Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, line 23, to delete “referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (3) that it has carried out”.

Again, the background to the McLoughlin report is that evaluation and analysis is required in respect of how costs here compare internationally and the reason this excessively high cost system has developed. In tabling the amendments, I did not know how much work Mr. McLoughlin was doing as details of his report were published in The Irish Times just yesterday. The point now has been made that these are the kinds of considerations that should be inherent in any agreements between the industry and the risk equalisation fund. Consequently, I will not press the amendment on the grounds that everyone is ad idem that there now are mechanisms in place to ensure this actually happens. Moreover, it is important that it does because of the rapid rate of cost escalation before the Minister started to move in this regard. As the Minister indicated, one must have comparative data on the length of stay and on whether the treatment was effective. The Minister referred to diagnosis-related groups, DRGs, in his speech and I agree with him. The Oireachtas should be involved, which the Minister is doing, and I note he is one of the most regular attenders in this House. In these circumstances, I do not wish to move amendment No. 8. It is a matter that is in hand and on which work is under way.