Editorial

The Times is today carrying a most distressing story. A holidaymaker, a diabetic, fell ill one night. In no time she was seen by a medical doctor and rushed to St Philip's Hospital in a taxi. On the morning of the following day, the tourist, Pamela Grace Page, was seen by Dr Louis Buhagiar and was told that her insurance firm would not pay the bill. She therefore had a choice, either pay the bill herself or be moved to St Luke's.

The holidaymaker could not afford to pay for the medical expenses and agreed to be transferred to the state hospital. In her own words, put in a letter to The Times, the drip was disconnected from her arm within minutes and in no time she was on her way to St Luke's. For the 36 hours she spent at St Philip's, she had to pay, out of her own pockets (at least up to now anyway) Lm674.60.

The Times found this an extraordinary story, and touched by the woman's plight, wrote to all the parties concerned, seeking their reaction. The end result? A list of sharp accusations and counter accusations that ought to be seriously investigated at the highest possible level, not only because of their implications but even more so because, on a humanitarian level, it would seem that a number of British holidaymakers falling seriously ill in Malta and requiring hospital treatment are falling victim of a situation that ought to be unravelled and corrected.

St Philip's is claiming that British insurance companies, including the one from which Mrs Page bought her insurance, are reneging on their legal responsibility towards their clients, a serious charge indeed. It is claiming that when a British visitor requires emergency medical service in Malta, these companies are refusing to cover the costs of this emergency medical treatment and instead are transferring patients to St Luke's invoking the reciprocal health agreement. According to St Philip's, British insurance firms are collecting £28 million a year against estimated claims of less than £5 million.

On their part, International Medical Rescue (IMR) argue that a travel insurance cover is not a private health insurance policy. Under such an insurance, the cover is limited to reasonable and applicable emergency medical treatment. IMR argue that the background to the matter arose last year when they became aware of what they considered were excessive charges for various medical services provided to their insured clients in Malta.

The story is of course far more extensive than this, as the contributions from all the respective parties we are carrying today show only too well. Health Minister Louis Deguara feels the real problem is not a medical issue, but a commercial and financial one between private foreign insurance firms (which fail to inform British tourists of their rights) and local private physicians (who again prefer referring privately insured tourists to private hospitals, failing to inform them of their rights for more than obvious reasons.

The Times trusts that the matter will now be taken up by the Medical Council and that the public will in due course be made aware of its findings.

A final comment: St Philip's could have been more humane with Mrs Page and not disconnect the drip from her arm within minutes of being told that she could not afford to pay.