MINISTER FOR Health James Reilly scaled back the reduction in fees paid to GPs for administering the primary childhood immunisation originally sought by Department of Health officials.
In late October the Minister authorised cuts of 7.5 per cent in fees paid to family doctors for carrying out childhood immunisations. The move formed part of an overall reduction in a number of fee payments made under the provisions of the Government’s financial emergency legislation.
However, new documents show that Department of Health officials had sought sanction from the Minister to reduce the fees paid under the primary childhood immunisation scheme by 15 per cent.
In a handwritten note to officials, Dr Reilly said the proposed cut in the childhood immunisation scheme payments should be scaled back given that other fees for GPs were being reduced by 30 per cent or more at the same time.
The Minister authorised reductions in fees paid to GPs in relation to administering the seasonal flu vaccine, the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV), and the combined PPV and seasonal flu injection in line with the proposals put forward by department officials.
Under the measures, the fee for administering the seasonal flu vaccine was cut from €42 to €28.50. The new fee for administering the PPV was also set at €28.50. The fee to be paid to GPs for administering the combined seasonal flu and PPV vaccine was set at €42.75.
Department of Health documents also state that the Irish Medical Organisation had warned it could take judicial review proceedings over an attempt to reduce fees earlier in the year.
The documents state that technical difficulties which had delayed the drafting of regulations to reduce immunisation fees for some time were resolved in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in early July 2001.
“When the Minister was briefed on this, he indicated that he was minded to impose reductions in excess of 15 per cent in respect of a number of fee categories, in particular in respect of the seasonal flu vaccination programme.
“In accordance with previous practice, the IMO was advised informally of the Minister’s intentions during the week commencing July 12th. The IMO took issue with the making of regulations on the grounds that there had not been a recent consultation process as required by the FEMPI [financial emergency] legislation.
“The IMO also pointed out that the reductions proposed exceeded what they had previously been advised would be the case.
The IMO intimated that judicial review might be taken if the regulations were made.
“The department received legal advice to the effect that it would be prudent to engage in a fresh consultation process to forestall the possibility of legal proceedings.”
