Medical card review process to stop immediately

cloud493

The review of medical cards is to stop with immediate affect.
The Minister with Responsibility for Primary Care, Alex White, is to make the announcement in the Dáil shortly.
A senior government source has told TheJournal.ie that medical need will be pertinent in the case of issuing a medical card.
It is also understood that the review of medical cards will stop.
TheJournal.ie have been informed that a panel of experts will be established by the HSE to assess conditions that would qualify on medical need. They will be charged with drawing up conditions that would qualify for a card.
In the interim, the review of medical cards will cease.
No timeline has been given as to when these changes will take place, but it is believed that legislation may be needed.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/medical-card-review-process-stop-immediately-151434360.html#dg21EWv


Have to wonder what prompted it

Scuid Mhór

Anyone else surprised it took this long for this thread to be made?

To answer your question OP, public backlash is probably a valid theory.

mickydoomsux

Cool beans.

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

cloud493

Public backlash hasn't stopped a lot of stuff though. I'm surprised.

Duiske

cloud493 wrote: »

Have to wonder what prompted it

Sending review letters to the parents of kids with Downs Syndrome asking if the condition had improved probably played a part, along with a kicking by the electorate. The latter probably had more to do with it, sadly.

Cathy.C

About time.

mickydoomsux

Just listening to some analysis on the radio and this change is probably going to cost the HSE millions, if not tens of millions by the end of the year.

And the general consensus seems to be that they are already running 60-80 million over budget so far this year.

Budget 2014 should be fun.

Scuid Mhór

cloud493 wrote: »

Public backlash hasn't stopped a lot of stuff though. I'm surprised.

That's a good point to be fair. This issue has been quite prominent among the people for a while though.

cloud493

Aye. It's a good and bad thing I guess.

Karl Stein

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

Listen to this gibberish.

Banjo String

The squirming and back pedaling has begun.

You're listening now alright. Aren't you Enda?

.

DrumSteve

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Cool beans.

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

I dont mind kids or people with serious illnesses getting the card.

The HSE ****ed up,simple as. Now they gotta hold off.I wouldnt blame the people for that.

mickydoomsux

Banjo String wrote: »

The squirming and back pedaling has begun.

You're listening now alright. Aren't you Enda?

.

Wait, so it was a bad thing in the first place and now the back-down is a bad thing?

Birneybau

This had a big effect on it:

http://www.ourchildrenshealth.ie/

Kristopherus

cloud493 wrote: »

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/medical-card-review-process-stop-immediately-151434360.html#dg21EWv


Have to wonder what prompted it

OP, you, Yahoo & and that bastion of integrity, the Journal, are totally incorrect. What has been suspended is the review of discretionary medical cards. Discretionary medical cards make up a small percentage of the total no. of medical cards. And the number of discretionary cards refused is tiny. Of course people believe the media in any issue such as this.

mickydoomsux

DrumSteve wrote: »

I dont mind kids or people with serious illnesses getting the card.

Even if they/their parents can easily afford the treatment or have private health insurance?

eviltwin

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Even if they/their parents can easily afford the treatment or have private health insurance?

Who says they can afford the treatment? The income limits for a medical card are pretty low, even on a "good" wage if you have a child or partner with an ongoing condition needing lifelong care you're going to find it nearly impossible to provide that care on top of all your other outgoings.

sillysmiles

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Even if they/their parents can easily afford the treatment or have private health insurance?

Yes, because there is more to having a sick child that the cost of medicine. The parents will still have to pay for the additional costs incurred by all the extra visits to the hospital.

mickydoomsux

eviltwin wrote: »

Who says they can afford the treatment?

Means testing.

eviltwin

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Means testing.

The income limits are based on your means not your medical need. That is no use to someone whose medical care is ongoing and expensive.

You might have to take your child to hospital every week, you might need regular meds or medical equipment, you might need to modify your home, you might have to pay for extras like home nurses, respite etc, you might have overnight stays or transport costs if you aren't close to a hospital....all that adds up.

Banjo String

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Wait, so it was a bad thing in the first place and now the back-down is a bad thing?

No, it's a good thing. I'm struggling as to how you reckon I thought it was a 'bad thing'?


Please enlighten me Micky. You kinda tend to see things that aren't there regularly.

mickydoomsux

eviltwin wrote: »

The income limits are based on your means not your medical need. That is no use to someone whose medical care is ongoing and expensive.

You might have to take your child to hospital every week, you might need regular meds or medical equipment, you might need to modify your home, you might have to pay for extras like home nurses, respite etc, you might have overnight stays or transport costs if you aren't close to a hospital....all that adds up.

I agree that it does add up.

You asked the question about who/what decides if someone can afford it and means testing is the answer, for better or worse.

This kind of thing was always going to be a sticky issue for any government who tried to tackle it. They were always going to be accused of being heartless bastards etc.

It is a bit of a shame to see this kind of back-down because it sets a bad precedent that if their is enough media/public hysterics then cost cutting measures will be reversed.

Banjo String

Showing compassion to kids with downs syndrome, leukemia, spina bifida is a set back. OK........

Meanwhile Bono, Mick O'Leary and Michael Flatleys of the country get child benefit payments.

Which of the two scenarios do you reckon should be means tested?

mickydoomsux

Banjo String wrote: »

Showing compassion to kids with downs syndrome, leukemia, spina bifida is a set back. OK........

Meanwhile Bono, Mick O'Leary and Michael Flatleys of the country get child benefit payments.

Which of the two scenarios do you reckon should be means tested?

Both.

DrumSteve

sillysmiles wrote: »

Yes, because there is more to having a sick child that the cost of medicine. The parents will still have to pay for the additional costs incurred by all the extra visits to the hospital.

If they pay their taxes why should they be any less entitled to state assistance for a long term illness?

Tail Docker

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Cool beans.

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

Bit schnide there tbh. Do you really think kids with downs syndrome and others in dire need of a medical card really deserve to be interrogated? I'd rather they weren't, tbh. Go find another area to slash, there's plenty to choose from.

edit: didn't read past that, others have already said it.

Woodville56

Banjo String wrote: »

Showing compassion to kids with downs syndrome, leukemia, spina bifida is a set back. OK........

Meanwhile Bono, Mick O'Leary and Michael Flatleys of the country get child benefit payments.

Which of the two scenarios do you reckon should be means tested?

Short answer - both ! Or do you believe that high income families with sick children should be granted discretionary medical cards irrespective of financial circumstances ? Similarly an ill adult in a high income family - should they also be granted a discretionary medical card - it would be virtually impossible to legislate for "illness specific" medical cards as the degree of dependency may vary from family to family having regard to severity of the illness and the family's capacity to fund their medical and/or related social needs from their own resources l

fleet_admiral

Duiske wrote: »

Sending review letters to the parents of kids with Downs Syndrome asking if the condition had improved probably played a part, along with a kicking by the electorate. The latter probably had more to do with it, sadly.

my wife's uncle lost 4 fingers on his right hand in an accident in smurfit printers a few years ago. he got a letter 2 weeks ago asking him if his condition had improved.

Woodville56

Interesting hearing Billy Kellegher FF spokesman on Health criticising the removal of discretionary medical cards . The root of this fiasco was a decision taken initially by FF government to centralise the administration of the medical card scheme to an office in Dublin. Previously this work was done locally in each local HSE community services offices where staff were accustomed to dealing with such cases in a reasonable and sympathetic way - local knowledge and local access for families affected etc. The reason the local processing of medical cards was centralised on a national basis was "allegedly" all about streamlining and creating uniformity in the process ?? In reality it was about saving money and centralising power around medical card allocation - thus the mess we have now !! Much as Mt Kelkegher protests about the current problems with medical cards, it's present management and decision making is a product of FF policy, which unfortunately was continued by the FG/Lab lot !

mickydoomsux

Tail Docker wrote: »

Bit schnide there tbh. Do you really think kids with downs syndrome and others in dire need of a medical card really deserve to be interrogated? I'd rather they weren't, tbh. Go find another area to slash, there's plenty to choose from.

edit: didn't read past that, others have already said it.

Asking someone to fill out a form and send it back to get a medical card isn't putting them through a traumatic experience.

Turtwig

Yeah I don't understand. It's not like the letter is individually written. It's just checking if a person's circumstances are still the same. Cases of misdiagnosis do happen. People do fraud the system. Can't really see the problem in people receiving review letters. Losing a card unfairly? Yes. Letter of review? No problem with me.

Lou.m

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Cool beans.

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

As someone who is the daughter of a Dad with cancer and who as a family has paid tens of thousands in tax I want to tell your little self where to go.

We went private ..we found out after my dad's diagnoses that patients with cancer were no longer going to automatically get medical cards.

My dad came from nothing and worked his way up to an executive level position. The state medical system is not just about money it is about structure private is disjointed and a mess.

The hospital he was SUPPOSED to originally be treated in was sold to another company that did not carry his insurer and his doctor was no longer going to be there. We had to drive to Waterford for his treatment and then back. Private health care is not about the patient.

I cannot tell you how bloody angry your post makes me.

FREE STUFF??? IT'S NOT FREE WE PAY TAX... my dad has paid for his treatment in tax many times over. :mad::mad::mad:

Review letters waste time for some people for whom time is of the essence.

Put people first profit second.

Turtwig

Cancer, including the particularly aggressive ones, was never an automatic entitlement to a medical card. Sounds stupid, but there you go.

bumper234

Tail Docker wrote: »

Bit schnide there tbh. Do you really think kids with downs syndrome and others in dire need of a medical card really deserve to be interrogated? I'd rather they weren't, tbh. Go find another area to slash, there's plenty to choose from.

edit: didn't read past that, others have already said it.

FFS not this again? How was anyone "interrogated? A standardised form gets sent out with a **** load of questions on it and you are asked to answer the questions and send it back. Of course the child still has downs syndrome but the wailing and gnashing of teeth is akin to you getting your frillies in a twist when you have to answer male/female on a form! You have not changed sex since then (yes i know it's possible whereas it's impossible to be cured of DS) so you just answer. Is it a bit insensitive to some parents/patients? Sure it is but if you are means testing then these questions (insensitive or not) need to be on the form and answered.

hju6

bumper234 wrote: »

FFS not this again? How was anyone "interrogated? A standardised form gets sent out with a **** load of questions on it and you are asked to answer the questions and send it back. Of course the child still has downs syndrome but the wailing and gnashing of teeth is akin to you getting your frillies in a twist when you have to answer male/female on a form! You have not changed sex since then (yes i know it's possible whereas it's impossible to be cured of DS) so you just answer. Is it a bit insensitive to some parents/patients? Sure it is but if you are means testing then these questions (insensitive or not) need to be on the form and answered.

As the condition is not curable or indeed not going to change isn't it a waste of money and time to send the form in the first place ?

delw

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Asking someone to fill out a form and send it back to get a medical card isn't putting them through a traumatic experience.

You'd think that but it's the dragging out the process i.e : we need more information etc...over a couple of months while the persons medical card expires,not everyone is wealthy enough to afford their medication/doctors visits without medical card

Turtwig

hju6 wrote: »

As the condition is not curable or indeed not going to change isn't it a waste of money and time to send the form in the first place ?

It depends. Preferably you want some level of oversight. If a child gets diagnosed with condition, e.g downs, and has a medical card sans review for life that leaves the potential for abuse in the system. What's to check if a family emigrating the country sets someone's else child as downs for so that family will have the medical card for life for an unnecessary condition.

Misdiagnosis does happen. Sometimes the condition worsens. The child dies. In all these cases you want to ensure the state hasn't unnecessary expenditure.

The flip side to all the above is the question of whether the cost of oversight recoups its worth in fraud? If it doesn't, then it's not cost effective. But depending on one's political beliefs it may still be right thing to do.

Stheno

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Just listening to some analysis on the radio and this change is probably going to cost the HSE millions, if not tens of millions by the end of the year.

And the general consensus seems to be that they are already running 60-80 million over budget so far this year.

Budget 2014 should be fun.

Why should it? They already supply the medical cards, it's not as if they will have an influx of new applicants to deal with, just the current ones.

keith16

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Just listening to some analysis on the radio and this change is probably going to cost the HSE millions, if not tens of millions by the end of the year.

And the general consensus seems to be that they are already running 60-80 million over budget so far this year.

Budget 2014 should be fun.

Yeah because the previous 6 budgets have been great too.

The HSE is over budget by 80 million in Q1. If that continues to the end of the year, that's 320 million. If this "analysis" you heard estimates that medical card costs even 50 million, that's 15% of the total OVERSPEND, so likely a much lower % of ACTUAL spend.

Tbh, I'm sick of your sheeple attitude and your austerity sthick. Advocating austerity the way you do is taken from the ladybird book of economics and is the kind of thinking that has this country where it is.

hju6

Turtwig wrote: »

It depends. Preferably you want some level of oversight. If a child gets diagnosed with condition, e.g downs, and has a medical card sans review for life that leaves the potential for abuse in the system. What's to check if a family emigrating the country sets someone's else child as downs for so that family will have the medical card for life for an unnecessary condition.

Misdiagnosis does happen. Sometimes the condition worsens. The child dies. In all these cases you want to ensure the state hasn't unnecessary expenditure.

The flip side to all the above is the question of whether the cost of oversight recoups its worth in fraud? If it doesn't, then it's not cost effective. But depending on one's political beliefs it may still be right thing to do.

"Someone sets someone's else child as downs"

Are you right in the head ?

ProfessorPlum

Woodville56 wrote: »

Short answer - both ! Or do you believe that high income families with sick children should be granted discretionary medical cards irrespective of financial circumstances ? Similarly an ill adult in a high income family - should they also be granted a discretionary medical card - it would be virtually impossible to legislate for "illness specific" medical cards as the degree of dependency may vary from family to family having regard to severity of the illness and the family's capacity to fund their medical and/or related social needs from their own resources l

"High income families" pay huge amounts of tax and fund their own health care as well as subsidising others. Is it fair that if a high income family, or anyone else for that matter, suffers a chronic illness or has a child with a chronic illness, should be financially ruined by paying for treatment for that illness? I think people sometimes forget that we need these high income earners and high rate of tax payers to pay the taxes to pay for all the stuff we sometimes take for granted.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Asking someone to fill out a form and send it back to get a medical card isn't putting them through a traumatic experience.

If only it was just a form! Also, the GPs end up having to fill out these forms. Our primary care system is already stretched beyond limits - I think our GPs have better things to be doing.

Turtwig

hju6 wrote: »

"Someone sets someone's else child as downs"

Are you right in the head ?

Nope, but that's not for this thread. Typo ridden post aside the spirit of my point about fraud and checking for it should hopefully still be comprehensive.

beardy_brady

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

"High income families" pay huge amounts of tax and fund their own health care as well as subsidising others. Is it fair that if a high income family, or anyone else for that matter, suffers a chronic illness or has a child with a chronic illness, should be financially ruined by paying for treatment for that illness? I think people sometimes forget that we need these high income earners and high rate of tax payers to pay the taxes to pay for all the stuff we sometimes take for granted.




If only it was just a form! Also, the GPs end up having to fill out these forms. Our primary care system is already stretched beyond limits - I think our GPs have better things to be doing.

primary care (GP,s) provide a much slimmer service than in most countries , in australia you can get an xray in a gp clinic, here you can read five year old magazines

the problem with GP,s being overstretched is their are not near enough of them but thats the sectors own desire

ProfessorPlum

beardy_brady wrote: »

primary care (GP,s) provide a much slimmer service than in most countries , in australia you can get an xray in a gp clinic, here you can read five year old magazines

Your point?

steddyeddy

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Cool beans.

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

There was people with down syndrome under review. Do you understand the implications of that?

steddyeddy

The review is necessary in order to determine if people do really need it. The thing that isn't needed is some marvellously stupid person sending a review form about to the mother of a person with a chromosome disorder. If you send a review to a person with downs syndrome nothing short of a being fired and banned from talking to people will suffice. I mean how did a person that stupid dress themselves in the morning?

beardy_brady

steddyeddy wrote: »

There was people with down syndrome under review. Do you understand the implications of that?

was just replying to your mention of an " overstretched primary care sector "

regarding the medical card outcry over sick kids , simple solution, remove them from well off pensioners

steddyeddy

The HSE was signing a check of a few hundred thousand a year to a company that didn't exist previously. Massive levels of admin need to go in the HSE first and foremost.

Woodville56

[HTML][/HTML]

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

"High income families" pay huge amounts of tax and fund their own health care as well as subsidising others. Is it fair that if a high income family, or anyone else for that matter, suffers a chronic illness or has a child with a chronic illness, should be financially ruined by paying for treatment for that illness? I think people sometimes forget that we need these high income earners and high rate of tax payers to pay the taxes to pay for all the stuff we sometimes take for granted

If only it was just a form! Also, the GPs end up having to fill out these forms. Our primary care system is already stretched beyond limits - I think our GPs have better things to be doing.

I know of some high income families who use the medical card for the meds and appliances but use their private health insurance for the high profile consultants and private hospital care - a la carte healthcare !
As I understand it, some GP's charge for medical reports or letters supporting medical card applications - or if the letter is on behalf of a medical card holder, it should be covered by the capitation fee or some form of special consultation fee perhaps - they always have time if there's a € at the end of it - I know from experience !

Busted Flat.

I am at a loss in understanding what they are stopping. Up till two days before the election our great leaders and their spin doctors were insisting that there was no change in the medical card entitlements. Is it possible to ever believe this shower in government on anything again.

ProfessorPlum

Woodville56 wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]

I know of some high income families who use the medical card for the meds and appliances but use their private health insurance for the high profile consultants and private hospital care - a la carte healthcare !
As I understand it, some GP's charge for medical reports or letters supporting medical card applications - or if the letter is on behalf of a medical card holder, it should be covered by the capitation fee or some form of special consultation fee perhaps - they always have time if there's a € at the end of it - I know from experience !

So they pay for private health care and they pay for public health care too. That is the system we have at the moment, so what do you expect?
As I understand it, GPs get a standard fee for all GMS patients, and extras would be pennies. In any case, time is much more valuable, and being asked to fill forms to confirm your patient still has alzheimers or Down's or MS is just ridiculous and lazy on the part of the HSE, and ultimately a ridiculous waste of tax payers money, because at the end of the day, we pay for the admin, and any fees paid to GPs for filling forms. The reason the GPs need to take your euros is to pay for the roof over their and your head. That will go down like a ton of bricks I know, but there are practices in dire financial straits all over the country with many doctors closing their doors.