“While public focus is presently on discretionary medical cards, the HSE has by stealth, introduced a policy of removing legitimate medical cards from older people and those with limited mean, which is nothing short of a 3 card trick” claims Denis Naughten
“The action by Government to reinstate withdrawn discretionary medical cards, while welcome, ignores the fact that the HSE has introduced a policy of removing legitimate medical cards and delaying the reinstatement of others, which is causing financial hardship in some cases”
As I pointed out in the Dáil to Minister Alex White, the HSE now has a policy of temporarily withdrawing legitimate medical cards, which is forcing those on limited means to pay for their GP and medicines, pending the reinstatement of their card.
“In one such case, a 79y/o pensioner, with a number of complex illnesses, has had her medical card removed for a 6 to 8 week period because the HSE had miscalculated her income. So while the HSE have accepted that they made an error, they are forcing the pensioner into appeal the decision in order to get her card back” (see detail below)
“In another case a person with epilepsy has had their medical card withdrawn while on appeal, against the stated policy of the Minister & the HSE”
“To try to make up the cost reduction targets set for medical cards, the HSE has now employed a policy of temporarily removing legitimate cards for a number of weeks”.
“For those on limited household budgets, this can cause serious financial hardship, which of course is the reason why the applicant held a medical card in the first instance”
“This is nothing short of a 3 card trick, and this policy needs to be reversed immediately” concluded Denis Naughten
Editors Note: Dail debate highlighting 5 instances where legitimate cards are being withdrawn
Deputy Denis Naughten:
What I have found in recent months since the whole issue of probity came to the fore is that we are now denying medical cards to people who are legitimately entitled to them, black and white, and not just with the discretionary medical cards. I had a belief this practice was happening in the PCRS but it was only when I came across a recent case that I could actually prove it. I have e-mailed the details to Mr. Paddy Burke and I am still awaiting a response from him.
In this case, a 79 year old woman was informed at the end of April, on the renewal of her medical card by the PCRS, that she had lost her card because she was over the income threshold. Luckily, a relative who lives close by picked up the telephone and got through to the medical card section in Finglas. In fairness, the young woman at the other end of the telephone very politely went through the figures with her and it was realised that the Finglas section had made a mistake. The PCRS had calculated the woman’s HSE widow’s pension, which comes on a fortnightly basis as it does for every single HSE pensioner in the country, on a weekly basis. The PCRS staff member was very apologetic and said the PCRS had made a mistake and that the woman should not have had her medical card withdrawn. However, she then asked if the woman could submit an appeal and get her payslip from the Department of Social Protection along with the payslip from the HSE, and the PCRS would then rectify the matter. Of course, it takes three weeks for the data to go up on the computer systems in Finglas and it takes 15 working days to process the application that goes to Finglas. When nothing came back, I contacted Mr. Burke’s office and pointed out that this woman would probably have to wait six weeks to get back a medical card to which she was entitled, in a situation where his staff made a mistake in regard to the calculation of her entitlement.
Her relative contacted me yesterday, irate, to tell me she had received another letter from Finglas informing her that the payslip did not state that the pension was paid fortnightly by the HSE, and that the PCRS wanted a letter from the HSE stating this. When that went in, the PCRS would reinstate her medical card. Therefore, she will have to wait another three weeks before the case is looked at again. It is just not good enough that a 79 year old woman who is legitimately entitled to a medical card has to go through these loops to get a card. If there was such concern that she had all of this money under the mattress, could someone in the PCRS not pick up the telephone and call the paymasters in the HSE to ask whether its pensions are paid weekly, fortnightly or monthly, and issue the card to the poor woman?
This is a renewal card. My understanding was that when it was a renewal, until a final decision was made on it, the person held onto that card. Of course, the decision to refuse was made on flawed maths and this woman has been denied her entitlement in the interim.
In another case I am currently dealing with, a man who is undergoing cancer treatment returned his renewal application and the PCRS wrote back to him looking for additional documentation. He sent back that documentation but when he went to his GP earlier this week, the GP said, “Tom, I am afraid your medical card is no longer valid”. Again, it was my understanding that, pending any decision on the cards, people would retain their entitlement until a decision was made.
In another case I am dealing with, a young man with epilepsy has appealed a decision to the Ballyshannon office. Again, we are told that once an appeal is submitted, the medical card is reinstated temporarily until a decision is made. He had to go to one of the Dublin hospitals last week, and he was told he did not have a medical card and that he had no cover. He has to go back next week and he telephoned me yesterday in fear of what they are going to say to him when he goes back.
In another case, a young man who is just over 16 years of age has been informed that if he does not respond within 21 days of the date of the letter regarding his application, the case will be closed. The real sting in the tail is that the letter to him states that a new medical card-GP visit card application form will have to be submitted with up-to-date documentation. If anything puts the fear of God in people, particularly sick people, it is having to fill out the form, gather up all the documentation and get it resubmitted to Finglas again, when it should be there on file in the first place.
The reason this young man cannot send back the documentation is that he needs to have his parents’ medical card reference number in order to have the application processed. The difficulty is that the PCRS has his parents’ medical card suspended and they must wait for another six weeks before they will get a decision on that before he can respond. In the meantime, he will be told that, because it is outside the 21 days, he will have to go through the whole rigmarole again.
We deal with the Department of Social Protection on a regular basis, and the target is that documentation has to be sent back within 21 days. It could be 22, 25, or 30 days, depending on the time it takes to get the documentation from the different agencies involved. However, I have yet to have a case where the Department of Social Protection came back to me to say it was rejecting an application because it was outside the 21 days, although if it an application is six or 12 months late it might legitimately dismiss it. The idea with the medical cards is to break people down and to create as much hardship as possible so they will abandon their application. The policy is to try to force people to throw in the towel, to surrender, to put up the white flag. That is what probity is about within the PCRS at the moment.
I have another example in regard to documentation that was sent by e-mail from my office on 8 April last. On 14 May, the PCRS wrote back to the family looking for the same information. The family came to me wondering had I sent on the information, and I had the record that I had sent it. Nonetheless, I sent it on again to the PCRS, enclosing the original documentation, and still no decision has yet been made.
Share this