David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We should take up the offer that Mr. Watt made earlier of having a workshop on regionalisation with Mr. Woods, his team and the people who will be involved in that. We can look at drilling down into some of these issues. That would be useful, outside of a committee session in which is more difficult to tease out all of the issues.

I will ask a few questions to Mr. Reid on waiting lists and presentation of them, capture of data and reducing waiting lists. At the moment, the National Treatment Purchase Fund only publishes acute waiting lists. We have to go through parliamentary questions to get access to data on diagnostic waiting lists and CHO waiting lists. Given that we will have an alignment of areas in acute hospitals, can it be looked at that we have better capture of that data rather than having to go through parliamentary questions? Some of Mr. Reid's staff can be critical of us putting in too many parliamentary questions. It would be better if we had access to information. The NTPF data, when it is presented every couple of weeks, is very useful. It shows what is going up and down and what is working and not working. We do not have the same data for diagnostics and community. Can that be looked at?

I got a parliamentary question response yesterday on the validation of acute hospital waiting lists, as opposed to people who are treated or seen. I was not able to get the response on diagnostics or community because it is not captured but we were able to get the information on acute hospital waiting lists. As far as I can see, 80,000 people were removed from the hospital waiting lists last year as a process of validation. So far this year it is just over 30,000, if I am right. I do not oppose that because the system needs to be brought up to date. If there is a validation process that makes it more fit for purpose and we have real data, that is important. However, in the presentation of the data, it is important we can see what is happening, who is being treated and seen and who is removed as a consequence of a validation. We need to watch how we do that. My understanding is letters are issued to patients as to whether or not they are still in need of healthcare. However, sometimes people move addresses, there can be issues or complications where people do not respond to a letter and are then taken off a list. We see it in housing and it becomes a particular challenge, as I am sure the Chair and other members of the committee will be aware. I would not want to see it happen in healthcare unnecessarily that people fall off the list. Can Mr. Reid confirm those figures on the validation process?

Also, can he answer the question as to whether it is something that can be improved upon in terms of the presentation of the National Treatment Purchase Fund figures, both in terms of community diagnostics and validation versus patients seen, because the more information we have the better for all of us?