When you say probably 35 can I ask where you pulled that number from?
If the State is to fund IVF one of the qualifying conditions must be an age limit . . probably 35.
Female fertility goes off a cliff from 35. There must be some cut-off, maybe 35 is to low and 39 would be more reasonable, but some sensible cut-off is required.When you say probably 35 can I ask where you pulled that number from?
That's one viewpoint alright. Another is that people should be aware that female fertility drops off drastically after 35 and if they intend having children they should adjust their life plan accordingly.A large proportion of the people in difficulty conceiving are in their mid-30's, and find themselves in that situation specifically because they've done everything "right" - been responsible citizens.
The UK has a formal cutoff of 43 according to the below NHS siteFemale fertility goes off a cliff from 35. There must be some cut-off, maybe 35 is to low and 39 would be more reasonable, but some sensible cut-off is required.
See that's the problem; they make more money the more they do so they have a vested interest in saying yes. The purchaser isn't spending their own money so there is no downside for them.I do believe a cutoff should exist, but based on medical reasons. Once of those should be age, but will let the medical professionals best advise on this. I also believe the number of funded/supported cycles should be capped, probably at 3 based on NICE guidelines.
See that's the problem; they make more money the more they do so they have a vested interest in saying yes. The purchaser isn't spending their own money so there is no downside for them.
You are talking about medical professional in private practice on a case by case basis. I am talking about strict medical guidelines, in particular around eligibility. We have a medical authority who decides what drugs to fund or not fund, the same principle can be used to defined eligibilty for this scheme.See that's the problem; they make more money the more they do so they have a vested interest in saying yes.
I'm talking about a business owner/stakeholder. What letters they have before or after their name makes them no less greedy than the next person. I thought that tugging the forelock to out "betters"; the doctor and the priest, was a thing of the past.You are talking about medical professional in private practice on a case by case basis.
Right, and a few "human interest" stories on RTE fills the debate with emotion so that cost/benefit and scientific rationale goes out the window. It is, and always will be, a political decision based on vates in the next election.We have a medical authority who decides what drugs to fund or not fund, the same principle can be used to defined eligibilty for this scheme.
There is no different group. They all went to college with each other, went through the hospital system together and work in both Public and Private practice, usually at the same time.I have also said I believe the assessment should be done by the public 'maternity' system, along with the determination of the treatment to be used. This should be delivered by a different group, so the outcome of the assessment gives no financial gain to the assessor.
The Hospital may not make a profit but the doctor will.Ideally, I would prefer this to be run on a not for profit basis by the public hospital system - but will see.
What a bigoted thing to say! "The rich", are they a distinct group like "The Poor" and "The Queers" and "the Blacks"?mankind would be extinct by now if we waited for the rich to have kids because a lot of them are too mean and selfish to have kids.
So should we ban all medical treatment in this case? Since someone profits from it at some stage in the process?There is no different group. They all went to college with each other, went through the hospital system together and work in both Public and Private practice, usually at the same time.
I am under no illusion that a doctor or priest is better than me or anyone else.I thought that tugging the forelock to out "betters"; the doctor and the priest, was a thing of the past.
Remember the definition of rich is 10k about your own salary !we waited for the rich to have kids because a lot of them are too mean and selfish to have kids.
Do you think you get good value for money from your insurance company? Do you think they pay out too much when lawyers and doctors get involved? Do you think that fraudulent claims and large settlements mean you end up paying more insurance?Lets say someone crashes into me. The other drivers insurance company is footing the bill to fix it - so its not costing me a cent.
The insurance company can have a list of suppliers they will deal with, where rates have been agreed between them and I just drop in the car to get fixed. In most cases decisions will need to be taken around the repairs - should the panel be fixed or replaced etc.
Can the garage inflate the cost to the insurance company? Probably. Will they - who knows, but depending on the amount of work the insurance company gives them, that may not be the best idea for them long term.
I agree. That's my point; the State has a long track record at being rubbish as controlling costs. Add in the medical industry and all the emotive stuff that goes with this and it's a licence to print money.The same should be done if the state wishes to implement this - if not, the state is wasting tax payers money and holding it to account.
It's not about me having a bad experience. It is about an industry which is not in the least price sensitive and the allocation of limited resources. If we do this it means that we don't do something else in healthcare. What should we not do in order to get the money for this?I accept you had a bad experience. It does not mean the state is going to get ripped off in the future by agreeing to support taxpayers when they need that support.
Ok rich was the wrong word we are all rich in something, my point being my ould lad had 10 kids and he hadn't an This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in his trousers and he worked for a large estate in his younger days and I think they had only 2 kids and there is no sighn of them nowRemember the definition of rich is 10k about your own salary !
Why is there an assumption that the benefactors will be Irish private IVF clinics? Why can it not be put out to tender across all of Europe and it could very easily result in increased competition?I would have huge reservations about handing over taxpayer cash to Irish private IVF clinics.
This would have to be a pre-condition of any state support. There needs to be oversight before any state spending happens. Again, this is just basic governance.Firstly to my knowledge there is no regulator/ oversight agency of IVF in this country similar to the UK HFEA.
Second, the Irish clinics tend to get you in for a cycle or two before actually doing several tests, which I and many others would argue should be done initially as part of your baseline fertility investigations
I understand this - but you are not in a public hospital, you are at a private clinic. If I go to the Beacon and I need blood tests done, I will be charged for them also. In the public hospital the state funds the majority of the costs.Aside from this every blood test done in public hospitals in Ireland is not billed unless the patient is an inpatient with private health cover and even then the fee is only around 60 euro for an unlimited volume of blood tests, even if you are in hospital for months.
You will see from above, I have said the same thing repeatedly and we have no experience of the system. There may need to be a transitional process put in place in the interim thoughI seriously think if free IVF is going to be offered here then it should NOT be done in the private sector. Get a public hospital or two to become specialist centres like the Uk where free cycles are on the NHS I.e where the doctors have NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT if you fail.
This should be standard part of any procurement process. The government work with private operators all the time - this is nothing new.
Given the State's track record at regulation how confident are you that this will happen?This would have to be a pre-condition of any state support. There needs to be oversight before any state spending happens. Again, this is just basic governance.
Given the State's track record at regulation how confident are you that this will happen?
In the grand scheme of things, the cost of this will be minimal ...
How will the costs be minimal ?
If you look at my posts, I repeatedly state this. I do not believe we should be funding private operators in this space beyond a transitional period when the state can have build up the required expertise themselves.This industry requires serious scrutiny and proper oversight before any of this funding is rolled out. Why not base the public funded cycles in a couple of the maternity hospitals ?
This is something you will have to ask the clinics themselves.Why do they deliberately try to reduce the odds by not insisting on basing treatment cycles on best available medical evidence ? WHY ?