[ad_1]
The doctor who received a leaked document from Tánaiste Leo Varadkar relating to a € 210 million agreement between the state and a group of GPs has said it was given to him as part of a pre-existing agreement to share information.
A statement released Sunday night by Dr. Maitiú Ó Tuathail matches elements of the version of events described by Varadkar on Saturday, including the claim that the contents of the leaked document were largely finalized at the time when he received it.
In the statement, Dr. Ó Tuathail said that the group of GPs of which he was president at the time, the National Association of General Practitioners (NAGP), had been involved in “extensive consultations” with the Department of Health and the HSE on chronic disease. management program, which was part of the deal finally agreed, throughout 2018.
However, the NAGP was not directly involved in the discussions on the entirety of the new agreement, which was eventually concluded with the Irish Medical Organization, a rival group.
The statement, which was jointly signed by Dr. Andrew Jordan, who was president of the NAGP, says the conversations involved monthly meetings with both parties, and that the association was aware of the main content of the new contract proposed by the state.
“We received a copy of the finalized, agreed and announced program for chronic disease management from the then Taoiseach in mid-April. This was seen as a continuation of the Government’s decision to consult with the NAGP and its GP members and keep them informed at all times ”.
The sensitivity of the information received, and the degree to which it can be considered to have been largely approved at the time the leak occurred, is likely to be a key part of the political fallout from the controversy in the days ahead.
While the NAGP had a copy of the document in its possession in mid-April, it did not distribute it to members to promote acceptance of the proposed new agreement.
On Sunday, Dr. Ó Tuathail said this was due to internal problems facing the organization at the time.
Former NAGP leaders argue that their union, which was dissolved in disarray after financial troubles in 2019, could not take a position on the document “without full access to the details it contained.”
“It was wrong for one group of GPs to have access to the details of a chronic disease management program and for another group of GPs to not have the same access to that information, given that the NAGP and its members participated in its training, “they said.
“The chronic disease management program was going to be implemented for all GPs, and therefore all GPs had the right to understand what the program entailed and what would be required of them.”
[ad_2]