Financing is not mentioned, says Dr Muiris Houston, Medical Correspondent. "Investing in a Quality Public Health Service" is the title of the health section of Fianna Fáil's election manifesto. This is ironic, given that the two-page section of the document contains no specific reference to the amount of money the party would commit to health during the next government.
Perhaps the section's brevity can be forgiven: after all Mr Micheal Martin did present a lengthy National Health Strategy to the nation last November. That was a most extensive blueprint for the development of a decent health service for all.
As yesterday's document states: "the health strategy forms the basis for our agenda for the years ahead" and "in government, Fianna Fáil will implement the National Health Strategy, through a co-ordinated multi-annual programme of service development".
It is a pity the term "multi-annual" was not followed by "funding". The single biggest criticism of the National Health Strategy has been Mr Charlie McCreevy's failure to give a clear-cut commitment to funding the strategy over its 10-year implementation period.
Although the health manifesto boasts of having already put in place €749 million of full-year funding for health-service development, it is devoid of any specific commitment to funding the National Health Strategy as a future priority.
This will worry doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals and the public, and is perhaps something the electorate should question their local candidates about.
In terms of specifics, the health manifesto promises a permanent end to waiting lists in hospitals within two years. It says Fianna Fáil will "implement a full range of measures to improve accident and emergency services by significantly reducing waiting times and having senior doctors available at all times". The latter suggests a significant renegotiation of the hospital consultants' common contract.
The manifesto promises a set of "national quality protocols" which will require that all patients, irrespective of where they live, receive the quality of care which they require.
If this means an end to the two-tier health system, especially for inner-city areas and remote communities, then it must be welcomed. An interesting proposal is one which states: "give hospitals extra resources where they can specifically show how, as a result, they can treat more patients in a more efficient way". Does this represent some softening in Mr McCreevy's position and a minor victory for Mr Martin? It suggests that hospitals will be given "qualified" funding, which is an advance on comments made by the Minister for Finance in a recent interview.
He told a medical newspaper that, without systems to identify the outputs and outcomes being delivered by the present level of funding, "no prudent minister for finance can justify committing more money to health".
The document reiterates the National Health Strategy's commitment to the development of primary care and promises to extend medical-card eligibility to over 200,000 extra people.
In a section on disability and caring, there is a commitment to end "the inappropriate use of psychiatric facilities for people with learning difficulties". However, there is no specific mention of the vaccination crisis in the manifesto. Notwithstanding the previous publication of the National Health Strategy, the depth of this manifesto is disappointing.
It suggests a party that is content to ride the election on the back of the broadly welcomed National Health Strategy.