Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

214. To ask the Minister for Health further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 45 of 1 February 2017 and 207 of 8 February 2017, his views on the fact that the year-on-year increase in damages claims costs predicted by the actuaries to the clinical indemnity scheme between 2014 and 2015 was approximately 13% from €202 million to €230 million, while in maternity services the actual increase in claims costs was over 100%, from €40.5 million to €84.1 million and in view of the fact that in the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 45 it was stated that the growth in maternity-related claims against consultants from 2006 onwards is in line with the actuarial predictions made by the agency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7552/17]

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

215. To ask the Minister for Health further to Parliamentary Question No. 45 of 1 February 2017, if he will provide the actuarial predictions made regarding maternity damages cases by the State Claims Agency from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; if he will include the yearly number of damages cases predicted and-or the year-on-year increases in costs predicted. [7553/17]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 214 and 215 together.

The actuaries to the Clinical Indemnity Scheme provide projections that are part based on historical claims spend and claims activity and reasonably predict foreseeable activity, taking into account relevant risk factors. The State Claims Agency has confirmed to my officials that the growth in related activity and costs around maternity and other related claims is in line with the maturity of the Scheme. Separately the actual cost of claims resolved year on year is related to the actual number of claims that are resolved and the number of those that are resolved on a Periodic Payment Order basis versus a lump sum basis. Because of the high value of a proportion of clinical claims, a small number of such claims in any one year can significantly impact the total spend.

In respect of the settlement of claims it is difficult to accurately predict whether each claim will be settled or adjourned, and when settled, whether settlement will be by means of a Period Payment Order or a lump sum. More stability will be introduced into the claims system when the Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill, which will legislate for Periodic Payment Orders, is enacted in the coming months, as this will encourage the settlement of all catastrophic injury claims through Periodic Payment Orders.

In reply to question No 45 of 1 February last I had noted that 13 cerebral palsy cases in which Periodic Payment Orders (PPO) were agreed between 2010 and 2013 were returned to Court on subsequent returnable Court dates. Because PPO legislation was not enacted some cases settled as lump sums instead of continuing as PPOs.

In relation to the actuarial predictions for maternity damages cases from 2006 to 2013 inclusive, the State Claims Agency has informed my officials that it first sought a separate actuarial estimate/prediction for these damages for the year 2009, as the Scheme had matured sufficiently at that time such that actuaries could generate such estimates/predictions. This was also the first time that the estimate/prediction exceeded €50m. The figures for the years in question are as follows: