Dodger Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 "6. Refurbishment Cushag House, Four Roads, Port St Mary -The Minister for Health and Social Security to move - That Tynwald approves the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £299,000 for the refurbishment of the existing Cushag House, Four Roads, Port St Mary to provide accommodation for adults with learning difficulties." Tynwald order paper 11/12/07 £300,000 looking to be found for refurbishment of property, but looking to save money by not letting friends or relatives travel with patients going off island for treatment! Why is giving those with learning difficulties a decent place to live a lower priority than providing a patient escort service? I am stunned that you need to ask, the patient transfer escort service allows people to be with friends or family during a very stressful time, whether it be a major operation or treatment, we don't send patients over to the UK lightly! What state is the property in, if it requires so much money to be spent on it? How many people with special needs will this affect, compared to the patient transfer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 What state is the property in, if it requires so much money to be spent on it? How many people with special needs will this affect, compared to the patient transfer? You tell me: You are the one that doesn't think it is that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 It's the age old problem - how do we best allocate finite resources?. Both these causes seem worthy to me. Guess that's why we elect politicians to make these decisions on our behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 What state is the property in, if it requires so much money to be spent on it? How many people with special needs will this affect, compared to the patient transfer? You tell me: You are the one that doesn't think it is that important. I didn't say that there wasn't a need for it, it is prioritisation of services. 4 people were mentioned that would move into the refurbished building, with a capacity for a total of 8 with the necessary staff. How many patients go off island? By the way Tynwald approved the expenditure of half the budget for this development for this financial year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 It's the age old problem - how do we best allocate finite resources?. Both these causes seem worthy to me. Guess that's why we elect politicians to make these decisions on our behalf. How, as they approved this expenditure, can they cut back on another service? This expenditure will affect maximum of 8 people, with only 4 of them due to transfer after the refurbishment. The difference is simple this was voted on by Tynwald and the patient transfer was decided upon by the minister, is this fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 It's the age old problem - how do we best allocate finite resources?. Both these causes seem worthy to me. Guess that's why we elect politicians to make these decisions on our behalf. How, as they approved this expenditure, can they cut back on another service? This expenditure will affect maximum of 8 people, with only 4 of them due to transfer after the refurbishment. The difference is simple this was voted on by Tynwald and the patient transfer was decided upon by the minister, is this fair? When you put it like that, it sounds like Tynwald voted and the minister was left to actually try and make it all add up. Are you sure the refurbishment is being paid out of the DHSS budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 It's the age old problem - how do we best allocate finite resources?. Both these causes seem worthy to me. Guess that's why we elect politicians to make these decisions on our behalf. How, as they approved this expenditure, can they cut back on another service? This expenditure will affect maximum of 8 people, with only 4 of them due to transfer after the refurbishment. The difference is simple this was voted on by Tynwald and the patient transfer was decided upon by the minister, is this fair? When you put it like that, it sounds like Tynwald voted and the minister was left to actually try and make it all add up. Are you sure the refurbishment is being paid out of the DHSS budget? "The Minister for Health and Social Security to move - That Tynwald approves the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £299,000 for the refurbishment of the existing Cushag House, Four Roads, Port St Mary to provide accommodation for adults with learning difficulties." This would make me think that it is DHSS expenditure, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 "The Minister for Health and Social Security to move -That Tynwald approves the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £299,000 for the refurbishment of the existing Cushag House, Four Roads, Port St Mary to provide accommodation for adults with learning difficulties." This would make me think that it is DHSS expenditure, what do you think? Okay, so what is it you propose? That the Tynwald repeals that motion and redirects funds to boost the funds of the patient escort service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I had thought it was less about who deserves the £300k and more about 'in which areas can we save money'. I don't think they are redirceting the money from stopping friends/relatives travel, to refurbish a property for those with learning difficulties. The problem comes with the 'clinical need', does a blind person have a clinical or medical requirement to have someone travel with them? It doesn't take account of the fact that they may still need a guide or that someone with limited mobility will need hep carrying bags or negotiating steps. I think the subject should've beed debated or investigated further, the Minister shouldn't be able to say 'I've heard that Mr. and Mrs. X requested different flight times because they wantd to go shopping, so now we won't pay for someone to accompany a patient unless that patient has a clinic requirement for assistance. End of." The fact a GP can suggest a patient will be subjected to stress that may agitate their condition if they have to go alone, goes a little way to help but it's not guarenteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 13, 2007 Author Share Posted December 13, 2007 "The Minister for Health and Social Security to move -That Tynwald approves the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £299,000 for the refurbishment of the existing Cushag House, Four Roads, Port St Mary to provide accommodation for adults with learning difficulties." This would make me think that it is DHSS expenditure, what do you think? Okay, so what is it you propose? That the Tynwald repeals that motion and redirects funds to boost the funds of the patient escort service? I would like to see the minister taking the motion to Tynwald for them to make the decision, they would in my opinion support the keeping the expenditure as it was! There are other ways to save money without it affecting front line services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Dragging up an old one here but didn't see the point in starting a whole new thread and having some views/opinions repeated in a new one. I was just wondering if anyone has had recent experience/problems with Patient Transfer since they've started the service to Chester Airport? My son travels to Alder Hey every 12 weeks and we're having no end of problems with PT at the minute (won't go into any great detail unless it becomes totally relevant in the thread). Would be interested to hear if anyone else has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.