What is particularly striking in the latest report on the healthcare service, published just days ago, is the fact that more people are seeking private treatment, confirming the dissatisfaction over the public health service.

According to the report, Health Systems in Transitions, four main reasons are being given for this: greater personal attention; better continuity of care; the facility to set appointments at convenient times and avoiding waiting lists for surgery. Few people actually complain about the quality of service received in public hospitals.

What is irksome to most is the delay in getting served and, at times, the inconvenience that the shortage of bed space is causing to patients, more so when they are put in corridors.

Public health service is never out of the national radar and, in truth, it should never be, until it improves. One report after another pinpoints the same problems, the same logistical scenario and the same frustrations.

The John Dalli report, published last November, mirrors the conclusions of the €1.3 million Johns Hopkins review: political interference, non-existent management, waste and pushy unions.

Everybody is now aware of the situation and what needs to be done for the public health service to move ahead.

What is now required is strong determination to start tackling the problems from their roots, a matter that is easier said than done in an environment that is still not free of political interference. This is, in fact, one of the main problems.

Another is financial sustainability, something the two main political parties talk a lot about but are scared stiff of touching for fear of losing votes.

They agree the service ought to be financially sustainable and argue that the country can continue to sustain a free health service to all on the back of a greater rate of economic growth.

However, since there is no guarantee that the rate of economic growth is going to be enough to enable administrations to continue offering a free public health service, it would be wise if the two main political parties were, for once, to put their heads together in the hope of seeing what can be done.

They have a golden opportunity to do this within the parliamentary health committee – being set up after a proposal by the Opposition health spokesman. This is an admirable step that could finally lead to bipartisan approval.

The Opposition has already picked quite a number of points it wishes to see put on the agenda of the committee, an indication that it wants to take up the work in earnest. Quite rightly, too, it is highlighting the need for an improvement in industrial relations between the administration and the nurses’ union.

The frequent frictions between the two can only generate further mistrust, a matter that will not help in the efforts to bring about the urgent reforms needed to make the service more efficient. Of all the items on the agenda that are waiting to be tackled, this is definitely one of the most important because no progress could possibly be made unless the people working in the service are happy in their work.

A most serious problem that is rarely brought up, simply because it has existed under all administrations, is clientelism, which was clearly highlighted in the Johns Hopkins report. Now that is probably the hardest nut to crack.

The unions would do well to tone down the unnecessary macho talk that does nothing to instill public confidence in an essential service.