Pieta

karlitob

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

What a hill to die on, pardon the pun.

Never heard of anyone envious of cancer victims before.

You heard it here first.

If you’re gonna die, die of cancer and not anything else. You’ll be treated better, your death will be better and your assets will be protected for you family.

If you’ve been dumped in a nursing home because of a severe stroke, you’ll have no home support to stay at home, your family will have no supports from a large million euro charity like ICS, you’ll be put into a home as your family can’t manage such an undertaking, the home has no medical service like the hospice has - gps who refuse to go to nursing homes and refer you in and out of the hospital because they - as private companies - won’t take responsibility for you versus specialist palliative consultants and registrars in a hospice, specialist nurses - all highly trained versus an underpaid nurse from another country, poor standard of end of care life and then your home and assets - that you worked for your whole life - will have to be given to the state - 90% pension, 15% or assets (unless you’re a farmer of course - different rules for them lot).


I like the emotive use of the word ‘victim’. Just so you know, nearly everyone has some health condition. All over 65s have at least 4. And everyone is gonna die. So we’re all ‘victims’. The question is about fairness and equity. Why should cancer patients be better off than other sick people. Why do the ics demand free parking for those patients and not other patients. Would you think it fair to have to pay for parking to see a family member hooked up to a vent in icu when another family member can park for free to rock up to chemo?

karlitob

lawred2 wrote: »

You're all over the place.

You introduced analysis of the NHS to conclude that the HSE was under managed.

Bizarre really.

Thanks for your opinion of my debating techniques. I’ll bear it in mind.


Still waiting for any commentary on the level of management that is required in the HSE. You’ve not said anything about it.

Attack the poster rather than the post I see.

karlitob

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's a straw man argument. Should the CEO of Pieta House be paid the same as a nurse?

No.

It’s clearly not a straw man argument. I highlighted comparable rates for comparable services within the 1970 health act.

The ceo of pieta should not be paid the same as the ceo of the model 4 hospitals. They’re more complex, have more staff, manage more money and provide more services.

In my view they are comparable to a model 2 service - about €80k.

As section 39/ they set their own salary whereas section 38s can’t. Why does the ceo of leopard towns hospital be paid less than the ceo of pieta house?

Clareman

This is an organization that helps to prevent suicide as well as gives supports to people who have suffered the loss of loved ones as the result of suicide, these are real issues affecting real people very close to everyone in Ireland, there was 421 suicides in Ireland in 2019 how many would there have been without Pieta? It's not possible to qualify that number but I'm sure it's a lot higher than 421, it mightn't even be people contacting them it might be people seeing their Darkness into Light campaign and realize that they aren't alone.

In regards to the CEO's salary, this is a lady with an MBA and over 20 years management experience, she would command a far higher salary than 120k in "industry", she's clearly not in it for the money, there are a lot of jobs out there at 120k that isn't at CEO level or have to deal with such a harrowing topic.

StupidLikeAFox

How much do people think they should be paid? Pieta House had revenues of €13m last year - you need somebody who knows what they are doing to manage that kind of budget. Replacing a good CEO to save (a comparitively measly) 30k or 40k would be ridiculously short sighted and a huge risk to the charity.

You can argue whether he is a good ceo or not but nobody seems to be doing that, just getting hung up on a headline figure

karlitob

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

How much do people think they should be paid? Pieta House had revenues of €13m last year - you need somebody who knows what they are doing to manage that kind of budget. Replacing a good CEO to save (a comparitively measly) 30k or 40k would be ridiculously short sighted and a huge risk to the charity.

You can argue whether he is a good ceo or not but nobody seems to be doing that, just getting hung up on a headline figure

As per previous point on HSE ceo salary scales and commensurate responsibilities.

The decision to be section 39 rather than section 38. In practice this means that she earns a salary above what her comparable ceo colleagues do as they are bound by the salary scales. And the salaries workers get paid less than their counterparts on section 38 services. So for me - that’s the big issue. More for those at the top and less for those at the bottom.

Your post presumes that more expensive ceo is better? And presumes that 30-40k couldn’t be better spent elsewhere.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

120k for a CEO is very low, especially considering the profile of the charity.

I presume the permanently outraged will be up soon, but you’d make that easy in Dublin working in law/accounting/medicine/specialised IT etc.

Nothing to see here. That Mark Ward lad must have little to do.

In most countries people working in charities don't get paid very high wages. Because it's a charity. THere's no reason why their CEOs should be any different.

Professor Moriarty

karlitob wrote: »

No.

It’s clearly not a straw man argument. I highlighted comparable rates for comparable services within the 1970 health act.

The ceo of pieta should not be paid the same as the ceo of the model 4 hospitals. They’re more complex, have more staff, manage more money and provide more services.

In my view they are comparable to a model 2 service - about €80k.

As section 39/ they set their own salary whereas section 38s can’t. Why does the ceo of leopard towns hospital be paid less than the ceo of pieta house?

80k to manage 200 employees and 13 centres? Best of luck with that.

karlitob

Clareman wrote: »

This is an organization that helps to prevent suicide as well as gives supports to people who have suffered the loss of loved ones as the result of suicide, these are real issues affecting real people very close to everyone in Ireland, there was 421 suicides in Ireland in 2019 how many would there have been without Pieta? It's not possible to qualify that number but I'm sure it's a lot higher than 421, it mightn't even be people contacting them it might be people seeing their Darkness into Light campaign and realize that they aren't alone.

In regards to the CEO's salary, this is a lady with an MBA and over 20 years management experience, she would command a far higher salary than 120k in "industry", she's clearly not in it for the money, there are a lot of jobs out there at 120k that isn't at CEO level or have to deal with such a harrowing topic.

What ‘industry’? Lots of people have MBAs and lots of people deal with serious issues. Her only comparable industry is other charities and other healthcare services. She would not get paid €120k in this industry for the level of service she provides. As I say - the salary scales for section 38s are her comparator. And the other large section 39s - Irish cancer society etc she wouldn’t get higher.

As for private enterprise - the likes of EY etc. It takes years to be an associate partner to get that kinda money and their job is to bring in money through accounts rather than through fund raising. She would’nt get paid any higher anywhere else I would argue.

karlitob

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

80k to manage 200 employees and 13 centres? Best of luck with that.

I don’t need luck. Your tax dollar already provides the service for that price. It’s funny - you expect a high service for a ‘cheap price’ for section 38 government funded services. But you’ll tolerate a nearly 50% increase in salary for a section 39 that’s partly funded by your tax and then you put your hand into your pocket and give more. Surely you’d want to get the same outcome for a better price from your tax contribution.


Bread and butter to general managers pay scale all over the country in the HSE. The ceo of letterkenny hospital - an incredibly important model 3 hospital in the north west of this country. With far more staff (with multiple professionals - at a much higher standard than a few therapists), more complexity, way more ‘centres’ ie clinical services - gynae, surgery, ED) etx and way more pressure earns a general manager salary - €80k. So does Naas hospital, Ennis, portiuncula and a raft more people in community services looking after a geographical area of 100k citizens and a staff of ~ 500 and who provide services to prevent people committing suicide (it’s not just pieta of course) as well as a raft of other things.

As well as smaller services - like pieta but section 38 - leopards town hospital, the royal hospital, cappagh, Clontarf, fair view hospice, peamont; michaela in dun laoghaire

martingriff

karlitob wrote: »

I think this is an important point. In my view, the Irish cancer society is a major pr company that drives policy to the detriment of others. Eg their campaign for free parking for cancer patients and their families. What gives them a right to demand free car parking? What about all the other patients in ireland? Why do I have to pay for parking cos I don’t have cancer and you do?
If you die in a hospice in ireland you get to keep all your assets, and you would’ve had significant home supports from the state. But if you die of old age - ie stroke, frailty, cardiac conditions etc - in a nursing home, the state takes 90% of your pension and 15% of your assets. And you want free car parking as well.

Men’s sheds are a prime example of excellent community services, led by people who understand what’s needed and they need more money. But what voice do that have among the 8000 bodies.

If you knew anyone who has cancer and are going through serious treatment. You would know how draining and though it is.

An Ri rua

martingriff wrote: »

If you knew anyone who has cancer and are going through serious treatment. You would know how draining and though it is.

That's a ridiculously insular comment. Heart disease and other terminal heart conditions are just as life debilitating especially in the final months) but are on the back burner when compared to cancer e.g. Hospice and palliative care. Cancer treatment can be shocking, but the end game is no worse than heart failure. I can assure you of that.
All life-threatening and terminal conditions involve suffering and life-upending day to day changes.

karlitob

martingriff wrote: »

If you knew anyone who has cancer and are going through serious treatment. You would know how draining and though it is.

I know lots of people with it. Ive treated lots of people with it. I’ve had it myself. I know exactly what it’s like.
But you’re doing is what lots of single issue groups do which is to advocate for themselves to the detriment of others.
Why should I have free car parking when another citizen who is also sick and needs help not get it.
What should I get something free from the tax payer and it not be given equally to all citizens on the basis of need.
Why does a person abs their family in icu not have the same access that a person with cancer have. What’s make their disease ‘worse’ than mine that gives them a privilege that I can’t get.
How is it fair?

13,000 euro per month.
How can anyone argue that a salary like that is inappropriate when she's running a charity with 200 employees? (OK, maybe she's not doing a very good job, but that's beside the point)
I don't see how anyone could do that job for less than 4000 euro per week.
People don't understand how incredibly difficult and stressful being a CEO is.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A charity is not a business in that it does not generate it's own income via the production of goods, the provision of services - it is reliant upon the state and donations plus, possibly but not always, some small income from the provision of heavily subsidised (i.e. loss making) services.

Yet again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with paying a proper salary to attract suitably qualified and experienced CEO.

They are not subject to market forces - their 'competitors' are other charities working in the same area vying for the same pool of public money (via the State and private donations).

Yet again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with paying a proper salary to attract suitably qualified and experienced CEO.

All this about 'suitable people' is so much hogswallish.
A banker with zero expertise in the running of a charity or the provision of mental health services is not qualified by any means other than being viewed as upper management material by a Board of Directors.

Rubbish. A person with an MBA and a degree in economics, with experience managing the development of corporate strategy and managing a HR department, is ideal for this organisation.

And if she is taking 'full responsibility' I await her enforcing paycuts across the upper levels of Pieta to help bring their books back into the black.

She enforced 30% pay cuts across the board last year. Her salary would have taken the largest hit.

Or do you think in the private sector the person 'responsible' would be able to hold on to their generous package in the face of serious loss of income?

Not if they were responsible for that loss of income. She is not responsible - in case you didn't know, we have had a very serious pandemic which impacted revenue across the board. The idea that her salary is generous is laughable. She would have to be available 24/7 and would be constantly bombarded with problems. With her experience and qualifications, she could get a much less stressful job in the private sector for the same money.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The directors don’t get paid. What should a charity that deals with mental health issues spend its money on?

You’re putting the cart before the horse there - a charity which deals with people with mental health issues should deal with people with mental health issues on a voluntary basis, and their work funded by donations. Pieta demands funding first, then provides services.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's the problem. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. You can't just pluck Joe Bloggs off the assembly line and give him the responsibility of running the factory. Suitably qualified and experienced people won't take the responsibility of running a large organisation without commensurate pay. So you pay someone suitably qualified and experienced or you employ someone who isn't suitably qualified and experienced.

Who’s talking about plucking Joe Bloggs off an assembly line? Suitability qualified and experienced people who care about the aims of the organisation will absolutely take the responsibility of running a large organisation without pay. The point is to get someone suitably qualified who is passionate about the aims of the organisation. Simply offering an attractive salary means hiring people who find the large salary attractive and couldn’t give a toss about the aims of the organisation.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But the services they provide are the work that the salaried people do! Without the salaries, you have no services.

This is simply not true (also the reason why it’s difficult to find larger charities in Ireland than Pieta which are run on an entirely voluntary basis, my bad). The services that Pieta House provide are the same services which are provided by other organisations on a voluntary basis, the work is funded by voluntary donations, and people who provide their services do so on a voluntary basis. That’s what charity means.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A CEO is not a "figurehead".

You are missing the essential point. Just like another poster trying to compare Pieta House with Mens Sheds. Pieta House employs professional therapists to provide therapy and admin staff to support them. Pieta House has 200 employees. It is not a voluntary organisation populated by volunteers.

A CEO is very much a figurehead, and I’m not missing the point. I’m well aware that Pieta House employs people because it attempts to run it’s organisation like a business which never has to make a profit. I know it’s not a voluntary organisation populated by volunteers, I know it employs people who do not give their time and services for free, as one would expect of a charity organisation. It’s a not-for-profit organisation, which I have absolutely no issue with. I don’t have an issue with whatever salary they decide to give their CEO position either.

I do have an issue with portraying not-for-profit organisations as though they are charities, run as though they are a loss-making business, headed by a CEO earning in excess of €100k while at the same time they are looking for funding from the public and from Government to provide their services to the public.

They take a lot of the headaches of administration off the Government, and save the State a bundle, and that’s a good thing, but suggesting that the CEO of a loss-making enterprise should be on a salary in excess of €100k as if the CEO positions of a not-for-profit organisation, and the CEO positions in private enterprise are comparable, is ludicrous.

Professor Moriarty

karlitob wrote: »

I don’t need luck. Your tax dollar already provides the service for that price. It’s funny - you expect a high service for a ‘cheap price’ for section 38 government funded services. But you’ll tolerate a nearly 50% increase in salary for a section 39 that’s partly funded by your tax and then you put your hand into your pocket and give more. Surely you’d want to get the same outcome for a better price from your tax contribution.


Bread and butter to general managers pay scale all over the country in the HSE. The ceo of letterkenny hospital - an incredibly important model 3 hospital in the north west of this country. With far more staff (with multiple professionals - at a much higher standard than a few therapists), more complexity, way more ‘centres’ ie clinical services - gynae, surgery, ED) etx and way more pressure earns a general manager salary - €80k. So does Naas hospital, Ennis, portiuncula and a raft more people in community services looking after a geographical area of 100k citizens and a staff of ~ 500 and who provide services to prevent people committing suicide (it’s not just pieta of course) as well as a raft of other things.

As well as smaller services - like pieta but section 38 - leopards town hospital, the royal hospital, cappagh, Clontarf, fair view hospice, peamont; michaela in dun laoghaire

What is the waiting time for counselling in the HSE?

martingriff

karlitob wrote: »

I know lots of people with it. Ive treated lots of people with it. I’ve had it myself. I know exactly what it’s like.
But you’re doing is what lots of single issue groups do which is to advocate for themselves to the detriment of others.
Why should I have free car parking when another citizen who is also sick and needs help not get it.
What should I get something free from the tax payer and it not be given equally to all citizens on the basis of need.
Why does a person abs their family in icu not have the same access that a person with cancer have. What’s make their disease ‘worse’ than mine that gives them a privilege that I can’t get.
How is it fair?

As far as free parking I believe anyone who has to stay in hospital should have it. Except of a hospice what has a cancer suffer got over you. Of course cancer organisation will do what they can for the people they represent. EVERY ORGANISATION WHO REPRESENT A GROUP WILL DO THAT. Why pick on cancer

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re putting the cart before the horse there - a charity which deals with people with mental health issues should deal with people with mental health issues on a voluntary basis, and their work funded by donations. Pieta demands funding first, then provides services.





Who’s talking about plucking Joe Bloggs off an assembly line? Suitability qualified and experienced people who care about the aims of the organisation will absolutely take the responsibility of running a large organisation without pay. The point is to get someone suitably qualified who is passionate about the aims of the organisation. Simply offering an attractive salary means hiring people who find the large salary attractive and couldn’t give a toss about the aims of the organisation.





This is simply not true (also the reason why it’s difficult to find larger charities in Ireland than Pieta which are run on an entirely voluntary basis, my bad). The services that Pieta House provide are the same services which are provided by other organisations on a voluntary basis, the work is funded by voluntary donations, and people who provide their services do so on a voluntary basis. That’s what charity means.





A CEO is very much a figurehead, and I’m not missing the point. I’m well aware that Pieta House employs people because it attempts to run it’s organisation like a business which never has to make a profit. I know it’s not a voluntary organisation populated by volunteers, I know it employs people who do not give their time and services for free, as one would expect of a charity organisation. It’s a not-for-profit organisation, which I have absolutely no issue with. I don’t have an issue with whatever salary they decide to give their CEO position either.

I do have an issue with portraying not-for-profit organisations as though they are charities, run as though they are a loss-making business, headed by a CEO earning in excess of €100k while at the same time they are looking for funding from the public and from Government to provide their services to the public.

They take a lot of the headaches of administration off the Government, and save the State a bundle, and that’s a good thing, but suggesting that the CEO of a loss-making enterprise should be on a salary in excess of €100k as if the CEO positions of a not-for-profit organisation, and the CEO positions in private enterprise are comparable, is ludicrous.

I refer to the piece in bold. Please show me any similar organisation that employs 200 people which is being run by a suitably qualified person who is being paid nothing?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re putting the cart before the horse there - a charity which deals with people with mental health issues should deal with people with mental health issues on a voluntary basis, and their work funded by donations. Pieta demands funding first, then provides services.





Who’s talking about plucking Joe Bloggs off an assembly line? Suitability qualified and experienced people who care about the aims of the organisation will absolutely take the responsibility of running a large organisation without pay. The point is to get someone suitably qualified who is passionate about the aims of the organisation. Simply offering an attractive salary means hiring people who find the large salary attractive and couldn’t give a toss about the aims of the organisation.





This is simply not true (also the reason why it’s difficult to find larger charities in Ireland than Pieta which are run on an entirely voluntary basis, my bad). The services that Pieta House provide are the same services which are provided by other organisations on a voluntary basis, the work is funded by voluntary donations, and people who provide their services do so on a voluntary basis. That’s what charity means.





A CEO is very much a figurehead, and I’m not missing the point. I’m well aware that Pieta House employs people because it attempts to run it’s organisation like a business which never has to make a profit. I know it’s not a voluntary organisation populated by volunteers, I know it employs people who do not give their time and services for free, as one would expect of a charity organisation. It’s a not-for-profit organisation, which I have absolutely no issue with. I don’t have an issue with whatever salary they decide to give their CEO position either.

I do have an issue with portraying not-for-profit organisations as though they are charities, run as though they are a loss-making business, headed by a CEO earning in excess of €100k while at the same time they are looking for funding from the public and from Government to provide their services to the public.

They take a lot of the headaches of administration off the Government, and save the State a bundle, and that’s a good thing, but suggesting that the CEO of a loss-making enterprise should be on a salary in excess of €100k as if the CEO positions of a not-for-profit organisation, and the CEO positions in private enterprise are comparable, is ludicrous.

You're normally on my ignore list Jack, but I was surprised to see you on this thread, so I took a look, and I have to say I agree completely. Excellent post.

s8n

CEO's of charitable orgs have too high a profile in this country. Fergus Finlay is another one. We dont need to hear soundbites all the time, get on and do your work

volchitsa

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I refer to the piece in bold. Please show me any similar organisation that employs 200 people which is being run by a suitably qualified person who is being paid nothing?

I agree that beyond a certain size of organisation, it's reasonable to employ someone to deal with finances and so on - but it should not be on a salary comparable to IT specialists or other high paid jobs. Because as Jack said, it's a chariity, and any money paid to employees is taken out of the money for the actual charitable cause.

There are a number of charitable organisations in Ireland which seem to be about generating money for those in charge more than carrying out their "core" function.

Professor Moriarty

volchitsa wrote: »

I agree that beyond a certain size of organisation, it's reasonable to employ someone to deal with finances and so on - but it should not be on a salary comparable to IT specialists or other high paid jobs. Because as Jack said, it's a chariity, and any money paid to employees is taken out of the money for the actual charitable cause.

There are a number of charitable organisations in Ireland which seem to be about generating money for those in charge more than carrying out their "core" function.

How many have 200 employees and 13 centres? Her core experience is not finances, it is in HR and strategy. Plus she has an MBA. Who better to run an organisation that isn't a business but simply employees people to provide a service?

humberklog

A CEO of a company like Pieta probably deserves a salary of €120k.
It's a big job handling a lot of expensive professional service providers and dealing with vulnerable clients.

What is uncomfortable (for me) is that when Elaine Austin took over as CEO in 2019 she has set out to undermine, sack or make redundant the existing clinical staff (over 200) and replace them with clinical staff on Gig contracts.
All of a sudden Elaine brought in some fairly rigorous work practices that had been lacking such as timing their meetings with clients. They now have 50 minutes consulting and 10 minutes write up per client. Gone were the days of a chat-chat, followed by a stroll in the park and maybe even walking them home and seeing them safely to their houses, maybe meeting their family.
Could be half a day spent on one person.

Now it's all well and good to streamline a service that receives money from the State and donations. It does look to me that Pieta house did over staff, had too many units- possibly attempted to expand their services too much and maybe their were some Clinical staff in the organisation swinging the lead.

Gone are the days of Pieta House being home spun counsellor to the vulnerable.
It is now a Counselling Service Provider for vulnerable persons.

Services that fill in where the State is failing can succeed and when they do they need to be regulated and managed efficiently.

But for me Pieta House is a Starbucks passing it's self off as an Indie establishment.

In my book it's just another wolf in sheep's clothing wandering around the green and fertile charitable meadows.

Wolves are an expensive cost.

Professor Moriarty

humberklog wrote: »

A CEO of a company like Pieta probably deserves a salary of €120k.
It's a big job handling a lot of expensive professional service providers and dealing with vulnerable clients.

What is uncomfortable (for me) is that when Elaine Austin took over as CEO in 2019 she has set out to undermine, sack or make redundant the existing clinical staff (over 200) and replace them with clinical staff on Gig contracts.
All of a sudden Elaine brought in some fairly rigorous work practices that had been lacking such as timing their meetings with clients. They now have 50 minutes consulting and 10 minutes write up per client. Gone were the days of a chat-chat, followed by a stroll in the park and maybe even walking them home and seeing them safely to their houses, maybe meeting their family.
Could be half a day spent on one person.

Now it's all well and good to streamline a service that receives money from the State and donations. It does look to me that Pieta house did over staff, had too many units- possibly attempted to expand their services too much and maybe their were some Clinical staff in the organisation swinging the lead.

Gone are the days of Pieta House being home spun counsellor to the vulnerable.
It is now a Counselling Service Provider for vulnerable persons.

Services that fill in where the State is failing can succeed and when they do they need to be regulated and managed efficiently.

But for me Pieta House is a Starbucks passing it's self off as an Indie establishment.

In my book it's just another wolf in sheep's clothing wandering around the green and fertile charitable meadows.

Wolves are an expensive cost.

And you'll have people jumping in immediately saying what a terrible person she is to be making such difficult corporate decisions. The same people who would have been criticising her for doing a bad job. It doesn't matter that such difficult decisions will ultimately benefit the vulnerable people attending Pieta House.

grassylawn

Don't know whether that salary is reasonable or not, and I am more interested in the root issue anyway. The root issue is that this sort of service should be provided by the state directly, removing the need for this sort of organisation altogether.

Professor Moriarty

grassylawn wrote: »

Don't know whether that salary is reasonable or not, and I am more interested in the root issue anyway. The root issue is that this sort of service should be provided by the state directly, removing the need for this sort of organisation altogether.

100%.

karlitob

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is the waiting time for counselling in the HSE?

Long.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/over-1-200-adults-waiting-three-months-plus-for-counselling-says-hse-1.3797228?mode=amp

If only more funding was funding was put into these services at a better cost than into section 39 services. It’s your tax dollar than funds that access - except it’s through a section 39 body. If your charity contributions that fund access. If the funding and increase contributions were provided by the HSE the wait times would be lower. But the fact that your tax dollar - mediated through the HSE to this section 39 - means that it is a government funded service.

For the state to improve wait times, it would need to continue to support these charity groups - all 8000 of them. And increase investment to the HSE run services - effectively competing with the section 39 services so as to show that section 39 is not needed and investment can be removed. That’s a mad thing to do. What should be done is significant investment in HSE services and a commensurate plan to reduce pieta funding over 5 years, and provide regular work for all these counsellors.

Could you imagine what the public outcry would be if funded was withdrawn from pieta house.

Yet the state is expected to pick up the tab when private enterprises like St. John of gods or the bucket load of private nursing homes who couldn’t manage in the pandemic come knocking at the door of the HSE because they stretched themselves to far.


The argument on here seems to be HSE bad, section 39s good. But the reality is far more complex than that.

As a case in point, is the HSE cancer services. The NCCP - the programme that manages the cancer Service in ireland - have excellent waiting times achieved through consolidation of many many services throughout the state and a ring fenced budget. Their national director is paid €150k for a far more complex service provision than pieta house.

No one says how fantastic the HSE is with regard cancer services. We have some of the best outcomes in the world and plans to improve others tumour market outcomes through government support strategy.

Why aren’t you advocating for a mental health service that is a copy cat of the nccp?

Professor Moriarty

karlitob wrote: »

Long. If only more funding was funding was put into these services at a better cost than into section 39 services. It’s your tax dollar than funds that access - except it’s through a section 39 body. If your charity contributions that fund access. If the funding and increase contributions were provided by the HSE the wait times would be lower.

As a case in point, is the HSE cancer services. The NCCP - the programme that manages the cancer Service in ireland - have excellent waiting times achieved through consolidation of many many services throughout the state and a ring fenced budget. Their national director is paid €150k for a far more complex service provision than pieta house.

No one says how fantastic the HSE is with regard cancer services. We have some of the best outcomes in the world and plans to improve others tumour market outcomes through government support strategy.

Why aren’t you advocating for a mental health service that is a copy cat of the nccp?

I don't know anything about the NCCP, that's why. What makes you think I approve of the HSE washing its hands of counselling services and underfunding them?

karlitob

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't know anything about the NCCP, that's why. What makes you think I approve of the HSE washing its hands of counselling services and underfunding them?

Well you don’t seem to know much about this topic either. I would suggest that you read up on the nccp so that you’re more informed.

The HSE hasn’t washed its hands of anything. Government set policy and provide funding. The HSE implements. I’m happy to listen to what specific issues you have with the implementation of mental health services by the HSE. And how perfect the government policy - and funding - is that the HSE is messing up.

Just so you know - the HSE doesn’t fund anything. Government funds. The HSE transfers the funds where it is directed by government.


It’s also important to note that it is very difficult getting consultant psychiatrists to work in and lead services in the community. It’s just not appealing to them. They want to work in hospitals where they get the training, see the interesting stuff and get to be a consultant. It’s hard. And there’s not enough of them being trained.


Also. The HSE doesn’t control training. Independent colleges determine who is accepted, how many are accepted and what the standard of training is. Clearly there is a relationship. But - for example - it is the Irish college of gps who determine the number of gps allowed onto training schemes for decades. The consequence is ⅓ of all GPs will retire in the next decade and there are insufficient numbers to replace them. Gps wanted a closed shop - they got it. And now you and me reap the consequence. This is a government issue that they didn’t sort out. The HSE has little control on planning the availability and skill set of their staff.