Private healthcare patients get exclusive access to cancer drugs

seasidedub

Lillyfae wrote: »

In most European countries they have robust private health insurance that everyone pays into, and may get a discount on according to their means. In Ireland there is a weird, nhs wannabe system whereby you buy priority with health insurance- which is paid for by some who can afford it and some who can't. Some choose not to buy it even if they can well afford it.

It's just a ridiculous and unfair system from start to finish. Make health insurance mandatory and means tested, and slap a few co-pays on for things like a+e visits for things that can be handled by the gp. Everyone needs to have a base of responsibility for their own health and everyone deserves the highest level of care- but this needs to be bankrolled somehow and has to be equally accessible to everyone. It shouldn't just be for those who can afford it, but everyone should pay what they can afford, even if it's nominal.

Yes - I would like to see a better system in Ireland. I've worked in the health systems of 2 EU countries (Not the UK) and they are far better. But those countries still have fully private systems too and if you have private insurance you get fast tracked - just as in Ireland. I'm simply pointing out that private insurance and fast track access is not a uniquely Irish issue.

Also - for a more european type system - so no GP fees, healthcare centres instead of GP offices etc, would Irish people want to pay additional taxes? (They won't pay for water which Europeans all do) and would GPs agree to become salaried public employees or just leave for the US/Can/Oz as they already do?

Faster more convenient accesses in the private health insurance system is not denying anyone in the public system accesses even though they will have to wait for it and it will not be as convenient.

Actually giving one group something that is denied to another group is a different issue.

paddy19

Does anyone have any insight into the basis of this very strange decision by the VHI?

The media have shown little interest in this critical decision apart from the emotive angle of suffering patients.
This is an organisation owned by the citizens of this country.
The VHI are singularly unqualified to decide what drugs should should or should not be reimbursed.
The NCP is the body tasked with the unenviable job of deciding what drugs will be available to patients.
We do not need another body messing around in this critical area.
We already have politicians making knee jerk decisions that play into the money grabbing tactics of the pharma industry.

So the question remains how and why the VHI have gone on this solo run:

A mistake.
A marketing stunt.
A new direction decided at board level.
A new direction decided at board level reviewed and agreed with the Government.

The VHI need to be held to account.

Geuze

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know what to make of people who expect that the HSE should be able to offer the same level of services to the public as private health insurance providers can, certainly not when we’re paying as little for our public health services as we are. ?

Public health exp is not low in Ireland.

It is relatively high, given the age-profile of our population.

if all the money people are paying into the private healthcare system was removed in the morning would the fabled impoverished patient be better off or worse i wonder

the theoretical system (of anything) where everyone gets what they need (let alone want) has always remained theoretical. now why do we think that is.

seasidedub

seasidedub wrote: »

Yes - I would like to see a better system in Ireland. I've worked in the health systems of 2 EU countries (Not the UK) and they are far better. But those countries still have fully private systems too and if you have private insurance you get fast tracked - just as in Ireland. I'm simply pointing out that private insurance and fast track access is not a uniquely Irish issue.

Also - for a more european type system - so no GP fees, healthcare centres instead of GP offices etc, would Irish people want to pay additional taxes? (They won't pay for water which Europeans all do) and would GPs agree to become salaried public employees or just leave for the US/Can/Oz as they already do?

My policy allows me to claim back 50% of GP fees so I would certainly pay more insurance to get 100% coverage of GP etc care, the GP would still be a self-employed practitioner or a salaried employee it would be their choice. That is the way it should go everyone should be insured to a basic level which all pay for then if anyone wants to top up for nicer ( for want of a better word ) more convenient experience they could

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

if all the money people are paying into the private healthcare system was removed in the morning would the fabled impoverished patient be better off or worse i wonder

the theoretical system (of anything) where everyone gets what they need (let alone want) has always remained theoretical. now why do we think that is.

Depends on how you define a need, my oldest daughter worked/volunteered in a public hospital in a region of India for a very short while its not a poor region by Indian standards. I am not sure how it works exactly but patients do pay a very small amount, the hospital was very basic but clean and the patients got treated but not to the standards we have in the west.

Her other conclusion we in the west have too much.

Mrs OBumble

mariaalice wrote: »

but they will be getting the same treatment as the private patient.

Not necessarily.

As soon as my waiting period is over, I'm very likely to be having some knee surgery which is needed, but will never get prioritised highly enough to actually be done in the public system.

It is the same rubbish as always here, if you dont have an extra 200-300 a month to pay, go wait in a rubbish health service.

Everyone slags the NHS, but it seems to be much superior to use here.
With all the tax we pay, (1500) a month in my case, we get very little return for it.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not necessarily.

As soon as my waiting period is over, I'm very likely to be having some knee surgery which is needed, but will never get prioritised highly enough to actually be done in the public system.

Lots on in the public system get it done with the national treatment purchases fund without having to pay for it ever abroad but does that count as public health. I know someone who had two hip replacement done with the NTP.

Skyrimaddict

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

It is the same rubbish as always here, if you dont have an extra 200-300 a month to pay, go wait in a rubbish health service.

Everyone slags the NHS, but it seems to be much superior to use here.
With all the tax we pay, (1500) a month in my case, we get very little return for it.

The public health system here is not rubbish its badly organised and disorganised, it's something that really irritates me the perception that the public health system is rubbish it's not.

seasidedub

seasidedub wrote: »

To posters complaining about people with private health insurance getting access/drugs/treatment faster than public patients - almost all EU countries including Scandinavian countries (I know because I worked there) have robust private health insurance and private hospitals. Those who have either insurance or cash to pay get faster access and treatment in those countries too.

The difference is that the waiting times for access to consultants and elective operations on the public system is very long in Ireland, less so in other countries. But people need to cop on - relative wealth has always been a determinant of health and always will be. And if you work hard, sacrifice to pay insurance (thus removing the burden from the taxpayer....) surely you have a right to fast, efficient care?

To be fair, I have worked in Norway and Sweden for a number of years. The public system is miles better.
Fell over once, twisted an ankle and was in an out of hospital within 2 hours.
I was billed I think 12 euro, admin fee.

The debate over wealth and insurance isnt really the point, it is the service, speed and quality of the drugs that is an issue.
Yes, you should get better treatment etc, if you can pay Ie. beds, nursing etc, but access to the same drugs and doctors.
Many doctors who work get paid by the state to provide cover in hospitals but also do consulting, so you imagine which gets more time.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

The public health system here is not rubbish its badly organised and disorganised, it's something that really irritates me the perception that the public health system is rubbish it's not.

If the system is so bad, then yes it is rubbish.
You can have the best product in the world but if it cant be used correctly then it is not fit.

I am aware there are lots and lots of very hard working people there, make no mistake.

Skyrimaddict

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

If the system is so bad, then yes it is rubbish.
You can have the best product in the world but if it cant be used correctly then it is not fit.

I am aware there are lots and lots of very hard working people there, make no mistake.

It's not I have had treatment for the same condition in both the private and public system and could compare them, now it was not a chronic condition which is where the public system falls down.

For all the giving out about the NHS its a very good system better than the public service here.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

It's not I have had treatment for the same condition in both the private and public system and could compare them, now it was not a chronic condition which is where the public system falls down.

For all the giving out about the NHS its a very good system better than the public service here.

The treatment you got is not rubbish!
I would say the process in which in took you to get it on public probably was.

This is as someone who has had two surgery on public, one nearly ended very badly.

Lillyfae

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

If the system is so bad, then yes it is rubbish.
You can have the best product in the world but if it cant be used correctly then it is not fit.

I am aware there are lots and lots of very hard working people there, make no mistake.

This is one thing that I don't get at all. Some people don't seem to understand that too much admin/ management staff, poor budgeting etc etc is what a rubbish system is. All these problems but a complete unwillingness to accept that it's across the board.

Listening to people sharing their experiences of childbirth on Joe Duffy last week. Hundreds of stories of women being treated like animals, them and their babies being mistreated, traumatized, mutilated, gravely injured. Midwives, nurses, consultants varying in different degrees from incompetent to dangerous to acting like the mammy noone ever wanted. Very few wanted to admit that alot of these people are just sh*t at their jobs. It's a scary thought, nursing is a "vocation" dontchakno, that some people that go into it don't like the public, don't like the work they're doing and sometimes can't do it at all- in anecdotally a lot of cases. There needs to be something done so that we don't get these job-for-lifers with endless flexibility and salary increases kept on over years. There needs to be both accountability and possibility to weed out the tyrants that have been festering in a job that they only wanted for it's benefits in the first place.

jiltloop

Pkiernan wrote: »

Who should be prioritised between 2 patients, one of which has never worked a day in their lives, the other a high earning tax payer who chooses to pay extra money to purchase insurance?

Wow you have a disgusting point of view.

Let's alter your despicable comparison and say there are 2 children with leukemia, 1 child has rich parents (possibly wealthy through nothing only inheritance or luck of the draw in life) and the other's parents are on the dole for whatever reason.

Neither child obviously has worked in their life, neither child has had any influence on their own socioeconomic status. Which child should be prioritized for life saving treatment?

rgodard80a

jiltloop wrote: »

and say there are 2 children with leukemia, 1 child has rich parents (possibly wealthy through nothing only inheritance or luck of the draw in life) and the other's parents are on the dole for whatever reason.

Neither child obviously has worked in their life, neither child has had any influence on their own socioeconomic status. Which child should be prioritized for life saving treatment?

They both get an equal chance in the public health system.
Health spending is not an unlimited pool and moral choices on budgets will always be made at the state level.

If someone has the resources to bypass the state health system, to "help themselves" and go elsewhere, they're going to do that.

What do you expect to happen?
We can't write blank cheques for health nor justice for that matter.

jiltloop

rgodard80a wrote: »

They both get an equal chance in the public health system.
Health spending is not an unlimited pool and moral choices on budgets will always be made at the state level.

If someone has the resources to bypass the state health system, to "help themselves" and go elsewhere, they're going to do that.

What do you expect to happen?
We can't write blank cheques for health nor justice for that matter.

Yes I know, I'm directly challenging PKiernan's post above where he asks who should be prioritized between someone on the dole and someone paying for health insurance.

I know they both get the same medical treatment, it appears he doesn't and is getting his usual dolebash in as well.

If you want to argue a stance that I haven't taken go ahead and enjoy yourself.

rgodard80a

jiltloop wrote: »

Yes I know, I'm directly challenging PKiernan's post above where he asks who should be prioritized between someone on the dole and someone paying for health insurance.

Why?

All things being equal, it would benefit society to "invest" in its more productive members.

rgodard80a

rgodard80a wrote: »

Why?

All things being equal, it would benefit society to "invest" in its more productive members.

What happens to the children and elderly and disabled in that system?

rgodard80a

mariaalice wrote: »

What happens to the children and elderly and disabled in that system?

We already have that "system".

The state provides a health system for everyone.
If you can afford to go private, then that's your right to improved services outside of the public health system.

The state provides a public transport system.
If you can afford a car, you pay for it and off you go.
The state won't provide cars for everyone.

This is nothing new.
Decades ago you'd see campaigns to raise money to send some poor kid to the States for treatment, or some advanced clinic in Europe.
These days there's gofundme campaigns.

In better paid jobs, the employer will pay for health insurance because they value productive employees.

rgodard80a

rgodard80a wrote: »

We already have that "system".

The state provides a health system for everyone.
If you can afford to go private, then that's your right to improved services outside of the public health system.

The state provides a public transport system.
If you can afford a car, you pay for it and off you go.
The state won't provide cars for everyone.

This is nothing new.
Decades ago you'd see campaigns to raise money to send some poor kid to the States for treatment, or some advanced clinic in Europe.
These days there's gofundme campaigns.

I know for a fact that a lot of this is perception as opposed to reality, I don't have health insurance because I think I will get an improved service I do it to get quicker access at the hospitals I want and at times of my choosing.

rgodard80a

mariaalice wrote: »

I know for a fact that a lot of this is perception as opposed to reality, I don't have health insurance because I think I will get an improved service I do it to get quicker access at the hospitals I want and at times of my choosing.

Fair point.
You probably skip the line a bit to an initial appointment with a consultant, then you're in the public system.
With the public health system being so underfunded they then milk the private health insurer as much as possible to pay for the rest of the public health service.

Although I'm not sure how much better care you actually get once you're in the hospital door. Apart from them wanting to earn €800+ a night from your presence in a bed/trolley.

jiltloop

rgodard80a wrote: »

Why?

All things being equal, it would benefit society to "invest" in its more productive members.

Wow, nice point of view. Feck it sure let's really try and benefit society and aim for a new Aryan race, let the physically disabled or the most diseased people die out so we can have a more productive society. Don't give them access to healthcare at all in fact, they're just wasting taxpayers money.

super_furry

It's a two-tier health system and the gap is only widening. I have pretty comprehensive health insurance through my wife's work and in the space of a 10 days I was able to go to a GP, see a specialist and then have a colonoscopy all because I have insurance.

A friend of mine doesn't have it and have been on the waiting list for the exact same procedure for four months and counting.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mariaalice wrote: »

I know for a fact that a lot of this is perception as opposed to reality, I don't have health insurance because I think I will get an improved service I do it to get quicker access at the hospitals I want and at times of my choosing.

That is the best reason to have it. I think my cancer diagnosis would have come much sooner than it did if I’d had insurance. And time is of the essence with that illness.

As for the poster who said that hard working high earners deserve to have better healthcare - I never worked harder than the full year I dragged myself to my low income job whilst cancer coursed through my body, weakening my bones and reducing my lung capacity to the point that walking two metres left me dangerously out of breath. I was working full time, on the second floor of a building without a lift up to the day before my diagnosis.

One eyed Jack

jiltloop wrote: »

Wow, nice point of view. Feck it sure let's really try and benefit society and aim for a new Aryan race, let the physically disabled or the most diseased people die out so we can have a more productive society. Don't give them access to healthcare at all in fact, they're just wasting taxpayers money.

We’ve legislated for abortion already, people will decide for others already whom they consider worthy to be born. They’re not having much success with persuading ill-educated black women to cease becoming pregnant, but some societies have had greater success in managing to control the numbers of children born with disabilities and reducing the number of girls born too.

It’s not quite Aryan, but their intentions were noble at least, right?

steddyeddy

rgodard80a wrote: »

Why?

All things being equal, it would benefit society to "invest" in its more productive members.

But the poster made a point about the kids in such a system. One could have inherited money and the other kid could be dirt poor. In the cult of earning line of thought that some here exhibit who would receive priority treatment?

IAMAMORON

Click bait nonsense. The dog on the street knows that different treatments are available. You pay your money you take your chances. You don't pay your money you also take your chances. It is not the fault of a private healthcare provider or the HSE. They have different contracts with different pharma providers. The writer of the article is drumming up fear and trying to discriminate treatments between different pharma solutions.

The reality is that a person responds to different treatments in different ways. How much the treatment costs is irrelevant, as is the article.

steddyeddy

jiltloop wrote: »

Wow you have a disgusting point of view.

Let's alter your despicable comparison and say there are 2 children with leukemia, 1 child has rich parents (possibly wealthy through nothing only inheritance or luck of the draw in life) and the other's parents are on the dole for whatever reason.

Neither child obviously has worked in their life, neither child has had any influence on their own socioeconomic status. Which child should be prioritized for life saving treatment?

You can bet that there are people reading your post now thinking "the rich child's parents paid more" so the rich child's life should take priority. You hear the same regarding tiers in education.

This is where the merit argument falls down. No child chooses his socioeconomic status so you can't apply the logic of "one earned it and the other didn't". It simply becomes who has access to more money. People don't like to admit that though.

steddyeddy

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Click bait nonsense. The dog on the street knows that different treatments are available. You pay your money you take your chances. You don't pay your money you also take your chances. It is not the fault of a private healthcare provider or the HSE. They have different contracts with different pharma providers. The writer of the article is drumming up fear and trying to discriminate treatments between different pharma solutions.

The reality is that a person responds to different treatments in different ways. How much the treatment costs is irrelevant, as is the article.

Your username is making me hesitant to take you seriously.

steddyeddy

It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html

rgodard80a

jiltloop wrote: »

Wow, nice point of view. Feck it sure let's really try and benefit society and aim for a new Aryan race, let the physically disabled or the most diseased people die out so we can have a more productive society. Don't give them access to healthcare at all in fact, they're just wasting taxpayers money.

Wow, nice sarcasm and accusation of being a Nazi.

Anyways, you don't believe in real equality so stop being a hypocrite.
Real equality would be to drop everyones wages to less than minimum wage across the board, food rationing, rationing of oil and gas and share all our food and resources across the planet, feeding Africa etc.

But you want the "equality" were you get more than you have now, access to more expensive treatments.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html

That is a bit strange and what if you are with Laya or some other insurer.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html

That’s not any different to how private healthcare normally operates anyway? The more cover and services you want, the more it’s going to cost.

“Three-tier divide”, headline grabbing nonsense.

IAMAMORON

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html

I am beginning to see the wood from the trees now.

This is actually quite a crude and cynical marketing attempt by the VHI to get more people over age of 40 to subscribe to their top level schemes, ie paying for private hospital cover.

Given that 1 in 3 people generate Cancer it is one way of scaring people into going for a more expensive cover. Nasty stuff, but I am not surprised.

seasidedub

rgodard80a wrote: »

Wow, nice sarcasm and accusation of being a Nazi.

Anyways, you don't believe in real equality so stop being a hypocrite.
Real equality would be to drop everyones wages to less than minimum wage across the board, food rationing, rationing of oil and gas and share all our food and resources across the planet, feeding Africa etc.

But you want the "equality" were you get more than you have now, access to more expensive treatments.

Spot on. All the Shinner/Copinger/Murphy voters dont want "social justice". They want it for themselves. Watch them howl if they got less to feed/clothe/house/providecprovide services services to everyone equally.

steddyeddy

rgodard80a wrote: »

Wow, nice sarcasm and accusation of being a Nazi.

Anyways, you don't believe in real equality so stop being a hypocrite.
Real equality would be to drop everyones wages to less than minimum wage across the board, food rationing, rationing of oil and gas and share all our food and resources across the planet, feeding Africa etc.

But you want the "equality" were you get more than you have now, access to more expensive treatments.

Well the poster's referring to healthcare. I believe essential healthcare should be applied equally to people. That doesn't mean I believe in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity for most things in life.

seasidedub

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the poster's referring to healthcare. I believe essential healthcare should be applied equally to people. That doesn't mean I believe in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity for most things in life.

We all do.

Especially the likes of, say, Margaret Cash who accused the "GUBNENT" of "crucifying" her while she in the meantime cranked out kids we are all paying for. She got not just equality but more than her fair share at the trough. Medical cards too. Her yearly social welfare income would astound many of our EU friends. Maybe less social welfare and a more equitable health system?????

steddyeddy

seasidedub wrote: »

Are you talking about the States? Different thing - no real public system there. We do have o e and by and large it provides good care.

Spot on. All the Shinner/Copinger/Murphy voters dont want "social justice". They want it for themselves. Watch them howl if they got less to feed/clothe/house/providecprovide services services to everyone equally.

It's all relative. You realise in the states you'd be labelled as a rabid socialist for insisting on public health care?

IAMAMORON

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the poster's referring to healthcare. I believe essential healthcare should be applied equally to people. That doesn't mean I believe in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity for most things in life.

I think everyone does tbh. Particularly when it comes to healthcare. The reality is that everyone's health is a commodity. Idealism gets cast aside when there are limited amounts of aspirin in the jar.

The fact remains that the pharma companies are going to sell their product to the highest bidders. This will lead to discrimination and fluctuation in prices.

I am not too keen to open up a cavern of argument here. But I think some posters need to be honest about how lucky all people are on this island when it comes to getting free healthcare. **** stirring articles written in health pages don't help to exasperate patient fears, which as I mentioned earlier are unfounded. Just because there is a more expensive treatment available does not mean it is going to be a more successful one.

Anyone using the availability of different treatments, to harbour any left wing agenda on patient care in Ireland, especially re public v private healthcare, is being quite naïve.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think everyone does tbh. Particularly when it comes to healthcare. The reality is that everyone's health is a commodity. Idealism gets cast aside when there are limited amounts of aspirin in the jar.

The fact remains that the pharma companies are going to sell their product to the highest bidders. This will lead to discrimination and fluctuation in prices.

I am not too keen to open up a cavern of argument here. But I think some posters need to be honest about how lucky all people are on this island when it comes to getting free healthcare. **** stirring articles written in health pages don't help to exasperate patient fears, which as I mentioned earlier are unfounded. Just because there is a more expensive treatment available does not mean it is going to be a more successful one.

Anyone using the availability of different treatments, to harbour any left wing agenda on patient care in Ireland, especially re public v private healthcare, is being quite naïve.

We don’t though? I only got the medical card because I’m terminal.

seasidedub

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's all relative. You realise in the states you'd be labelled as a rabid socialist for insisting on public health care?

Yep, I do realise that. I am happy to pay tax for a decent health system. But it has to be understood that if you've got private insurance you'll get faster access. I