Seanad debates

Wednesday, 5 July 2006

Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage.

 

8:00 pm

Photo of Camillus GlynnCamillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

Whoever coined the adage that the cure is worse than the disease, this is a typical case. There is no doubt that many people are suffering as a result of contaminated blood products. Unfortunately, what has been done cannot be undone. However, we must do our best, as legislators, to in some way address the situation in so far as is possible. What happened with hepatitis C is the greatest public health tragedy that has occurred since the foundation of the State. Many people were infected with an incurable disease which has changed their lives and prospects, as well as their family and work relationships and their expectancy of living a normal life.

No monetary support or compensation can undo the damage. However, we, as legislators, must do what we can to make life as easy as possible for these people. The House has already enacted two Acts in regard to this tragedy, the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 and the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2002. This Bill seeks to establish a statutory scheme to address insurance difficulties experienced by persons infected with hepatitis C and HIV through the administration within the State of blood and blood products.

At some stage of our lives, we must all get insurance because we do not know the day or the hour when we will need it. In this case, a group of people received a product which was meant to improve their lifestyle and health but which ruined their lives in many ways. Moreover, they could not get insurance. This Bill is an important step in dealing with that difficulty.

The Bill has gone through the other House and is here for this House to deal with. The Tánaiste is a caring Minister and I compliment her on bringing forward the Bill. Unfortunately, everything we do with regard this matter is reactionary because we cannot be proactive as the damage has been done. We are trying to address that damage in some way.

The Bill is a vital measure designed to give further support to people diagnosed with hepatitis C and HIV as a result of contaminated blood products being administered to them. Since 1997, it has been obvious that infected people's inability to buy life assurance or mortgage protection policies was further compounding the damage they had already suffered. This Bill proposes three types of compensation. The hepatitis C and HIV compensation tribunal to date has awarded money to over 2,000 people, approximately 1,000 of whom were anti-D recipients, 700 of whom were transfusion recipients, renal patients and persons with haemophilia, and the remainder who were secondary claimants or dependants who are entitled to claim under a range of headings including loss of consortium, loss of society, carers' expenses and so on. Those who contracted hepatitis C through the administration within the State of blood or blood products are entitled to a health card under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996. All of these measures are of great help. As the Minister stated in her contribution, a range of measures will be put forward. If additional measures can be found to make life easier for those involved, that should be done. This will cost an estimated of €90 million over the lifetime of the scheme.

This is an important measure. When we consider what has been done elsewhere, it is a positive step. Unfortunately, it is necessary to address a serious situation. If more can be done, more should be done. As has been pointed out, no other country has introduced an insurance scheme and the Bill shows that the State is committed to working with the victims of infection to provide all possible supports for them.

The scheme will cover the insurance risk for the 1,700 or more people entitled to avail of insurance products, irrespective of any other medical conditions these people may have, once they pay the standard premium that an uninfected person of the same age and gender would pay. Obviously, in order to have a consistent approach to all three supports, it was agreed by Government that a hepatitis C diagnosis in the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997, the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2002 and the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 should be defined in terms of a scientific test, the ELISA test, or, alternatively, based on whether the person has displayed symptoms of acute infection with jaundice up to 16 weeks after the administration of the infective agent.

While the ELISA test has in the past had its doubters, the Tánaiste rightly pointed out that there has been significant progress in its development. A similar scientific test definition of hepatitis C diagnosis is used in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Canada, where compensation schemes operate. The sections relating to this test will not affect any claims already made to the compensation tribunal.

The symptoms linked with hepatitis C are reflected in other conditions, as noted by the Tánaiste. We should also remember that the expert group on hepatitis C, which is chaired by the Department's chief medical officer and includes representation from leading liver consultants and a member of Positive Action, agreed in 1998 that eligibility for the Health (Amendment) Act card should be on the basis of a positive diagnostic test for hepatitis C.

The objective of the scheme is to provide reasonable access to the insurance market, with certain limitations, for those for whom the cost is prohibitive or cover is unavailable. From its outset in early 1997, a key issue highlighted by the consultative council on hepatitis C was the insurance problem encountered by persons with hepatitis C. Advice was originally obtained by the Department of Health and Children from life assurance experts on the feasibility of developing an insurance scheme and a second phase of work then established the parameters of the scheme. When the draft scheme was devised, officials worked closely with the representative groups on agreeing the final parameters of the scheme. The support groups deserve great credit. They have fought a hard battle trying to get the wrong that has been done corrected and I commend them.

In the wake of representations from the Irish Haemophilia Society, it was agreed that the small number of persons infected only with HIV would also become eligible under the scheme. Most persons with haemophilia who are infected with HIV also have hepatitis C. Persons with hepatitis C and HIV fall into two categories with regard to insurance matters: those who can get insurance, but only with increased premiums, and those who cannot get insurance at all.

What this Bill means is that the State will pay the additional risk premium where the life insurer is willing to provide cover subject to an additional premium and assume the risk on the life cover where the insurer is not willing to provide this cover. In each case the person requiring insurance will pay the average basic premium which an uninfected person of the same age or gender would pay.

As I said, this is an important Bill. Unfortunately it reacts to an existing situation. I hope it goes some way to addressing the great hurt and damage done to the lives of those people who were full of confidence that their illnesses would be treated but found that the cure was worse than the disease. I support the Bill and commend it to the House. If there is anything further that can be done to help those people, it should be done.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.