Crown says hospital misled department

Independent Senator Prof John Crown accused St Vincent's private hospital of giving inaccurate information to the Department of Health by claiming that an inquiry into the billing of insurance companies for drugs was independent.

He produced a document in the Seanad which, he said, showed that a statement made on behalf of the Department of Health before Christmas was based on faulty information.

It had stated that an independent inquiry had taken place into the “fraudulent billing’’ by the administration of St Vincent’s hospital to the VHI and other insurance companies for drugs which had, in fact, been supplied to it free as trial supplies.

While it was a "sincere statement'' it had been based on wrong information given to the department.

Terms of reference
"As it happens I have here in my hand the contract and the terms of reference for this allegedly independent investigation,'' Prof Crown said.

“The investigation was, in fact, initiated and commissioned by the management of St Vincent’s private hospital, the same institution which should have been under investigation.’’

Prof Crown said the hospital had paid for the investigation and drew up the terms of reference.

“Of its seven major headings, it could be argued that six had nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances of the dishonest billing.’’

Prof Crown, who is a consultant at the hospital, asked Seanad leader Maurice Cummins to bring the matter to the attention of Minister for Health Dr James Reilly.

“Finally, it was stated that this contract between PwC and the management of St Vincent’s private hospital – the entity which had done the dishonest billing – would only be made available to the entity whose moneys were taken, that is, the VHI, if it had the approval of the hospital.

“I ask the leader to ask the Minister if he thinks this satisfies any definition of an independent inquiry and, to that end, I will cross the floor and provide the leader with a copy of it.’’

Prof Crown also said he had information which suggested the situation relating to the waiting list for dermatology appointments was still really critical.