asked the Minister for Health if he is aware of the hardship suffered by non-insured persons, such as widows, with incomes marginally over £1,600 in paying for medical services in full; and if he will amend the health services regulations to entitle them to limited eligibility.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Health Services.
52.
I am aware of the problem to which the Deputy refers and I have asked the chief executive officers of the health boards to operate the hardship provisions of the Health Act in order to alleviate any hardship that might arise, but I accept that it would be desirable in the future to remove the anomaly formally.
In view of the Parliamentary Secretary today and the Minister yesterday agreeing with me that this is a serious anomaly and that it would be preferable to remove it, would he not remove it by amending the health services eligibility regulations?
I think it is fair to say that the Minister in his reply yesterday said he intended to do just that.
That he would do just that?
Yes.
He agreed it was an anomaly but he did not quite say he would do it. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us now that he will?
I cannot say immediately, but he will.
Up to what figure will this £1,600 limit be raised? Will it be raised to the figure for insured workers or to some other figure?
The same figure, £2,500.
53.
asked the Minister for Health the estimated cost of the extension of the GMS to (a) a further third of the population and (b) the entire population.
On a strictly proportional basis, related to the present use and cost of the service, the cost of extending the choice of doctor scheme to a further third of the population would be about £13.5 million a year. The cost of extending it to the entire population would be about £26 million a year. There are a number of factors which would affect the actual cost of extending the service. These include, for example, the demands on the service by the new entrants and the level of fees payable to doctors and pharmacists. The net effect of these factors would probably be to increase the cost over that calculated on a proportional basis.
In the light of the figures he has given would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it would be remarkably cheap as health costs and very good value from the point of view of the Exchequer to make this extension of the general medical services which I recommend rather than to pour vast sums into hospitals and the provision of institutional services?
That is a figure which both the Minister and I have taken into consideration and which we will further consider.
So you might do it in fact?
Anything is likely to happen.
You can say that again—it is. You might put on a few taxes too.
Any useful suggestion you make, and you make a number of useful suggestions, will be considered with the rest.