Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On 17 October, I wrote to this committee requesting that it examine the Herity report and invite the relevant stakeholders to a meeting. I thank the committee for facilitating that.

As Dr. Herity will be aware, there has been considerable fallout since the publication of the report. The consultants working in UHW believe that it is flawed and have rejected its findings.

In 2012, Professor John Higgins wrote clearly on page 87 of his report:

Waterford Regional Hospital will continue to provide invasive cardiology services for the South East population. Working in collaboration with the cardiology service in Cork the current service should be extended with new joint appointments of cardiologists.

Professor Higgins is a key stakeholder as author of the Higgins report and the chief academic officer of the hospital group. Why did Dr. Herity not consult him before undertaking this report?

I wish to address the apparent undercalculation of the catchment area. In Dr. Herity's report, his stated opinion was that 286,147 was the referral population for planned cardiac cath lab procedures. The 2016 census puts the catchment population at 582,000. I put it to Dr. Herity that the catchment area is somewhere between 350,000 and 400,000 people, that is, anyone living within 90 minutes of UHW. The report makes no reference to the 40% of patients who have private cover and travel to Dublin and Cork because there is no available capacity in UHW. The calculations used did not take into account all of the factors and the review is inadequate, given that it is based on incorrect population figures.

One of the most worrying aspects is the note prepared by the HSE prior to Dr. Herity commencing his deliberations. The note reads: "it has been the view of the Department that providing additional facilities and extending PPCI (angioplasty) services, in a geographical area which does not have the population base to justify such a service, would be wasteful of very limited resources." It is clear that the HSE was attempting to point Dr. Herity in the opposite direction prior to him commencing his deliberations. This was gross interference in an independent review. How did this recommendation from the HSE affect Dr. Herity's outlook and the overall report, including the findings?