I thank you, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I spent time in a somewhat similar position to the Minister of State, I know that he has the answer already before him whereas I do not. That might be changed at some stage in the future to make things more equal in the House.
The question was to ask the Minister for Health and Children why a medical card was refused in the case of Mrs. X, in view of the fact that her husband who cares for her is currently off work due to illness and mindful of the fact that Mrs. X has been in treatment for cancer for the past five years. That question was answered in the normal way and it was referred to the Eastern Regional Health Authority from whom I have received a response which stated that Mrs. X was refused a medical card on the basis that her income exceeded the guidelines for the issue of a medical card by €359.85 per month.
When I refused to accept that response, I received another letter in the last few days. The authority said that having reviewed the case again, Mrs. X exceeds the guideline for income by €359.85 per week, not per month as mentioned in the letter of 10 February. Guidelines in respect of personal allowance are €190.50 per week. There is a little needle at the end of the letter which states: "She attends her GP once a month." In other words, this is trivialising the nature of the person's illness.
I ask the Minister of State to consider two points. It has always been the tradition that a person with cancer can obtain a medical card regardless of income guidelines. I was a member of the health board for 15 or 16 years and that question was debated on numerous occasions. There was never an occasion where a person with a terminal illness of that nature was refused a medical card on income grounds or any other reason. Otherwise the person could find himself or herself destitute over a period of time.
What is most worrying is that the information provided in the reply to the question is inaccurate. I will outline the situation. In 2001, the patient's husband was in full employment on a five-day week. For the duration of 2002, he was unemployed from January to July 2002 and he was in receipt of unemployment benefit. Essentially, he was caring for his wife who is seriously ill. Their only income was her invalidity pension or disability pension plus his benefit. Both had a medical card at that stage. He obtained employment in July 2002 and worked from then until December. He was working a three-day week because his wife was attending hospital and receiving treatment on a regular basis. It was not the case that she merely attended her doctor once a month.
From December 2002 to the present day, her husband is off work due to illness. He is in hospital today and is receiving sick benefit. He was told by his consultant to come back again on 17 April and not to work in the meantime. His wife has not worked since 1972. I was a member of the Eastern Health Board which I felt did its job well over the years. However, since the introduction of this third tier of administration there seems to be an attitude that attempts to justify the indefensible. If an issue is to be made of a case the powers that be should select a less sensitive case. It should be one they could stand over and justify anywhere. That is not happening. It is most insensitive that a person who has a potentially terminal illness has the added burden of somebody prying into whether he or she is €2 or €3 over the eligibility limit, particularly when it was always the policy to offer such people a medical card regardless of financial circumstances.
The Minister of State knows what has to be done although his reply may not take account of these matters. I have confidence in his ability to undertake this case and have it referred for urgent examination.
