That chart only shows life expectancy and mortality from heart disease, outcomes of interaction with health services goes further than that.
@Purple made a specific claim that Irish health outcomes were worst in the OECD.
I wasn't responding to Purple's point, just your assertion that the chart somehow confirmed 'Ireland does not have the worst health outcomes in the OECD'.
Would you like to point to other consistent, international measures of health outcomes that would better make your case?
No, politics is about bribing people with their own money (or their neighbours money).We really should be running a 3-5bn annual fiscal surplus, given GDP and employment levels / growth rates.
Yet no politician calls for this, do they?
Would you like to point to other consistent, international measures of health outcomes that would better make your case?
To measure the outcome of health spending, you need to gather data on those the health service has interacted with and the effectiveness of treatments provided. Longevity is more influenced by wealth, and so is a poor indicator of the value for money in health spending.
Thanks, that's the point I was making. This thread is about the Fiscal Council Report and why everyone agrees with it but no government spending is framed with the report in mind.Ireland may well have a very inefficient health service in the OECD when you look at the outputs given the inputs.
The reason children with special needs and sick old people don't get the services they need is mainly the fault of the people working within the organisations providing the services.
There is massive pressure on the exchequer every year to keep pumping money into the leaky bucket that is our Public Services. The potential savings run into the billions. The money saved, or the future not spent, could be used to reduce our debt.I don't doubt that there is wide scope for improved efficiencies, but where does this fit with reducing national debt?
It is possible to improve efficiencies without necessarily saving money. All that may happen is that waiting lists are reduced - which is a good thing, but that does not necessarily transfer into cost savings. It just means we get bang for our buck.
There is massive pressure on the exchequer every year to keep pumping money into the leaky bucket that is our Public Services. The potential savings run into the billions. The money saved, or the future not spent, could be used to reduce our debt.
Your previous point seemed to confuse measures of efficiency (ratio of outputs to inputs) to outcomes.
Which post are you referring to there?
In health spending terms, what ratio of outputs to inputs do you mean? A ratio is the relationship between two numbers.
This one.
Measure such as treatments delivered per €1000 of spending.
It is easy to confuse the outputs of the health service with overall health outcomes.
You are taking lines out of context and misrepresenting what I'm saying, thereby taking the thread further off topic.I find that pretty bizarre, and insulting, but that is your prerogative to be so if you wish.
The discussion will hopefully continue on topic now.
The comment you quoted was from a post about what can happen if the system is made more productive.
In the Public it could mean the delivery of the same services at a lower cost or, more likely, the delivery of the same services faster and therefore at a lower cost.I don't think anyone disagrees with what can happen if any system is made more productive.
My point was that in making the system more productive and efficient does not always and necessarily transfer into cost savings. In the private sector it may just mean increased revenues, in the public sector it could just be better delivery of services.
When it comes to LEAN and the process improvements that deliver the biggest results, the low hanging fruit, it usually costs very little. Changing inefficient structures and removing layers of bureaucracy requires very little investment relative to the savings. It usually means people just taking responsibility for their own actions.It is of course possible that new processes, training, technology etc can result in cost savings in the round but in general terms they typically require investment (more spending) before the fruits of those efficiencies are borne.
When I listen to the populist tripe spouted by Trade Unions, most of the Independent Alliance, the Shinners and many in FF it is far from a given that the message being given by the FAC is inherently understood. I know opposition politicians are populist until they are in power and have to deal with reality but in economic matters when ideology trumps reality it is very dangerous.In turn, to me, the FAC is a waste of resources because it offers nothing that is not already inherently understood. That it is not inherently adhered to is a consequence of political considerations far beyond its remit.
When I listen to the populist tripe spouted by Trade Unions, most of the Independent Alliance, the Shinners and many in FF it is far from a given that the message being given by the FAC is inherently understood.
Ah there is. Pascal in trying to keep the lid on things and, taking everything into account, is doing a good job.So basically, across the whole political spectrum there is nobody representing the values of fiscal prudence as advised by the FAC.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?