Why buy private Health Insurance?

Sanguine Fan

Over the course of my adult life I have spent a small fortune on my VHI policy. Yet, I am very fortunate in that I have only been in hospital once as an in-patient and that was 30 years ago. My question is this. Does it really matter in practical terms whether one has private insurance or not? If I get sick enough to warrant a hospital stay will the quality of my care be any different one way or the other?

I have checked the HIA website where the first question in the FAQ reads "What are the main benefits of private health insurance?" Instead of responding along the lines of "Those with private health insurance will receive faster and better quality medical care than those without, and enjoy better accommodation during their hospital stay", their actual answer is pretty bland and meaningless (to me anyway). Maybe my alternative answer would prove politically contentious, but if it is not true what is the point of having private insurance?

broker2008

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Over the course of my adult life I have spent a small fortune on my VHI policy. Yet, I am very fortunate in that I have only been in hospital once as an in-patient and that was 30 years ago. My question is this. Does it really matter in practical terms whether one has private insurance or not? If I get sick enough to warrant a hospital stay will the quality of my care be any different one way or the other?

I have checked the HIA website where the first question in the FAQ reads "What are the main benefits of private health insurance?" Instead of responding along the lines of "Those with private health insurance will receive faster and better quality medical care than those without, and enjoy better accommodation during their hospital stay", their actual answer is pretty bland and meaningless (to me anyway). Maybe my alternative answer would prove politically contentious, but if it is not true what is the point of having private insurance?

Choice of consultant, choice of hospital are two reasons. In some, but not all instances the queue may be quicker.

Have a look at Frontline on RTE tonight as the programme is about health insurance market.

Ogham

The HIA are funded by the insurers - so they are hardly going to say don't bother with insurance. I have never had private health insurance (married , 4 kids) . Moving here from the UK - where health insurance is seen as an elitist thing to have (only 13% are covered) - I couldn't believe that over 50% of people are covered here in Ireland.
I can't get my head around the fact that VHI is owned by the state - the same state that is supposed to provide health care!
I think the main benefit of insurance is getting to jump the queue - which just doesn't seem right to me. I hope (I may be wrong) that the actual treatment you get without insurance will be just the same as if you had it (apart from maybe a private room).
I think that many Irish people for some reason believe that if they have no insurance they will have to pay thousands for scans, operations, consultants etc - while the truth is that the charge is €75 a night with a max of €750 per 12 months.
My family has had to make use of the health service a few times and had a few short hospital stays - I was happy with the time taken and the treatment we got. It has probably cost us about €1000 over the past 4 to 5 years in hospital in patient fees. I reckon health insurance would have set us back about €5000 in that period.

tHE vAGGABOND

I used my health insurance for the first time this year, and will be getting several grand back from a series of [VERY] large medical bills I have had to pay..

Thats why you need medical insurance, if you get sick a single time you need it as its very expensive...

So you dont use it for 10 or 15 years, happy days, but that one time you need it, it more than pays for itself.

NuMarvel

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I used my health insurance for the first time this year, and will be getting several grand back from a series of [VERY] large medical bills I have had to pay..

Thats why you need medical insurance, if you get sick a single time you need it as its very expensive...

So you dont use it for 10 or 15 years, happy days, but that one time you need it, it more than pays for itself.

Without getting too specific, were these medical treatments something that could have been done on the public system and if so do you know how long you would have been waiting?

tHE vAGGABOND

I could have gone public and was told I would be waiting 'weeks' to see a specialist - but I went private and was seen in hours...

Ogham

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I could have gone public and was told I would be waiting 'weeks' to see a specialist - but I went private and was seen in hours...

If you had insurance - why did you even think of going Public?

If someone without insurance got the treatment you had - they would only have to pay €75 per night in hospital - and nothing else. Those bills you have seen are only sent out IF you have insurance. The insurance companies and consultants like to help spread the idea that you would get those bills if you had no insurance - but it's not true. It keeps them making big money.
You got seen faster - fine -- but don't be fooled into thinking that insurance saved you from those big bills.

Good article about health insurance here ..

Stark

Have you had private hospital treatment without health insurance?

Ogham

Stark wrote: »

Have you had private hospital treatment without health insurance?

Who is that question aimed at?
If it's me - then no is the answer. But the medical procedures carried out in the public hospitals are the same if not better than the private ones. There are many health problems that won't be treated in private hospitals because thay haven't got the resources or they don't want to spend the money.

NuMarvel

Ogham wrote: »

If you had insurance - why did you even think of going Public?

If someone without insurance got the treatment you had - they would only have to pay €75 per night in hospital - and nothing else. Those bills you have seen are only sent out IF you have insurance. The insurance companies and consultants like to help spread the idea that you would get those bills if you had no insurance - but it's not true. It keeps them making big money.
You got seen faster - fine -- but don't be fooled into thinking that insurance saved you from those big bills.

Good article about health insurance here ..

Even though I have health insurance, I'd still ask what my options on the public system are. Partly out of curiosity, but also because going privately can mean paying bills that aren't fully covered by your health insurance. E.g. consultants visits, blood tests, x-rays, etc.

Stark

Same here. I've been caught for a load of uncovered expenses by going private instead of public route. I get health insurance as part of my work benefits package but I would still try to opt for public next time round.

Ogham wrote:

If it's me - then no is the answer. But the medical procedures carried out in the public hospitals are the same if not better than the private ones. There are many health problems that won't be treated in private hospitals because thay haven't got the resources or they don't want to spend the money.

Would it not make sense for him to think about going public then?

NuMarvel

Ogham wrote: »

Who is that question aimed at?
If it's me - then no is the answer. But the medical procedures carried out in the public hospitals are the same if not better than the private ones. There are many health problems that won't be treated in private hospitals because thay haven't got the resources or they don't want to spend the money.

I think Stark asked you that question to follow up on your comment about big bills. Strictly speaking, having health insurance saved Vaggabond the bills, because going privately would have meant s/he would have been liable for the costs otherwise.

However, I imagine your point was that the treatment would have been free (more or less) under the public system and Vagabond could have avoided the charges that way. Certainly valid, but as s/he says, the wait would have been a few weeks, which may not have been appropriate for Vagabond. Vagabond might have been in discomfort and there's also the possibility that the treatment may have been postponed because of other pressures within the public service.

NuMarvel

Stark wrote: »

Same here. I've been caught for a load of uncovered expenses by going private instead of public route. I get health insurance as part of my work benefits package but I would still try to opt for public next time round.

A bit off topic, but PAYE workers can get tax relief on certain medical costs not covered by health insurance, such as GPs and consultants, hospital charges, scans, etc. You probably know already, but no harm mentioning it anyway.

InReality

Benifit might be speed of access , although there are moves to have a single waiting list / appointment list for both public and private patients.

One part of private insurance not worth getting is "single room" cover. This depends on the hospital & medical needs etc and you are could easily end up in any type of room.
So this is a total waste of money I think.

Also about the "extra" bills , I didn't realise how that worked, so thanks to the earlier poster .

Ogham

InReality wrote: »

Also about the "extra" bills , I didn't realise how that worked, so thanks to the earlier poster .

Which extra bills ?

Sanguine Fan

This is a confusing issue. Clearly the only way to establish the benefits or otherwise of private health insurance is to spend some time in hospital. It's like not knowing how your home insurance will kick in until your house burns down.

Choice of hospital and choice of consultant seem to be the main benefits. How is one supposed to compare hospitals in a speeding ambulance? Consultants don't advertise so how would I find out who is the best person in the country to perform an operation on my prostate, for instance?

In the Irish Times article referred to by Ogham above, Sara Burke states the following:

"Put simply, if you can afford to pay privately, you can get into public hospitals quicker than public patients and you may then receive treatment more quickly. Also, if you are a private patient, you are guaranteed consultant provided care and may be in a single or semi-private room.
If you are a public patient, you are more likely to be cared for by a junior doctor and to stay in a multi-bed ward."

This is plain English (although I don't like those "may"s). But nowhere in my VHI documentation can I find a similar, straightforward description of the benefits of private health insurance.

It seems to me that the whole industry is driven by fear. For those of us who enjoy good health, the thought of being treated as a public patient one day is enough to make us shell out thousands of euro for what may ultimately prove to be an illusory benefit.

NuMarvel

The Quinn healthcare brochure has this:

TAKING OUT PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE CAN HAVE MANY ADVANTAGES INCLUDING;
• prompt care and attention, so you can get appropriate treatment quickly
• access to a wider choice of hospitals and doctors
• the convenience of being able to choose where and when you receive treatment
• peace of mind knowing that the financial burdens relating to a stay in hospital are taken care of
• the comfort of private hospital facilities

I'm going to be a tad facetious and point out that the main purpose of private health insurance is to cover your private healthcare bills. The advantages that Sara Burke gives in that article come from being a private patient, and not specifically having private health insurance.

And the reason that those advantages are so "wooly" (you may be seen quicker, you may get a private room, etc) is because there are so many different providers and situations, it's hard to give concrete advantages without adding so many clauses as to make that advantage meaningless.

The only benefits that private health insurance gives, like all other types of insurance, are the ones that they state in their policy documentation.

BrownianMotion

Private health insurance is a good idea for some. Not for others however.

For example the 60 year old over-weight man who has smoked for the last 45 years: €800 on a private policy is a good investment.

For the 25 year old non smoker who exercises regularly however this is probably not a good investment. They would also have to pay €800 for the same policy.

Basically it all comes down to the individual, if they are a high health risk then get insurance.
If not then it all comes down to whether or not you are willing to overpay to get that peace of mind.

Sanguine Fan

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm going to be a tad facetious and point out that the main purpose of private health insurance is to cover your private healthcare bills. The advantages that Sara Burke gives in that article come from being a private patient, and not specifically having private health insurance.

This is undoubtedly true.

Not too long ago an elderly relative of mine was admitted to hospital via A&E. She was eventually transferred to a bed in a public ward with three other patients. One was clearly demented and shouted continuously. Another had a persistent and wracking cough. I asked the matron if the patient could be moved to a private room in order to get a good night's sleep and to avoid picking up an infection. My relative had no private health insurance but could have afforded private health care for the duration of her stay.

I was told that all the private rooms were in use for MRSA sufferers! After a week or so my relative got pneumonia - from which she thankfully recovered. The point is that private treatment was not available in this (largish) hospital, so even if my relative had had health insurance it would not have made any difference.

If I thought that by having private health insurance I could avoid a hospital-acquired infection (if I am ever unfortunate enough to need medical treatment) - and receive speedy and effective treatment - I would not mind the cost. But I'm not sure things would pan out like this.

broker2008

One thing to take into consideration is that if you are very sick, you will probably end up in a public hospital via A&E.Generally speaking the same cover will be provided.

NuMarvel

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

I was told that all the private rooms were in use for MRSA sufferers! After a week or so my relative got pneumonia - from which she thankfully recovered. The point is that private treatment was not available in this (largish) hospital, so even if my relative had had health insurance it would not have made any difference.

If I thought that by having private health insurance I could avoid a hospital-acquired infection (if I am ever unfortunate enough to need medical treatment) - and receive speedy and effective treatment - I would not mind the cost. But I'm not sure things would pan out like this.

Some public hospitals don't even have private rooms. St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin 4 for one. I only mention it because I would have thought that at least the large hospitals would have had them.

Regarding avoiding hospital-acquired infection, one could make the arguement that using a private hospital might cut down on the odds of this; fewer people per room than a public ward and more control over the types of patients coming in. That said, I don't know enough to be able to comment with any degree of knowledge, so I'm just going to leave that there. And it would probably drag us completely off topic!

broker2008

BrownianMotion wrote: »

Basically it all comes down to the individual, if they are a high health risk then get insurance.
If not then it all comes down to whether or not you are willing to overpay to get that peace of mind.

I know a person in their early 30's who was getting headaches, referred by gp to private clinic for scan (no payment required) on the same day and the results enabled him to prevent having a certain stroke. May very well be the exception to the rule but....

chocgirl

I'm the 25 year old non-smoker who is likely not to need health insurance any time soon but is too afraid not to have it.

I work in public healthcare and I have to say that I do believe that if there is anything seriously wrong with you, you will be seen quickly, given the same treatment probably by the same consultant and maybe even in the same hospital.

However there are exceptions to this rule and it is for the not so serious matters that I think the health insurance comes in handy. Basically while I can afford it I will definitely keep paying it and encourage my parents to do the same!

Skud

broker2008 wrote: »

I know a person in their early 30's who was getting headaches, referred by gp to private clinic on the same day and the results enabled him to prevent having a certain stroke. May very well be the exception to the rule but....

to be fair young people can get just as sick if not worse than some elderly people. guess it depends on the person / family history / financial situation and all that.

this thread is interesting though

Sanguine Fan

chocgirl wrote: »

I'm the 25 year old non-smoker who is likely not to need health insurance any time soon but is too afraid not to have it.

I have no doubt many users of private health insurance feel the same way.

Would it not make more sense for all of us to pay into a public scheme whereby a superior health service was available to everyone when they needed it? In other words, a single system with enough consultants, enough nurses, enough beds, etc. to cater for the likely needs of the Irish population. Some people get sick, others don't. But no one knows when and if they will need medical attention. So, why not take the worry and uncertainty out of this and create a single straightforward process that offers the best possible treatment to anyone who needs it?

Yes, everyone would have to pay. But many are paying extra anyway to the VHI, etc. And those who can't afford to should pay less or not at all. We as a society have to decide if this is important enough to warrant greater public funding, either through extra taxation, cutbacks elsewhere, or a combination of both.

The idea that people feel obliged to pay into private insurance, on top of their taxes, without a clear understanding of the benefits is ridiculous.

BrownianMotion

broker2008 wrote: »

I know a person in their early 30's who was getting headaches, referred by gp to private clinic for scan (no payment required) on the same day and the results enabled him to prevent having a certain stroke. May very well be the exception to the rule but....

That's the whole point. It is the exception to the rule that frightens low risk customers into getting insurance.

The lack of trust in the public health service will always result in people taking out premiums despite it being a good deal or not.

An interesting consideration would be the impact on public health services if so many people did not have insurance. Considering the current issues with the system I doubt it could even withstand a 10% increase in patients.

monkeypants

It's insurance. You don't need it. Until you do.

In the UK I didn't bother with it. In Ireland it can get you an appointment or scan quicker, which can be the difference between life and death. But you'll end up in the same hospital and being treated by mostly the same people. And if you live in a part of the country that doesn't have a properly maintained hospital, you'll still have to travel.

A lot of companies provide it as a benefit. I've never purchased it myself.