Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jan 1998

Vol. 486 No. 1

Written Answers. - Non-drug Treatments.

Liz McManus

Question:

529 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Health and Children if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the holister sprays which people with spinal injuries have been using are no longer suitable and that there is no comparable product available; if he will ensure that the alternative product is made available to those with spinal injuries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2285/98]

Róisín Shortall

Question:

563 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will approve for the purposes of the General Medical Services Scheme a product in its three formats (details supplied) as a replacement for holister spray following representations from the Spinal Injuries Action Association, which were made to his Department some months ago, and in view of the serious inconvenience being suffered by patients including avoidable recourse to surgical procedures; if he will have arrangements made to have health boards notified accordingly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1547/98]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Cowen):

I propose to take Questions Nos. 529 and 563 together.

The availability of non-drug items on the General Medical Services Scheme (GMS) is a matter for the General Medical Services (Payments) Board. In 1992 the board established a working group which included relevant professional expertise to carry out an in-depth review of how the needs of people receiving non-drug items, including incontinence products, under the GMS scheme, were being met and if these needs could be met more efficiently and effectively.

The purpose of the review of incontinence products on the GMS scheme was to ensure that the needs of patients requiring incontinence products would be met in the most effective manner and that the most modern, high quality, "user friendly" products would be available to GMS patients. As a result of this review, older and outdated incontinence products including the product referred to by the Deputy, were replaced by newer more advanced "user friendly" products.

At that time, where patients were using the delisted incontinence products, health boards arranged an assessment on a case by case basis by the appropriate professional personnel and where possible their needs were met from the revised reimbursable list. The boards, however accepted that there were exceptional cases where it was not possible for persons to change from the older type items which they were using and in such cases special arrangements were made to continue to reimburse these non-listed items. Doctors and pharmacists were notified of the revised arrangements.