Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 320: To ask the Minister for Social Protection the average and longest waiting times for a decision on applications for domiciliary care allowance and the average and longest waiting times for the conclusion of appeals against the refusal of domiciliary care allowance. [2204/11]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 321: To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number and percentage of applications for domiciliary care allowance that were refused at the initial stage each year for the past five years. [2205/11]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 322: To ask the Minister for Social Protection the total number of applications for domiciliary care allowance each year for the past five years. [2206/11]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 323: To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number and percentage of refusals of domiciliary care allowance that were appealed each year for the past five years. [2207/11]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 324: To ask the Minister for Social Protection if he will provide a breakdown of the outcome of appeals against the refusal of domiciliary care allowance including the percentage of appeals that were successful each year for the past five years. [2208/11]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 325: To ask the Minister for Social Protection the guidelines governing decision making on domiciliary care allowance and when were these amended. [2209/11]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 320 to 325, inclusive, together.

Since the 1st April 2009 this Department has been accepting new claims for domiciliary care allowance (DCA). Statistics relating to the period prior to April 2009 are not held by this Department as the scheme was the responsibility of the Health Service Executive (HSE) until that date. The main change to the qualifying conditions for the DCA scheme, since it transferred to this Department in 2009, is that it is now a statutory scheme with the primary legislation provided for in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2008. The medical criteria require that "the child has a severe disability requiring continual or continuous care and attention substantially in excess of the care and attention normally required by a child of the same age".

As there were no agreed national medical guidelines for the scheme while it was administered by the HSE, an Expert Medical Group was established, in advance of the transfer to this Department. The Group considered that the most appropriate way for the Department to conduct assessments for medical eligibility was by assessing evidence submitted by the claimant and the health professionals, rather than by way of individual examination by the Department's Medical Assessors, as they are not involved in the treatment of the child. The application process operated by the Department involves the submission of a detailed statement by the parent or guardian of the child; a detailed medical assessment by the child's general practitioner; and any other relevant evidence available from qualified experts who have examined the child. This evidence is then assessed by designated Departmental Medical Assessors who have received special training in the area of child disability.

Claim processing statistics for 2009.

In the period 1st April 2009 to 31st December 2009 a total of 3,389 DCA applications were received by the Department. 2,823 DCA applications were fully processed by the Departments in 2009 of which 1,792 were deemed not to satisfy the criteria for the scheme. The refusal percentage on new applications in 2009 was 63%. The average processing time in 2009 was 7 weeks.

There were 836 appeals registered in 2009 with 46% of customers appealing their decision. There were 11 DCA appeals processed by an Appeals Officer in this year with 6 appeals allowed, a 54% success rate.

Claim processing statistics for 2010.

In 2010 a total of 5,457 DCA applications were received by the Department. 5,333 DCA applications were processed by the Department in 2010 of which 3,275 were deemed not to satisfy the criteria for the scheme. The refusal percentage on new applications in 2010 was 61%. Average processing time in 2010 was under 8 weeks.

1,848 appeals were registered in 2010 with 56% of customers appealing their decision. 622 DCA appeals were processed by an Appeals Officer in 2010 with 224 appeals allowed; this indicates an appeal success rate of 36%.

DCA decision times generally do not exceed 8-9 weeks unless the customer is waiting for medical reports to append to their application or documentary proof to satisfy the Habitual Residence Condition. Social Welfare appeals can be dealt with in the Social Welfare Appeals Office by way of summary decision or oral hearing. The average time taken to process DCA appeals decided by summary decision to date is 13.3 weeks, with appeals decided following an oral hearing taking an average of 49.1 weeks. A considerable period of time is added to the process when an oral hearing is required because of the logistics involved in this process.

A number of measures have been taken to improve processes and to increase the throughput of appeals cases generally in the Social Welfare Appeals Office. In addition to the provision of extra staff, more emphasis is now being placed on dealing with appeals on a summary basis so as to increase productivity. A project to improve the business processes in the Social Welfare Appeals Office was also undertaken which has resulted in a number of improvements being implemented and significant enhancements have been made to the office's IT and phone systems.

I am assured by the Chief Appeals Officer that she is keeping current processes under continuous review with a view to achieving a more effective throughput of appeals, while ensuring that any progress does not conflict with due process in terms of the rights of appellants and adherence to the requirements of natural justice.