Seanad debates

Wednesday, 9 March 2005

Health (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

7:00 pm

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)

Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill which is belated; part of the legislation has been overdue since 1976. I welcome the extension of doctor-only medical cards which is an innovative move by the Minister. It will allay the fears of many people who are deeply concerned about the cost of attending a general practitioner. Eligibility for the new card will be based on the current limit plus 25% or 30%, depending on the number of people coming into the system. Approximately 200,000 people would be eligible for this medical card, which is to be warmly welcomed, although most people would prefer the full general medical card, which has been of great benefit to so many families. I strongly recommend that the means test attached such medical cards is considerably increased because it has not kept pace with the cost of living. I have brought many such cases to the attention of the health boards over the years.

The Travers report which was published today will be debated tomorrow. Therefore, I do not intend to go into detail on it at this stage given that there are many aspects to it. However, in summary, the question posed was whether a person with a medical card had full or partial eligibility under the 1976 regulations. This was the crunch issue. I have been aware over the years that health boards withdrew medical cards from residents of welfare homes under their jurisdiction on the basis that they were being well cared for there both medically and physically.

Moreover, all the patients whom I visited in public welfare homes in the Western Health Board area when I was chairman of it were cared for in the most diligent manner by the staff of those institutions. The level of service was far higher than anything which could be provided in the private sector because of the staffing situation. A number of these patients feel aggrieved that demands for refunds might be made by relatives of theirs who might not have visited with them. Nevertheless, that is the law because the Supreme Court has made a decision in this regard.

The State must repay the money, particularly to the people concerned, with a heart and a half rather than half-heartedly. It should not pay the money grudgingly. Last week I was in contact with the Health Service Executive on a number of occasions, the telephone numbers for which, for the information of Senators Bannon and Finucane, are very easy on which to get through. I received an assurance that the application form would be redesigned, which point I raised last week with the Leader. The form which was provided referred to "a client" or "on behalf of" an applicant, whereas, quite a number of residents are eligible to apply themselves, a point they made clear to me when I met some of them at the weekend. They are applying directly to the executive for a refund of the money.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.