Changes Made To Patient Escort Criteria By The Dhss

[triskelion]

Wouldn't means testing be a sensible approach for this?

 

No, because the health service is supposed to be about need rather than an ability to pay.

[Wake Up Call]

Firstly, in my experience, the staff in PTS were marvellous.

 

 

If we had cheap/reasonably priced flight travel then this wouldn't be such a big budget headache. If the cost of a ticket to Liverpool was subsidized at £50 return then everybody would be happy. (Except the SP)

 

OR

 

Even more out of this world, what would be the cost of the IOM Government operating 1 smallish plane with 20 seats to take all the patients to and from Liverpool as compared to the cost of paying top whack prices to our local airlines?

(Costs may be cheaper than the total budget for patient transfer as there would be no advertising and staff/admin costs would be less.)

On the black market, old Russian warplanes are going for a song at the moment and maybe a few vet pilots from Nam' could be signed up to fly again. The new Manx air experience would be almost as thrilling as the trip through Lpool to get to the clinic.

[oldmanxfella]

The caring face of capitalism. At least with party politics you would know the general philosophy of the candidates before you wasted your vote on this idiot.

 

The worst thing about all of this is that there is no debate. Some MHK decides that this service is too expensive and its cut. If we had a party system this sort of stuff would at least be debated on before it happens. As it is they claim that they have asked for the opinion of those affected but the results of that exercise are never published or released. So one guy stands up and says this has got to stop as this is what the taxpayer wants.

[Gladys]

He said there was anecdotal evidence that people were abusing the system

 

Who was that stupid woman MHK on Manx Radio waffling on about "antidotal" evidence

Once would have been a slip of the tongue, twice was just a display of crass ignorance.

 

I think it was Brenda Cannell.

[triskelion]

If we had cheap/reasonably priced flight travel then this wouldn't be such a big budget headache. If the cost of a ticket to Liverpool was subsidized at £50 return then everybody would be happy. (Except the SP)

OR

Even more out of this world, what would be the cost of the IOM Government operating 1 smallish plane with 20 seats to take all the patients to and from Liverpool as compared to the cost of paying top whack prices to our local airlines?

 

The Island does have reasonably priced air travel. Check how much Shetland and the Channel Islands pay and you will see this. The cost of operating a small plane is unlikely to be justifiable.

 

 

The worst thing about all of this is that there is no debate. Some MHK decides that this service is too expensive and its cut. In any normal, decent, society these cost cuts are put up for debate. If we had a party system this would have to be the case as opposing parties are left to fight it out. As it is they claim that they have asked for the opinion of those affected but the results of that exercise are never published or released. So one guy stands up and says this has got to stop as this is what the taxpayer wants. Its total crap.

 

I can't believe that anyone who has been asked the question has said "Go on. Bin this service as it is being abused". Its a total fallacy to suggest that this is the case. Mr Teare, you produce proof that people agree with these cuts. Produce one shred of usable evidence that people who pay taxes agree that this is good policy?

 

This is how democracy works though. It is not the role of elected representatives to 'do what the taxpayers want.' They will usually campaign on a number of issues and people will generally vote for the person they agree with the most or whom they think will do the best job. If politicans did 'what the taxpayers want,' then we would not have a democracy, but anarchy. Even in the UK, which has an entirely party system, members of the Government may be accountable to Parliament, but it is still down to the minister to run his department effectively.

 

It is the job of the minister to manage the department, and it is essentially his prerogative to decide on cuts etc. The DHSS consumes 60% of the Treasury's resources as it is, and only gets more expensive. You can say 'oh well if they hadn't wasted money on this or that then this wouldn't be the case' and you would be right, but it is an irrelevant point. It is quite right that no department has an unlimited budget, and when one such budget is being stretched, as is currently the case of the DHSS, it would be irresponsible for the minister not to look at where he can make savings.

[doofus]

having been a frequent flyer with the patient transfer service this year (legitimate), i can fully understand why they may be wanting to cut costs.

 

especially when upwards of 200 people per week are going of island using the service.

 

Where did you get 200 people per week from?!

 

from two different taxi drivers on two different trips to liverpool when i've used the PTS this year.

[feelslikeitshould]

having been a frequent flyer with the patient transfer service this year (legitimate), i can fully understand why they may be wanting to cut costs.

 

especially when upwards of 200 people per week are going of island using the service.

 

Where did you get 200 people per week from?!

 

from two different taxi drivers on two different trips to liverpool when i've used the PTS this year.

 

Hmmm, I'll take the 4000 people per year Government figures over those of a scouse taxi driver. Have they conducted surveys? Are they the only 2 taxi drivers in Liverpool? Is Liverpool the only place we send patients?

 

It's less than 100 per week. Hospitals in the UK are always transfering patients around, if we don't have the level of sick people to maintain several different consultants on £80k salaries, what other alternative is there?

[ste1205]

Hmmm, I'll take the 4000 people per year Government figures over those of a scouse taxi driver. Have they conducted surveys? Are they the only 2 taxi drivers in Liverpool? Is Liverpool the only place we send patients?

 

It's less than 100 per week. Hospitals in the UK are always transfering patients around, if we don't have the level of sick people to maintain several different consultants on £80k salaries, what other alternative is there?

 

In the House of Keys this week Eddie Teare said that there were around 4,000 patient escorts representing around 40 per cent of the total number of people travelling at DHSS expense. I think most of the travel is to Liverpool but I know people who have been treated in Manchester, Leeds and London.

 

It was reported, again by Eddie Teare, in an earlier HOK sitting that the cost of transporting all of the escorts was around £600,000 per annum and that he believed that applying the existing rules savings of £200,000 could be achieved.

 

The total budget for patient/escort travel/uk treatment in 2007/2008 is £2.6 million.

 

I think that there would be some clinics/consultants that see so many Isle of Man patients that it would be more economical to have them come over here once or twice a month to carry out initial assessment/check-up appointments. I’d rather a two hour round trip to Douglas than a whole day away for a 10 minute appointment.

[doofus]

having been a frequent flyer with the patient transfer service this year (legitimate), i can fully understand why they may be wanting to cut costs.

 

especially when upwards of 200 people per week are going of island using the service.

 

Where did you get 200 people per week from?!

 

from two different taxi drivers on two different trips to liverpool when i've used the PTS this year.

 

Hmmm, I'll take the 4000 people per year Government figures over those of a scouse taxi driver. Have they conducted surveys? Are they the only 2 taxi drivers in Liverpool? Is Liverpool the only place we send patients?

 

It's less than 100 per week. Hospitals in the UK are always transfering patients around, if we don't have the level of sick people to maintain several different consultants on £80k salaries, what other alternative is there?

 

The taxi firm in question had six drivers waiting for the patients arriving on the first flight from the island on my last visit, and thats just on one flight to one airport on one day. They transfer patients to all the major hospitals in and around the Merseyside area, the 16 seat minibus used to transfer to the Royal Liverpool Hospital was half full.

 

On my return to the airport in the afternoon, there were five patients returning, some with escorts, on the 15.10 flight to the island. I state again thats just on one flight.

[Dodger]

If we had cheap/reasonably priced flight travel then this wouldn't be such a big budget headache. If the cost of a ticket to Liverpool was subsidized at £50 return then everybody would be happy. (Except the SP)

OR

Even more out of this world, what would be the cost of the IOM Government operating 1 smallish plane with 20 seats to take all the patients to and from Liverpool as compared to the cost of paying top whack prices to our local airlines?

 

The Island does have reasonably priced air travel. Check how much Shetland and the Channel Islands pay and you will see this. The cost of operating a small plane is unlikely to be justifiable.

 

 

The worst thing about all of this is that there is no debate. Some MHK decides that this service is too expensive and its cut. In any normal, decent, society these cost cuts are put up for debate. If we had a party system this would have to be the case as opposing parties are left to fight it out. As it is they claim that they have asked for the opinion of those affected but the results of that exercise are never published or released. So one guy stands up and says this has got to stop as this is what the taxpayer wants. Its total crap.

 

I can't believe that anyone who has been asked the question has said "Go on. Bin this service as it is being abused". Its a total fallacy to suggest that this is the case. Mr Teare, you produce proof that people agree with these cuts. Produce one shred of usable evidence that people who pay taxes agree that this is good policy?

 

This is how democracy works though. It is not the role of elected representatives to 'do what the taxpayers want.' They will usually campaign on a number of issues and people will generally vote for the person they agree with the most or whom they think will do the best job. If politicans did 'what the taxpayers want,' then we would not have a democracy, but anarchy. Even in the UK, which has an entirely party system, members of the Government may be accountable to Parliament, but it is still down to the minister to run his department effectively.

 

It is the job of the minister to manage the department, and it is essentially his prerogative to decide on cuts etc. The DHSS consumes 60% of the Treasury's resources as it is, and only gets more expensive. You can say 'oh well if they hadn't wasted money on this or that then this wouldn't be the case' and you would be right, but it is an irrelevant point. It is quite right that no department has an unlimited budget, and when one such budget is being stretched, as is currently the case of the DHSS, it would be irresponsible for the minister not to look at where he can make savings.

 

You are right it is down to the minister to manage his department, consider this, he has stated that the need for a deputy chief executive will be paid for out of the operating budget, where does the patient transfer fund come from? Does this mean that instead of being able to travel with our family member or friend we get another highly paid civil servant! Half of what he proposes to save will be absorbed by the cost of this one appointment! Good use of our money, don't you think?

[triskelion]

You are right it is down to the minister to manage his department, consider this, he has stated that the need for a deputy chief executive will be paid for out of the operating budget, where does the patient transfer fund come from? Does this mean that instead of being able to travel with our family member or friend we get another highly paid civil servant! Half of what he proposes to save will be absorbed by the cost of this one appointment! Good use of our money, don't you think?

 

That really depends on the role of the Deputy Chief Executive, doesn't it? And it is hardly 'instead of.' You will still be able to travel with the person requiring treatment, you just won't be able to do it for free in certain circumstances.

[Dodger]

You are right it is down to the minister to manage his department, consider this, he has stated that the need for a deputy chief executive will be paid for out of the operating budget, where does the patient transfer fund come from? Does this mean that instead of being able to travel with our family member or friend we get another highly paid civil servant! Half of what he proposes to save will be absorbed by the cost of this one appointment! Good use of our money, don't you think?

 

That really depends on the role of the Deputy Chief Executive, doesn't it? And it is hardly 'instead of.' You will still be able to travel with the person requiring treatment, you just won't be able to do it for free in certain circumstances.

 

How much does it cost to buy a ticket on the day? How much notice do you get of a cancellation appointment for an essential consultation? Air ambulance hasn't got room, do you get a ticket then, it brings additional stress onto a patient that is already stressed and blood pressure already high due to the circumstances.

 

The savings from an essential service seem to have been made available for a pen pusher, less civil servants not more are needed. Saving money should be done by getting rid of middle management and higher if they cannot prove what they do during the day. It isn't just their salery it is also the additional costs, pensions, tax and costs. I worked for a company that did just that and there wasn't any change to the front line! Service carried on as normal! I would also be interested to see their SLA with carriers and services that they purchase in general. There are ways to save money without it affecting the level of service to the patient, which should include looking after their stress levels.

[oldmanxfella]

This is how democracy works though. It is not the role of elected representatives to 'do what the taxpayers want.

 

Sorry but I thought that the word democracy comes from the ancient Greek for "rule by the people".

 

Clearly I'm the idiot for suggesting that this should actually be the case on the Isle of Man.

[Pragmatopian]

Democracy doesn't mean every decision by a government department has to be put to a public vote or consultation, and nor should it. In the grand scheme of things, the decision on whether to pay for patient escorts in particular circumstances is of pretty limited significance.

 

I have to say I am amazed at how many patient trips to the UK are required for medical treatment or consultations. I know that some conditions can't be treated effectively on the Island, but 10,000 trips a year for a population of 75,000? You're a pretty sick bunch!

[oldmanxfella]

In the grand scheme of things, the decision on whether to pay for patient escorts in particular circumstances is of pretty limited significance.

 

I don't think it is actually having had first hand experience of the logistical nightmare of getting an infirm family member on and off Island for treatment.