, this is what is needed, and it was resolved very quickly and fairly amicably.

What is more difficult is the projection into next year, as evidenced by the significant gap between what transpired this year and what was projected last year. It is a pretty inexact science to try to forecast patient demand, activity and inflation, particularly in the volatile international environment in which we live.

I want to respond to the Minister because it is worse than that. I have the notes here in front of me and I want to repeat some of them back to him. The Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform appeared before the finance committee. He illuminated a bit more maybe on what I would call not just tensions but very stark disagreements between the Department of Health and his Department. Through the Minister, I ask Ms McGirr to respond to the following, if that is okay, because earlier she said that the letter that came to the Minister for Health from Bernard Gloster, that was then forwarded to the Minister for public expenditure and reform, would have also been sent to officials. If it is okay, I would like a response to that. Ms McGirr said that that was sent at an official level to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Is that correct?

Ms Louise McGirr

Yes. That is correct, yes.

When Ms McGirr says that, who was it sent to? Who sent the letter from the Department of Health?

Ms Louise McGirr

Our Secretary General sent it to the Secretary General in the Department of public expenditure.

Who sent the memo that came?

Ms Louise McGirr

Bernard Gloster's, yes.

Bernard Gloster's memo.

Ms Louise McGirr

That is to my understanding, yes.

Mr. Moloney stated, at the meeting of the finance committee:

I have not seen that letter. It may have been passed to the Minister but, to the best of my knowledge, I have not seen it.

When he asked further he said, "I do not recall that being discussed with me", as in, that letter.

Ms Louise McGirr

It may or may not have been discussed with him. I have no reason to think that.

Mr. Moloney stated "I have not seen that letter."

Ms Louise McGirr

My understanding is the letter was sent. It was from our Department so, potentially-----

He may not have seen it.

Ms Louise McGirr

He may not have seen it.

He may well not have seen it. I know that there is a lot of emails that I get sent that I do not see.

Hang on a second. No, we have had a very serious issue with the funding of the health service. They go to great lengths in all of their notes to say the sharp differences they have between the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and the HSE and the Department. The head of the HSE has set out in stark terms what went on in his perspective, sent to the Minister for public expenditure and reform, which we are now being told went from the Secretary General of the Department of Health to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. He cannot then say that was something that was missed. If it was sent to him and it is of that importance, then it is absolutely incredible that he would not seen that. It is worse than that, and I will relay some of the other things he said because it goes to the heart of all of this as well. What the Minister for Health has said and what the head of the HSE and the Department have said is that most of the deficit of this year will be recurring next year. What he actually said about the issue worries me even more. Mr. Moloney said: "I cannot speak to his position", as in the head of the HSE, and "He did not make that point to me." Today, the Minister for Health has said that health inflation is running at between 10% and 17%.

I said that the average is about 10%

It was put to Mr. Moloney that health inflation ranged between 10% and 17%.

Mr. Moloney said, "Absolutely not." My colleague put it to Mr. Moloney that, "Bernard Gloster and Robert Watt both told the Joint Committee on Health" that this was the case and Mr. Moloney replied: "I am not aware of what that is based on." How could Mr. Moloney not be aware of what it was based on?

For me, the debate shows me how bizarre all of this is when, again, it was stated that two thirds of the deficit of this year have been recurring, which have been pointed out to us by the Department of Health and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Mr. Moloney said: "That position has never been presented to me." How could that be the case?

Deputy Donnelly is here as the Minister for Health, the head of the HSE has come in here and the head of the Department of Health has come in here and said, we have a very big deficit for 2023, it is caused by inflation and increased demand, and most of it is recurring and needs to go into the base for next year. Yet, the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure, who sets the budget with the Minister says, "That position has never been presented to me", after it was put to him when the majority of the deficit would be recurring. Was that position put to the Department of public expenditure and reform?

Clearly, it is a matter of public record. I think that the Deputy, and I presume the rest of the committee members, have the documentation. We have produced numerous IGEES papers covering these issues, which were shared early on in the discussions.

It is utterly bizarre. This probably is the most chaotic way we have ever funded the health service, when you have that carry on with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and I am not blaming the Department of Health on this. There are financial controls that can be put in place, there are savings that can be made and there can be differences of opinion but when you have matters of fact that are being disputed, emails which were sent and we have been told the Secretary General did not see them, and then telling us that he was not aware of anything to do with what was recurring or inflation, even contradicting the demand, for me that is fundamentally a bad way to fund the health service and it is really troubling.

On that point, it is an extraordinary scenario that is being painted and we are getting drip fed about what actually happened. When you consider what is involved here, the head of the HSE on hearing what the draft budget was going to be for health, pointed out that that budget would pose "significant and punitive risks to the public". That is an extremely serious claim that is being made, that the level of funding for the health services poses "significant and punitive risks to the public". The letter containing that claim was sent from the Secretary General of the Department of Health to the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and that individual has claimed that he never saw the letter. This goes to the heart of the dysfunction that exists within the whole area of funding for the health service, the attitude of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and the lack of understanding of what is required to run a proper health service; a public health service. That is why I think this issue is so significant. Year after year we have had an underfunding of the health service and a lack of understanding about the need for reform and the fact that reform has to be funded. That is why I believe that we need to absolutely get to the bottom of this now. We need to find out whether the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform saw the letter - he claims he did not - who did the letter go to, who opened the email and what was done with that email. If it was not the Secretary General who saw it then, presumably, somebody at a senior level within that Department saw it. I think this is a huge issue. I think it needs to be explained thoroughly and we need to see the paper trail for this.

Unless the whole issue of the funding of the health service is taken seriously by the Department of public expenditure, we will never have a properly functioning public health service. It is news today that it was the Minister's Secretary General who sent on that email. There is a requirement, in the public interest, that that information and scenario are fully explained and we find out exactly what happened to that email.

The advice I have is that it was released under freedom of information, FOI. Whether it was picked up or not is another matter. I understand that a considerable FOI request went in and the email from one Secretary General to another was part of that.

Who opened that and what was done with it?

Wait, now, this goes to the heart-----

I am not diminishing it.

-----of the dysfunction that exists with regard to funding the health service.

We need to find out because we cannot have a repeat of this. If what was said in that letter was not seen and understood by the Department of public expenditure, then we need to revisit this whole issue.

I will make two quick points, if I may. The first is that regardless of who read the letter, from memory, there was not much in it that had not already been articulated. Maybe it had not been articulated by the chief executive of the HSE but by me and my officials. The letter was in line with what we had been saying. I agree with the Deputy on finding a better way to do this, for the reasons she articulated. That is why I am setting up this future funding of healthcare-----

I have heard that. Sorry, I am nearly out of time.

I am just trying to agree with the Deputy.

The Minister said that already. There is a direct conflict of evidence between the two Departments and we need to get to the bottom of it. That is in the public interest. Otherwise, we will continue with the kind of dysfunctional system of funding the health service. We need to revisit it if it is the case that the email was not seen. If it was seen, it raises even more serious issues.

I appreciate and acknowledge that. All I am saying in response is that I think the solution to this will not be about who read what, but an independent expert review of the future of healthcare so we can all-----

The solution is that we get accountability.

The Deputy is asking how we get away from this in future years and I think that is the answer.

That is all very well but we need to deal with this current budget and to find out who is accountable for ensuring the health service is adequately funded. That is an important principle that is established, so that there is not a batting away of public healthcare need in this country.

I want to move on to other aspects of budgeting in the health service. Three main areas need reform, specifically the need for multi-annual funding, the need for a fully integrated financial management system and the need to fund the digital health strategy. The integrated financial management system is a basic part of any organisation that is a fraction of the size of the HSE. It is extraordinary that we do not have a full system in place. The Minister says €40 million has been provided for it this year. What is the total outstanding amount that would be required to have a fully functioning integrated financial management system?

I will ask the officials for a view on that.

Ms Louise McGirr

I am getting the figures now, if the Deputy will give me a moment.

I will come back to that if Ms McGirr wants to look at the figures. I want to pick up again on the point about the dental service. The Minister will be aware that, over the last 15 years, almost a quarter of all dentists have left the service. There is a reduction of almost a quarter in dentists at a time when numbers in all other disciplines in healthcare are increasing significantly. We know that clinics are closing. There are long waiting lists. Virtually no preventative dental service is being provided. There is a collapse in the medical card system. In May, the Minister admitted there was a blind spot with regard to oral healthcare and raised the need for engagement with the Irish Dental Association. What has he done since then to address that blind spot? I cannot see any evidence in the budget for next year that there is a single cent extra for dental services, which are on the point of collapse. What has the Minister done about that?

Dental services are not on the point of collapse. Health services are not on the point of collapse, to be clear. They are well funded and have had significant additional funding in the lifetime of this Government. When I agreed that there needed to be better engagement with the Irish Dental Association, I called a meeting and informed it that we needed to fundamentally reset the relationship. It had not been a healthy relationship. It was quite adversarial. I said I wanted to try to foster the kind of relationship with it that the Department has with the Irish Medical Organisation. The Department does not always agree with the IMO and vice versa, but it is a good professional relationship. The €130 million deal we did with GPs earlier this year was because of that. I said to the Irish Dental Association that we would reset the relationship and get all our officials together. One of my assistant secretaries is leading that work with the association. I said that we would put it all on the table, including fees for the scheme and the design of the scheme, which needs to be more flexible so that dentists can provide the care that they need.

What is happening?

There has been ongoing engagement and an increase in funding over the last few years. On the preventative measures-----

Is it not the case that there is no additional funding in the budget next year for dental services?

With regard to new development, that is correct, but it is also the case that all of the considerable additional funding that we have put in place over the last few years is being retained and used.

There has been a reduction of 23% in the number of public dentists employed by the HSE over the last 15 years and nothing has been done to arrest that loss.

A considerable amount is being done. For example, in the budget for next year, there is one-off funding of nearly €3.5 million for the orthodontic waiting lists. Smile agus Sláinte, the national oral healthcare policy, is being funded. The advice I got from the chief dentist was that we needed national clinical leadership roles. They were funded. The Deputy correctly referred to early intervention for babies, going up to seven years of age, and a pilot is in place. We are making progress on the orthodontic list, which is good. An area I am not satisfied with is the school-based system.

I am talking about the public dental service.

The Deputy and I know, while I do not want to get the years wrong, that there is a year in school where pupils are meant to get that intervention, and it has slipped far too much.

The Minister admitted there is a blind spot, yet there is not any additional funding next year. Is that not the case?

That is not the case.

So there is additional funding for next year.

I admitted it is a blind spot. Compared with then, there is considerable additional funding in the budget.

Would the Minister please send me a note on that?

That is for 2023, with no additional funding for 2024. Is that the case?

There is €3.4 million for orthodontic waiting lists.

There is nothing extra for the main public dental service.

I imagine there is for existing levels of service, ELS. When the Deputy refers to the public dental service, is she talking about the school-based-----

I am talking about the public dental service, both school-based and the dental treatment service scheme, DTSS.

I will get the Deputy a note.

I thank the Minister.

Ms Louise McGirr

The total capital cost of the integrated financial management system is €82 million for the project. As of the end of September 2023, €44 million had been spent. That does not include the additional €40 million that we have put in for 2024. The HSE is looking at how to accelerate the project. We should have the project plan before the end of the year.

That €40 million is earmarked, is it not?

Ms Louise McGirr

Yes.

There is no reason that should not be provided.

Ms Louise McGirr

It is being provided and the HSE is currently looking at how to spend it and what that does to the overall timeline.

When Ms McGirr says that an €82 million spend is required, that will ensure we have a fully functioning integrated financial management system, IFMS. Is that the case?

Ms Louise McGirr

Yes.

In that case, by the end of next year, there will be a fully functioning system.

Ms Louise McGirr

A couple of things have happened with the roll-out of the IFMS. The roll-out in the east, which has been happening since July, has run into difficulty, so that is causing some delay to the second phase of the roll-out.

A further issue is the lack of co-operation with Fórsa on IFMS which is slowing down the delivery of further phases of the project. Fórsa members have been instructed not to co-operate with further phases. The HSE is reprofiling. If we did not have the €40 million, what is that doing to the end dates. Then, on top of that, it is layering, with the investment of €40 million, how much we can take that back. I think the €40 million is unlikely to get it all in by the end of the year given the delays but it will accelerate it considerably.

I welcome the Minster and the Minister of State. In summary, there was a shortfall in the budget for 2024 and the back end of this year which required a Supplementary Estimate, and that has been provided.

Will the Minister outline some of the progress that has been made during his tenure in the health portfolio, not only in the last year but in the last two years? I will give him a minute or minute and a half, which is a short time but the answer should be at the forefront of his mind.

I thank the Deputy for the opportunity. The goal is universal healthcare. What is the coming budget, the funding in the Supplementary Estimate we are discussing today, being used for? It being used to reduce costs for patients; reduce waiting lists, and we have reduced waiting lists for the second year; and roll out new services, including women’s healthcare, cancer care, trauma care and other areas. We are doing that in part through the biggest expansion in the healthcare capacity that I am aware of and possibly the biggest there has ever been. We have increased the number of hospital beds by nearly 1,100 and the number of staff by 23,000. We have a new network of primary care centres all over the country which is a game changer. We are investing based on the Sláintecare philosophy of providing care in the community, investing in GPs and providing care closer to home, while building up the capacity of the hospital sector. It is about fundamentally improving how and where that care is delivered. That involves public-only contracts and a focus on productivity, of which there has not been enough. Essentially, it starts and ends with the patient and involves better, earlier and affordable care for everybody. At a simple level, healthcare for everybody is what we are trying to do.

I am particularly struck by the progress made across a range of women’s healthcare issues. An issue raised at our briefing today, which was also raised when Bernard Gloster was before the committee, is the scope for savings. The Secretary General, Mr. Watt, also made that point when he was here. We are told that significant progress has been made in the programme to curtail expenditure across Covid, acute care and community costs. Will the Minister elaborate on that?

We have a very ambitious target for next year of achieving several hundred million euro in savings. That will not be easily achieved. It partly involves reductions in agency expenditure. The HSE is spending well in excess of what it is funded for on agency this year. It partly involves agency and overtime costs. Part of the reduction in agency costs will be through conversion. Obviously, we spend more on an agency doctor or nurse than we do on a full-time employee. We will fully fund safe staffing in every hospital, ward and emergency department next year through agency conversion. There are workforce elements - agency and overtime - and then non-workforce elements. What can we do to move more quickly to biosimilar and generics? We will reinvest that in new medicines and therapies for patients. What can we do on procurement, the State Claims Agency and litigation? I am establishing a productivity and savings task force-----

I have read that. What is the Minister’s expectation or objective on, say, the savings yield there? Has he been given any kind of picture as to that?

We have high-level ambitions to save hundreds of millions of euro but this is detailed work. We will bring in a team to do a forensic look through all these line items to give us a more detailed view on it. We spend €3.2 billion on medicines, for example.

Is this the first time such a team will be brought in?

I am not sure but certainly the scale of what we are looking to do is broad and ambitious.

The Minister has not been given much time to talk about price inflation which, like all backbenchers, I experience. Whether it is in respect of local authority or Department of Education projects, inflation is having an impact. It clearly takes out a lot of projects that they have in mind. What is the trajectory of price inflation for capital projects in health?

I will ask my officials to respond on what we think is likely to happen next year. The Deputy will be aware that we are observing very high inflation this year. It depends area by area. Medical and surgical devices, drugs and medicines, catering and heating are different but we are looking at a range of figures - 10%, 17%, 23%. I will ask the officials to give a view on our best guess as to what might happen next year.

Is there any parallel between the direction of inflation and the general direction of economic inflation, which seems to be slowing?

Ms Louise McGirr

We circulated a note to the committee. There not one inflation figure that represents health inflation because the provision of health services is a complex basket of goods and services and there is also a lagged effect in terms of inflation as we come out of contract. There are, therefore, a number of factors that will be at play next year. We forecast, maybe optimistically, that inflation will not be as high as it was this year but the impacts this year are likely to be seen in contracts going forward. Therefore, we do not see inflation reducing; rather, we see the level of increase slowing down.

How much did inflation add to the overall health budget in 2023? I ask for a ballpark figure.

Ms Louise McGirr

In medical and surgical supplies, for example, which is a quarter of our acute non-pay costs, costs have gone up by nearly 25%. It is 23% in expenditure cost.

How much is that in millions?

Ms Louise McGirr

It is hundreds of millions. On the acute non-pay side, I think our deficit is about €600 million or €700 million.

That is close to the Supplementary Estimate.

Ms Louise McGirr

Two thirds of the acute expenditure is non-pay. That is driven by a mixture of price and volume. That is the key thing - it is both. Price increases will include, say, more expensive drugs than were previously used. It is not just inflationary but also an increase in price.

I have three more questions, including one for the Minister of State. There were discussions between the Minister and the Minister for public expenditure that bordered on the friendly and combative, I am sure. Will the Minister give a flavour of those, even if it is just for colour? He is a man who would clearly dig his heels in.

On a subject close to my heart, I chair a cross-party group on new drugs and rare diseases. There is a concern that there is no increase in the allocation for new drugs. Will the Minister comment on that?

The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, kindly visited Bloomfield hospital in my constituency, which is a centre of excellence for dementia and dealing with rare diseases such as Huntingdon's disease. She will be very well aware of the disease. There is some concern about budgets for next year. There are big costs but a lot of progress has been made. Can the Minister of State provide some assurance on that?

The issue of new drugs was raised earlier.

The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and I have a very strong working relationship. I would be surprised if, in any budget discussions, a Minister for expenditure and a Minister for Health have ever been on the same page. We have, however, a very good working relationship.

On new medicines, and this is linked to rare diseases as well, we are putting in place a new rare disease strategy. Advocacy groups such as Rare Diseases Ireland are very involved. We are pulling people into this. Something we need for that is funding for new medicines, orphan drugs. We intend going after that in a very hard-nosed manner by finding savings in that €3.2 billion figure. The work has already started and will be governed under the productivity task force. I will bring a memo to the Government shortly on that productivity task force to lay out exactly what we are going to do.

I acknowledge the ongoing tireless work on orphan drugs and rare diseases. We are acting on that and putting a strategy in place. We will have the advocacy and patient groups involved in that. I am determined to find savings within the €3.2 billion and we will reinvest that into making new drugs - some incredible medicines - available to adults and children in Ireland.

Some €75 million was allocated for private placements in 2023 under the mental health budget. In 2024 the spending allocation for private placements will be increased by approximately €10 million. There will be €3.75 million invested to support people with an existing need for private placements and another €5.8 million to provide full-year funding. In addition, an extra €1.8 million will be allocated to specialist providers, Highfield, Bloomfield and St. John of God, so that people with serious mental health difficulties, including those with Huntington's disease, can continue to access high-quality care. The details will be worked out in the service plan.

In response to the questions about who got what email and who read it, the Minister made the point that it does not really matter who read it because most of the issues were understood. That goes to the heart of the problem here. It is not as simple as that. Yes, a memo is just a memo and an email is just an email but it was obviously a very substantial email and very stark. I will read a line of it in the moment, which is really stark and reinforces the point I made earlier about the difference between the income and expenditure deficit and the cash deficit. The problem is not so much the one email that was sent to the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform; it is all the other information. Even in the finance committee they said they were not made aware of how high inflation is, and even where they were made aware they did not agree with it. They said they were not made aware of the fact that the majority of the deficit for this year is recurring, when clearly it strikes me that they were. Blatant disregard for the facts is the only way I can put it and that is troubling. We cannot just accept that. We cannot say, "that it is fine; we can just move on and accept it". This is why it is more fundamental than the email.

I will read from the letter Bernard Gloster sent to the Minister. He talks about the €1.5 billion being the deficit, as he puts it. He then says:

The I & E [income and expenditure] position at end 2024 is likely to be substantially higher because of maturing liabilities, first charge accounting [this is the point I was making earlier] and inflation coupled with additional demographic demand. The position likely to face the HSE coming towards 2025 will be likely worse than today for 2024 when the 2025 doubtless incremental cost will be added.

What that tells me is that there is very little money for new funding in 2024. It is not a matter of "if"; it is a guarantee that we will have a very substantial deficit next year. We are going to be in the same position again with potentially no money for new developments. The health service could potentially be set back to be barely standing still for 2024 and 2025 because of this mismanagement. That is why it is important for us to get to the bottom of what was happening. I put the blame on the Government, obviously, but primarily on the Department of public expenditure and reform for not adequately funding the health service.

On the issue of home care, we know that the allocation made in the service plan for 2023 was very significantly cut from 23.9 million hours to 22 million hours in order to fund the improved pay and conditions. What that amounted to was older people paying the price for improving the conditions for staff. Of course, staff conditions have to be improved and we were running into serious difficulties because of poor conditions, but a bigger envelope of funding should have been provided. Conditions should not have been improved at the expense of older people. I am concerned about what is going to happen next year in relation to that. The HSE has told us that we have almost reached the maximum number of 22 million hours, and we will likely do so at the end of the year. There has been a slowing down. If there is no increase on those hours, what will the Department do about the recognised logjam that exists? Some 6,000 people who are at home have been approved for home care and are on the waiting list. What is going to happen to that very significant number of vulnerable people? The likelihood is they will be denied their rights, but it will also result in additional visits to accident and emergency departments.

The other issue relates to the number of people involved in delayed discharges. Approximately 150 of them will need home care. If there is no capacity for increasing the number of home care hours, is that not a huge difficulty for the operation of the health service generally?

I thank the Deputy for question, which she raises consistently. In 2019. we were providing 17.9 million hours.

I am just talking about this year.

Yes, but we have to put into context that we have increased the figure by 3 million hours over the last three years. This year we will deliver 21.5 million hours

The HSE provided a different figure last week of 21.9 million hours.

No, we will deliver 21.5 million hours this year. Next year the service plan is to deliver 22 million hours. That is all we can do with the staff we have.

There is a conflict in the figures. Last week we were told 21.9 million hours have been utilised and we still have a very long waiting list. What will happen with the demographics of an ageing population and the increased demand that will entail?

The latest advice I have from the Department is that we are ahead of target this year. We have delivered an extra 4% of hours and we will deliver 21.5 million hours.

How can the Minister of State say she is ahead of target when the target in the service plan was for 23.9 million hours?

We were ahead of target for this year.

Yes but that was the figure for this year in the service plan.

In order to bring in the tender on €723 million, which was the budget for this year, there was no other money available to-----

When the decision was taken to increase pay and conditions, there was a failure to increase the overall allocation for all care and that amounts to older people paying the price for that.

I do not think it is a failure that 54,000 people have received home care today. The Deputy referred to-----

I prefer to look at the 6,000 people who are on waiting lists.

The Deputy asked me a question and I will answer it. The Deputy has to be fair about the waiting list. There is no one on the waiting list who is not funded for a package. Some 3,000 of those people have a partial package from Monday to Friday, but there are challenges at the weekend. Approximately 2,900 people are new entrants who come into the system constantly. Let us be fair here. Three years ago, 9,000 people were waiting.

I am not talking about three years ago. I am talking about this year and the effective cut in the budget this year.

The budget was not cut this year. The budget is €723 million, which will fund 22 million hours this year. We will not reach 22 million hours. We have funding for next year which will also deliver 22 million hours, which is our protected target

That is smoke and mirrors.

It is not smoke and mirrors. The Deputy cannot say that to the 54,000 people who are receiving home care today while we are sitting here.

What about the 6,000 people on the waiting list and the 150 people in hospital who cannot go home?

I get the figures every week. It is actually 60 people who are waiting on late discharges of care. We are doing everything we can in every CHO to make sure we can implement the programmes for them. There is a dedicated focus on that every week.

We need to end the meeting. We did not really get into the capital expenditure issue. I have a question relating to supplementary capital funding of the amount of €21.7 million being provided in respect of Brexit capital infrastructure projects being undertaken by the OPW on behalf of the HSE. I ask the Minister to give us a note on that

On the other capital projects, I believe there is an underspend of €70 million, but another €27 million is being sought.

What will be the impact of that on existing projects, particularly those that are years in the planning? Perhaps the Minister will forward a note on this.

While we are in public session, it is important to say that we are carrying that €70 million through to next year. It is in relation to an ongoing negotiation around the new children's hospital. All of the projects in the capital plan are being delivered on budget. There are no health capital projects that did not happen this year that are linked to that €70 million.

That is great. Some members have requested additional information be sent to the committee in writing. We look forward to receiving that when it is sent to the clerk to the committee and circulated to members.

I thank the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, and their officials, for their attendance and for giving the evidence here today.

The Minister opened the meeting with his goodwill messages to those who were injured last Thursday. On behalf of the committee, I must say that we share those views. The Minister also sent a message of solidarity to all of those healthcare workers - while not exclusively so - and a reminder of the role of international care workers in our health system. We hope and pray that those who are seriously injured will come to a full recovery. We wish them and their families well.

That concludes the committee's consideration of the Supplementary Estimates.

Barr
Roinn