VHI - Maximum pay out?

conorcan2

I'm looking at the figures from an old(2006) VHI press report. https://www.vhi.ie/personalise/controller/PrItemDisplay?PRYear=2006&prId=8

The top five most expensive treatments in 2004 / 2005 were:

1. Heart bypass – Average cost of €21,162
2. Knee replacement – Average cost of €13,845
3. Hip resurfacing – Average cost of €11,915
4. Angioplasty – Average cost of €11,515
5. Hip replacement – Average cost of €11,428

All costs based on charges in a Private Hospital

It lists Heart Bypass as the most expensive treatment.

Why are more expensive treatments such as Bone Marrow transplants, Heart transplants etc. not on the list? Do the VHI cover these procedures?

Ocean Blue

conorcan2 wrote: »

I'm looking at the figures from an old(2006) VHI press report. https://www.vhi.ie/personalise/controller/PrItemDisplay?PRYear=2006&prId=8

It lists Heart Bypass as the most expensive treatment.

Why are more expensive treatments such as Bone Marrow transplants, Heart transplants etc. not on the list? Do the VHI cover these procedures?

Well those procedures will automatically involve isolation/private rooms and would I imagine only be carried out in large public teaching hospitals or centres of excellence so maybe there is no need for them to be charged as private health care for these reasons?

coylemj

I believe all heart transplants are carried out in public hospitals because your priority (where you are on the waiting list) is based solely on medical need and not the size of your wallet or whether you have insurance or not, hence they don't involve health insurance.

While your insurance could pay for the expertise involved in getting a heart transplant, paying for human organs is illegal meaning there is no way you can 'buy' a heart so its outside the scope of private medicine.

conorcan2

So reasonably, a person with 40,000 in the bank could afford to meet any single treatment that could be covered by VHI.

I'm looking at the option of saving my money into my own bank account rather than pay for private health insurance.

coylemj

What you are proposing is an option but the benefit of insurance is that you pay a set amount of money and then don't have to worry about the expense. If you accumulate a fund to pay your medical bills, the risk is that you get some long-term illness which over time depletes the fund and then you'll find yourself in a situation where you have no income and no money to pay for treatment so you suddenly have to switch from the private to the public system, probably change consultant and put up with long waiting times for appointments.

How long will you be able to resist the temptation to decide that you are going to enjoy good health forever and succumb to the urge to spend some or all of the money?

conorcan2

coylemj wrote: »

If you accumulate a fund to pay your medical bills, the risk is that you get some long-term illness which over time depletes the fund and then you'll find yourself in a situation where you have no income and no money to pay for treatment

Yes, good point. Thanks.

coylemj wrote: »

How long will you be able to resist the temptation to decide that you are going to enjoy good health forever and succumb to the urge to spend some or all of the money?

I don't think a rational person would come to the decision that they are going to have good health forever - on what basis could they make that claim? The sentiment at the heart of this statement is that people are susceptible to greed/irrationality and need to safeguard against it by removing the option for them to act on it (I can't guarantee to make a sound decision for myself in the future, therefore I'll remove the freedom for me to make that decision). I guess it might be a legitimate concern for some people, but not me.

I was thinking of saving up money and then leaving it as inheritance in the event that I have a sudden death.

coylemj

conorcan2 wrote: »

I don't think a rational person would come to the decision that they are going to have good health forever - on what basis could they make that claim?

Well there's an awful lot of people out there who can afford medical insurance but don't pay for it because they convince themselves that it's a conspiracy to make us pay more taxes.

And most people behave as if they are going to live to be 100, the only problem is that very few of them act to make it happen.

conorcan2 wrote: »

The sentiment at the heart of this statement is that people are susceptible to greed/irrationality and need to safeguard against it by removing the option for them to act on it (I can't guarantee to make a sound decision for myself in the future, therefore I'll remove the freedom for me to make that decision). I guess it might be a legitimate concern for some people, but not me.

I was thinking of saving up money and then leaving it as inheritance in the event that I have a sudden death.

All good laudable stuff. Just wait until the rainy day arrives and then you'll convince yourself that the option to use the cash for other purposes was always part of the plan.

conorcan2

coylemj wrote: »

All good laudable stuff. Just wait until the rainy day arrives...

This possibility could be used to argue either side. If a rainy day comes, and it is necessary for you to gain finance then one option would be to stop making VHI payments. The factors convincing you to stop making VHI payments would be just as relevant as those tempting you to take from your fund. If you choose to discontinue paying your VHI as a way to finance your rainy day then you lose the benefit of having continually paid into the VHI - and additionally you will not have any extra money(besides your yearly VHI fee) to use for your rainy day. In this instance you have less money to use for your rainy day.