MATERNITY HOSPITAL: ‘IT IS INCORRECT TO SUGGEST THE HSE SUBSIDISES PAYMENTS TO SENIOR STAFF’

THE National Maternity Hospital Holles Street last night issued a fierce defence of its pay policy for senior management, as well as any suggestion that the public hospital is subsidising the private clinic.

In a statement it said that much of the audit’s findings were based on the false premise that Holles Street was owned by the HSE.

‘The nub of our disagreement arises from the failure of the reports to accept that the National Maternity Hospital is not owned by the HSE but is an independent entity,’ it said.

‘At the heart of these reports and the very long process that has led to them is the issue of integrated public and private practice.

‘Current Government policy is dictated by the 1970 Health Act and by the Consultant Contract drawn up by Government in 2008. It mandates an integration of public and private practice.

‘The report identifies “close linkages” between public and private practice, but this merely reflects Government policy.

‘It should be noted that there is no private obstetric hospital in the State and that under current health policy, NMH is obliged to treat private patients. A reading of the reports could lead to a misunderstanding of the cross-subsidisation between public and private practice at the NMH. The net crosssubsidisation that occurs is from private to public. Approximately one third of NMH income is private bed income, without which the hospital could not deliver its existing public services.’

Holles Street also strongly rejected the audit’s findings that its report raised the possibility of conflicts of interest.

‘Despite over three-and-a-half years in preparation, HSE internal audit has not identified any actual conflict of interest in relation to the interaction of these entities with the NMH,’ the statement continued.

‘There are clinical cross-directorships between entities because of clinical governance requirements and not financial considerations. This is the appropriate way to run the hospital.’

In an earlier response to a draft copy of the HSE report, the hospital again rejected any suggestion that there could be a possible conflict of interest.

‘It is incorrect to suggest that the HSE subsidise these payments made to senior staff members. This is pure speculation and is contradicted by the fact that the private entities are in fact subsidising the public facility as the PWC report... confirms.

‘The hospital is entitled to receive funding from private entities and to utilise this private income in any manner it sees fit in accordance with what is in the best interest of the hospital and in line with the hospital’s charter.’

‘The report states that the delays in the Semi-Private Clinic reimbursing the hospital for the payments in respect of the current and former Masters is a further matter of concern.

‘The report states that “essentially a publicly funded body subsidised the cash flow of a private entity for a significant period of time”.

‘This statement is again misleading and inaccurate. The majority of payments due from the Medical Fund [Semi-Private Clinic] are invoiced, billed and paid monthly. The Hospital invoices the Medical Fund for approximately 200 items per year. A small number of those items have been delayed and these delays are very minor in the context of any rational.’