Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The issue I raise relates to reviews of medical cards which have been granted on medical hardship grounds. Reviews are frequently carried out soon after the medical card has been granted. I am aware of a number of cases where reviews are being done of medical cards that were allocated until April 2015. A problem arises because the evidence provided by medical card holders is not retained and is, therefore, not available to the officials carrying out the review. This means the medical card holder must gather this evidence again as part of the review, which can be costly, especially if they need to visit a general practitioner or consultant. While data protection issues may well arise in these circumstances, these could be overcome if medical card holders were asked to sign a data protection waiver.

I will illustrate the problem I describe by citing a number of cases with which I am dealing. One case involves a young father aged in his 30s who has experienced kidney failure and is being maintained on medication. He is not yet on dialysis. The young man has a mortgage to pay and was awarded a medical card on medical hardship grounds. As part of the review, he must again gather all the evidence he provided for the initial application. His medical card has been withdrawn and he has lodged an appeal. It will not be in anyone's interests if this man cannot afford his medication as the cost to the health service will be higher.

Another case involves an eight year old child with profound disabilities who is in a wheelchair and is fed through a tube. She has the mental age of an eight month old baby and while her parents would love her medical diagnosis to change, that will not happen. The child was awarded a medical card until April 2015 but an early review was initiated, with the result that the parents must go through the whole process of gathering the evidence again because it is not retained by the relevant officials. The same problem arises in respect of another child with a heart problem, which is not likely to change.

In another case, a man in his early 60s who is receiving chemotherapy treatment is unable to work because his condition has worsened. The family do not want to get a letter stating his condition is terminal because they want to hold out some hope. He, too, is being put through a rigorous review.

While I understand that people's financial circumstances change, the medical conditions of many of the individuals in question are unlikely to change. I ask that the rules governing medical card reviews be relaxed to assist people who genuinely need a medical card for reasons of medical hardship. They should not have to endure the torture of having to repeatedly gather certain information given that their health condition will not change.

See this speech in context