Be the first to like this.
5 comment(s). Last comment by EngineeringProfit 1 month ago
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 1 month ago | Report Abuse
The financial burden of negligence in Full-Paying Patient schemes should not fall on taxpayers. The consultants who profit from these schemes should be required to have their own insurance policies to cover any potential claims. This approach promotes fairness, maintains public trust in healthcare, and ensures that public funds are used responsibly for the benefit of all citizens.
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 1 month ago | Report Abuse
Requiring consultants engaged in private practice to maintain their own insurance ensures that they are personally accountable for their actions. Just as other professionals, from lawyers to contractors, are required to carry liability insurance when operating private services, medical consultants offering FPP services should bear the same responsibility. This not only aligns with broader professional standards but also encourages a higher level of care, as practitioners are aware that they will be personally liable for their mistakes.
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 1 month ago | Report Abuse
It is crucial to understand that consultants under the FPP scheme are conducting a form of private business within a public institution. They generate personal income through this system, often charging premium rates for their services. It is therefore unjust for the public, through their taxes, to be held accountable for potential malpractice claims. If negligence occurs, it should be the responsibility of the consultant who reaps the financial rewards, not the state or its taxpayers.
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 1 month ago | Report Abuse
In public hospitals, the Full-Paying Patient (FPP) scheme allows consultants to offer private services to patients willing to pay for expedited or specialized care. While this system provides benefits for those who can afford it and alleviates pressure on the public healthcare system, it also introduces new risks, especially in cases of medical negligence. A key issue arises when errors occur under this scheme: should taxpayers’ money be used to compensate for negligence, or should the responsibility fall on the consultants who benefit financially from private practice?
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 1 month ago | Report Abuse
Using taxpayer money to compensate for negligence in these cases undermines public trust in the healthcare system. Public hospitals are meant to provide equitable access to healthcare, and when negligence in private schemes within these institutions is covered by public funds, it diverts resources that could be better spent improving services for non-paying patients. At a time when healthcare budgets are strained, it is particularly inappropriate for public funds to be used to cover the risks of private earnings.
No result.
1
3
BFM Podcast
4
BFM Podcast
6
7
BFM Podcast
8
BFM Podcast
#
Stock
Score
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock
Time
Signal
Duration
Stock
Time
Signal
Duration
CS Tan
4.9 / 5.0
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 1 month ago | Report Abuse
Paying up to half a million dollars. More wastage of tax payers' money as more to come..........