Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 2013

Vol. 820 No. 4

Health (Alteration of Criteria for Eligibility) (No. 2) Bill 2013: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Health (Alteration of Criteria for Eligibility) (No.2) Bill 2013, on which I look forward to hearing Deputies' views, amends the Health Act 1970, as amended - principally sections 45A and 48A - to take account of the changes to the eligibility criteria for medical cards for persons aged 70 years and over as announced in budget 2014.

The 2014 financial provision for the health services is €13.66 billion, including €397 million in capital expenditure. This provision also includes savings measures amounting to €666 million. This year's provision is some €360 million less than was provided in 2013 and represents a 3% reduction in funding. As a result, 2014 will be the most challenging year yet for the health services. However, I can assure Deputies that despite the need for significant and difficult financial savings, maintenance of safe, quality health services will be as much a priority for the Government in 2014 as it is in 2013.

It has been, and most assuredly continues to be, the Government's intention that front-line health services be protected to the greatest extent possible. I have made clear that the provision of safe, quality services in a timely fashion is my top priority. We are continuing to build on the ongoing measures to achieve savings through efficiencies and reorganisation under the public service agreement, curtailing the growing cost of pharmaceuticals and increasing income generation. None the less, the level of savings required means that Government has had to make some very difficult decisions. The Government continues to ensure a reduction in the cost of services while maintaining safe services to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.

The General Medical Service scheme, GMS, is one of the areas identified in budget 2014 in respect of which savings are required. As Deputies will be aware, the GMS scheme comprises GP services and prescription drugs as well as some other services provided to holders of medical cards or GP visit cards. Over recent years, there has been a significant expansion in the GMS scheme. It now costs in the region of €2 billion per annum and a number of steps are being taken to reduce this cost.

At the end of September 2013, approximately 1,990,000 people qualified under the GMS. Medical cards at 1.86 million or 93% of the total make up the majority of this number. At the end of 2005, there were 1.16 million medical card holders, which is an increase of over 60% or 700,000 individuals. At end 2005, only 27% of the national population held medical cards. Currently 40% of the population now holds a medical card, which is reflective of the nature of our economic meltdown under the previous Government. Medical cards for persons aged 70 years and over account for about 350,000 or 19% of all medical cards. The total cost of GMS services provided to medical card holders aged over 70 years is approximately €750 million per annum, which represents over one third of the total cost of the GMS scheme.

Under the Health Act 2008, special eligibility rules applying to persons aged over 70 years were put in place and are more generous than those applying to the standard means test medical cards. It is estimated that there are approximately 379,000 people aged over 70 in the State. Given that there are currently approximately 350,000 medical cards issued to people aged over 70, medical card coverage of the over 70s population is approximately 93%. In comparison, medical card coverage of the under 70s population is approximately 36%.

In the recent budget, changes to the over 70s eligibility criteria were announced to deliver €25 million in savings during 2014 from the expenditure on over 70s medical cards, which as I stated is in the region of €750 million annually. Under this proposed legislation, the income limit for an over 70s medical card is to be set at €500 per week, equivalent to an annual income of about €26,000 for a single person. For a couple, the income limit for the over 70s medical card is to be set at €900 per week, equivalent to gross annual income of almost €47,000. Those affected by these revised thresholds will qualify for an over 70s GP visit card. A single person over 70 years of age with a gross income of up to €700 per week or €36,000 per annum will continue to automatically qualify for free access to a GP. A couple over 70 years of age with a gross income of up to €1,400 per week or €72,000 per annum will also qualify for a GP service without fees.

In addition, under the drugs payment scheme, the HSE will meet the prescription drug costs of older people without a medical card who face drugs costs higher than the DPS threshold of €144 per month. This means that a single person aged over 70 years with a gross income of over €500 per week or a couple with an income of over €900 per week will have to pay no more than about €33 per week on prescription drugs.

It is estimated that under the new income rules about 35,000 people will have their medical card replaced with a GP visit card. It is necessary to reassure people in their 70s and older that we are implementing this measure in a manner that is intended to avoid affecting the most vulnerable of our elderly population. Out of every five people aged over 70 years, the four poorest will not be affected. It is useful to note that 10% of the over 70s who previously qualified for a medical card will now qualify for a GP visit card. Following implementation of this budget measure, only 7% of people over 70, those with the highest incomes, will not qualify for either a medical card or a GP visit card. Every person aged over 70 living on the State pension alone will still qualify for an over 70s medical card. The new income limits for the over 70s medical card is more than twice the level of the basic State pension of €230 per week for a single person and €436 per week for a couple. In other words, 93% of over 70s will continue to be covered for free GP care, either through a medical card or a GP visit card.

As I stated earlier, there has been a significant expansion in the GMS scheme and while the rate of increase in the numbers of people eligible under the GMS scheme has declined the overall number of people eligible has increased. We must ensure that those most in need can qualify for the service.

We have an obligation under the legislation to ensure the State is not paying for a service for those who are no longer entitled to it because their situation has improved. To this end, a critical element of probity in the medical card scheme is the ongoing review of client eligibility by the HSE. As I have said previously, that is not the only area where probity applies. It applies to the doctors working in the scheme. It applies to the pharmacists working in the scheme. It applies to the dentists working in the scheme.

Medical card probity measures were announced in the 2014 budget, whereby significant savings are to be achieved by improving the accuracy of the medical card system. This is about ensuring that those who are entitled to medical cards continue to hold them and that those who are not entitled to medical cards do not. I am aware that there has been public concern that cards may be indiscriminately withdrawn or cancelled. It is similar to the misconception that cards awarded on a discretionary basis are being withdrawn or refused arbitrarily. This could not be further from the truth. Let me dispel any misconceptions that might still exist. In line with the legislation there has never been an automatic entitlement to a medical card on the basis of having a specific illness or condition; there has been no change to the policy on discretionary medical cards in the past year; the scheme continues to operate in such a way that those who suffer genuine financial hardship as a result of a medical condition receive the benefit of a medical card; and notwithstanding the need to secure savings under the medical card scheme, nobody who is entitled to a medical card will lose it or be refused one. I again want to stress that no person meeting the eligibility conditions laid down in the legislation for a medical card will be affected.

We want people to be clear on their entitlements and this should help ease the fears of those who have been worried unnecessarily. To this end and at my request, the HSE devised a wide-ranging plan to improve the provision of information to the public about medical cards. On 30 October 2013, the HSE announced a communications campaign designed to raise awareness of the rules governing eligibility for medical cards. This is just one example of how the Government is focused on improving the health service. While it may not be affordable to provide medical cards to the entire population, the Government is committed to introducing, on a phased basis, a universal GP service without fees within its term of office, as set out in the programme for Government as an integral part of the road towards universal health insurance, and as laid out in the "Future Health" strategy framework.

The introduction of a universal GP service free at the point of use constitutes a fundamental element in the Government's health reform programme and the introduction of universal health insurance. A universal GP service will underpin the delivery of health care close to people in their communities, at the lowest levels of complexity and at the lowest levels of cost. This is a critical step on the road to universal health insurance and towards eliminating the two-tier health system. Free GP care for all will not address that on its own. Only universal health insurance can do that. We can end the two-tier system that has resulted in so much hardship for so many people who have real medical need, but not the means to pay for it. There is no disagreement on this side of the House that patients and citizens should be able to access medical care on the basis of their medical card, not on what they can afford to pay.

As announced in the budget, it has been decided to commence the roll-out of a universal GP service free at the point of use, by ensuring that all children aged five and under will have access to a GP service without fees. Including the 93% coverage of the population aged over 70, this will mean that almost half of the population will have access to GP services without fees. As I restated recently, the Government is committed to achieving the goal of a universal GP service before spring 2016.

I commend this Bill to the House and look forward to hearing the views of Deputies.

We are being asked to legislate for a real betrayal of policy on eligibility criteria for those aged over 70. By any credible stretch of the imagination, this is a full-frontal assault on the over 70s. The Minister stated previously that people should be entitled to medical care based on need, not on their ability to pay. He spoke about universal entitlement to GP access, but this Bill undermines that universal access. He is now doing the exact opposite to everything he said in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 in respect of the over 70s.

The Minister also referred to discretionary medical cards, universal health insurance and primary care. He accused me earlier on of having amnesia during Dáil questions. He should go back and read his own speech during a Private Members' motion in 2008, condemning the then Government for bringing forward more generous eligibility criteria. We were accused at the time of undermining the basic principle of universality, but the Minister is now limiting access to medical cards for those aged over 70. He states that it will only affect one in five people, but once he has conceded the principle, then it is just a case of reducing the eligibility criteria downwards, which is exactly what he stated in 2008.

This Bill represents a shameless betrayal and U-turn of what the Minister committed to during debates in 2008 when he was in opposition, but more importantly, it is also a betrayal of what he committed to in the programme for Government. There is no mention in any part of the programme for Government that eligibility criteria would be increased and that more people would lose their medical cards. It is not mentioned anywhere. In fact, the programme commits to increasing funding in care for the elderly year on year from 2011 to 2016. However, in the last two budgets there has been a shameful reversal of that policy. The Minister cannot pretend that he did not know the difficulties the country was facing. He was well aware of them, and if he was not, he was the only person in the country who was not. The idea that he could make a commitment in 2008 is one thing: I can understand him being shameless in opposition for the sake of power and saying what he liked to advance his case. However, he drafted a programme for Government that he had no intention whatsoever of honouring. If he did have such an intention, he would have taken a more credible approach to the policies he is pursuing now, as opposed to what he wrote in the programme for Government in early 2011. There is no semblance, no bearing, no reality to what he wrote and to what he is doing. That is simply the fact of the matter. It is shameful that he can come in here and throw out a few figures about how it will only affect 5% of the elderly. It is affecting an awful lot more than 5% of the elderly if he does his mathematics in any way, shape or form. Then again, mathematics, calculations and logarithms are not his strong points.

Where I went to school one in five is 20%, not 5%.

The Taoiseach told us that it would affect only 3% of the people. Not only can the Minister not do his sums, but the Taoiseach cannot do his sums either. According to the Taoiseach, 3% of those over 70 were going to be affected by the reversal of policy on eligibility in this budgetary proposal. I do not mind having a cut and thrust, but it takes hard brass neck to come in here and state that it will only affect a few people. It will affect an awful lot of people. There are 380,000 people in this country aged over 70, but the Minister is forgetting that every year, more people will come into the over 70s bracket. It will affect a certain percentage this year, but that percentage will increase year on year because of the demographics. The Minister is clapping himself on the back because it will only affect a certain percentage in 2014, but in 2015, 2016 and 2017, it will affect an awful lot more people, assuming - we cannot assume anything of the Minister for Health any more - that he will not decrease the eligibility criteria again or that he will not be back here next year saying "we might reduce it a small bit further".

The Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, was very straightforward in our exchanges, although at times he thought he was in the Four Courts. He said that we did not support the under-fives. I do not think that anybody would support the under-fives if it meant their grandparents were being asked to pay by way of medical cards being taken from them to subsidise the under-fives.

That is an assault on the most vulnerable people in this country. The Minister cannot say that is not the case.

If he does, he is wrong. No matter what way he goes through the arithmetic, his commitment is to universality. He committed to not reducing the entitlements of over 70s. That was his clear commitment.

Universal access to free GP care.

The Minister has broken that commitment time and again.

In the meantime he expects us to applaud him and give him a clap on the back for introducing free GP care for under-fives.

I expect the Deputy to run away as he normally does.

I would have no problem applauding him for doing that if he was not asking an elderly person to pay for it. That is what he is doing and he cannot camouflage it. Not only is he asking the elderly person to pay for it, he is asking a very sick person, a very sick child, who may be only three or four, or six or seven, to pay for it because that child will lose their discretionary medical card. The Minister can dress it up any way he likes.

I have never accused the Minister of changing the guidelines or the legislation on eligibility, but we all know there is no legislation governing discretion. That is the basic principle of discretion. It allows for a discretionary decision to be made. I have never come into this House and said that the Minister has changed the legislation. There is no legislation underpinning discretion. It was at the discretion of senior officials to make decisions, based on an assessment of an individual’s needs because of their illness and the hardship that would affect the person and their family. That is what discretion is about. There has been a change in how the discretion is exercised because what happens time and again is that the officials assess on the income guidelines people who had a discretionary medical card. Straight away they will lose the card. By stealth and sleight of hand-----

That is not true.

-----the Department is assessing people who had been given a discretionary medical card. It is assessing them under the income guidelines.

No. They are being assessed within all guidelines.

They are being assessed under the income guidelines and a letter is written to the applicant informing them that they no longer qualify. Maybe the Minister has read none of those letters. I have read many of them and we have presented many individual cases to this House. It has been discussed continually on the national airwaves and the Minister knows it as well as I do. There were 85,000 discretionary medical cards in the system and there has been a rapid reduction in that number. The Minister tells me that is because most of those people went on to full medical cards. A certain percentage went on to full medical cards but equally there are many who will fall ill on a continual basis. It is not as if the population’s health status has changed and no one is being born with a disability or no elderly person will develop a chronic illness and not qualify for a medical card under the income guidelines. They do not now get them on a discretionary basis. There is no way to dress that up.

When I am asked whether I and my party will support the under-fives, I say that we will welcome a roll-out of universality if it is sustainable and fair. I find it very hard to stomach what the Minister says is fair when he asks the sickest in our society to pay for universal access to GP care for under-fives-----

The Deputy is misleading the Dáil.

-----and that is the case.

That is rubbish and the Deputy knows it.

What the Government thought coming into the House a couple of weeks ago-----

There have been 250,000 extra medical cards issued in the lifetime of this Government. The Deputy should speak to the facts and not the spin.

What the Government thought would be a great political stunt-----

The Deputy is the expert on stunts.

-----has backfired on it because people know that the under-fives are being subsidised by the over 70s and by those who are the sickest.

That is the Deputy’s narrative and he would love to see it happen.

If the Minister decided to announce GP access for under-fives but did not reduce the budget for those on medical cards and on GP cards, and the eligibility criteria, he could legitimately argue that this is not being subsidised by the over 70s and the sickest. On every perusal of the estimate, the Minister cannot argue that because it is in black and white in his estimate that €113 million is in probity. The Minister knows in his heart and soul that he will not find €113 million in probity but he will find it by reducing the eligibility criteria and by an assault on discretionary medical cards.

The Deputy is scaremongering.

If the Minister wants scaremongering he should look at the statements he made in 2008 and at the present Taoiseach’s statements on Molesworth Street.

Scaremongering.

If the Minister wants scaremongering he should look at the recording of the statements that night.

Does the Deputy not understand what scaremongering is? It is telling people that things will happen that will never happen. That is what he is doing.

If I want to read out-----

He is telling people that they will lose their medical cards when they will not lose them.

Deputy Kelleher has the floor. The Minister should allow him to speak without interruption.

Unfortunately-----

He is not entitled to mislead the Dáil.

I am not scaremongering. Is the Minister accusing the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation of scaremongering? Is he accusing all the organisations who are on the ground, day in, day out, of scaremongering?

That is entirely different from telling people who are entitled to medical cards that they will lose them.

Is the Minister saying that they are scaremongering? Is he saying that advocacy groups who campaign and represent older people are scaremongering? Is he saying that every Deputy here is scaremongering? More important, is he accusing the Deputies on his side of the House of scaremongering?

Look at all three Deputies over there. I can see them. It is a mere mirage.

Deputy Kelleher should speak through the Chair.

Is the Minister accusing all those people of scaremongering? That is what is happening and the Minister can dress it up any way he likes. I am not scaremongering. I am speaking to the facts and many Deputies on both sides of the House, when speaking on a Private Members’ motion, highlighted the serious difficulties in accessing medical cards.

That is entirely different from telling people who have medical cards that they will be taken from them.

That is the fact of the matter.

The Minister should cease interrupting and Deputy Kelleher should speak through the Chair.

I will and we will stick to the substance of the Bill. The Minister referred to other areas in the context of the provision of primary care. He mentioned universality and universal health insurance, UHI. The difficulty is that the Minister’s credibility in this area is well questioned because the Minister for Finance announced to the Dáil on budget day that he was putting a cap on the tax relief for insurance premiums.

What has that got to do with the medical card scheme?

We are having a debate on the broad substance of the issue. It is a requirement to have funding in place to fund medical care.

If the Deputy wants to take a delightful wander through the health services and the tax system, he may go on.

The Minister for Health put a cap on the tax relief of €1,000 for an adult and €500 for a child.

That was the Minister for Finance.

Yes, this is the exact point. It was the Minister for Finance. He has driven a coach and four through the Minister’s policy on universal health insurance. In every stated policy that the Minister for Health has advocated from time to time, he has said that we would have a vibrant private health insurance market, that there would be competition and a flow of insurers into this State to provide health insurance and there would be a move to universal health insurance. The problem is, not only are the Minister’s policies driving people out of the health insurance market but the Minister for Finance has capped tax relief on so-called gold-plated private health insurance premia. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was not just the gold-plated ones. The Minister for Health knows that as well as I do. I know that he was very disappointed by this particular announcement from the Minister for Health. He can dress it up any way he likes but he was not a happy camper on that particular day.

The Deputy should stop referring to him as the Minister for Health. He is the Minister for Finance.

That is a very serious attack on the affordability of private health insurance. It comes back to this Bill because it must be asked what is happening now. Private health insurance is becoming unaffordable for many in society. I accept that there is an economic backdrop to the number of people falling out of health insurance but the Minister for Health's policy decisions have been responsible for several increases in the cost of health insurance. Then the Minister for Finance wades in behind him and puts a cap on tax relief, which will have a very damaging effect on affordability for ordinary families.

This leads us back to the over 70s. We know that people are very attached to private health insurance and they will make exceptional sacrifices to retain it. They will forgo much of what people consider to be ordinary day-to-day expenditure and many other things to pay for private health insurance. What will happen? The figures are there in black and white although the Minister will dispute them. There is a haemorrhage of young people from the private health insurance market. The Minister announced yesterday an increase in the duty on advanced care insurance plans. All that will do is increase the cost of private health insurance for everyone. Even with the community rating it will increase the cost of private health insurance for the over 70s. We will have a situation whereby people-----

That is rubbish.

Private health insurance will go up across the board. It is a cross-subsidisation for older people in order that they will not pay more than younger people, but the price of insurance goes up for a young person and goes up for an older person too. Otherwise, it is obvious the Minister does not understand the basic principle. Premiums will go up across the board. The Minister knows that, I know it and it has happened. We will have a situation whereby more people who are over 70 years will fall out of eligibility for a medical card. Admittedly, they will get the general practitioner visit card but they will be unable to sustain the cost of private health insurance and this will have a damaging effect on older people, who need to have the confidence that they can access health care when they need it. The two things that gave them this comfort were the medical card and, for those who could afford it, private health insurance. The profile, demographics and statistics are clear. A large cohort of people over 70 years have private health insurance. The difficulty is that a large cohort of young people are dropping out of private health insurance and can no longer afford it. That only means one thing: an increase in private health insurance.

The Bill has come to the Dáil and we are debating it, but we are legislating for a betrayal of policy. We are legislating for a shameless U-turn of policy and we are legislating for something the Minister said would have a major impact.

At one time the Minister said older people were the people who made the country what it is today. He said they raised us, nursed us when we were sick, protected us from violence, grew our food and ran a proud Civil Service. That is what the Minister said in 2008. With any credible stretch of the imagination, what has changed? The only thing that has changed is that the Minister is in government, but he was in opposition at that time. The Taoiseach went on to say that it was a Judas response. I have seen a Judas response in recent weeks with regard to older people.

The difference is that when Fianna Fáil was in government, the party oversaw the economic meltdown.

This is where the Minister has a problem with credibility. Regardless of what he thought of the previous Government, in 2008 the Minister knew where the economy was. He knew the difficulties in the public finances to the last pounds, shillings and pence, unless he was the last person who was aware of the economic catastrophe facing the country.

We had Tweedledee and Tweedledum in charge of running the country at the time. Each asked the other whether they were here or there and they then decided it was a matter for the troika instead.

The Minister cannot, on assuming office, somehow absolve himself from the responsibilities, commitments and promises he made between 2008 and 2011 because he knew the full context of where we were as a nation.

That is more Fianna Fáil spin.

Let us keep to the truth of the matter. I could quote a great deal more of what was said and what has been implemented since.

Does the Deputy know what was said?

Deputy Kelleher, please.

I do. The elderly have not only been undermined by the Minister, his policies and those of the Minister for Finance but the Minister for Social Protection has waded in to the equation as well. While the programme for Government makes a strong commitment to an increase in funding for the provision of services for older people between 2011 and 2016, in every analysis, policy, tranche of legislation and Estimate that has come from the Government in recent years, there has been a systematic undermining of people over 70 years in the provision of supports. That is a fact.

There is an incredible situation with regard to home care packages and home help hours. We were told some time ago that the priority of the Government was to provide care in the community and the home. We have general practitioner services in crisis. I was accused of representing GPs, but I was simply highlighting that services have been diminished in communities. That is a fact.

That is more rubbish.

If it is, then the Minister is the only person left who believes it. The Minister for State with responsibility for primary care, Deputy Alex White, has moved a little, but if the Minister is the last man standing in this area, we have a greater problem than I had thought, because primary care is a central tenet of all policy.

That is correct.

The problem is that nothing is happening in the area of primary care.

That is rubbish. The Minister of State has outlined what will happen.

That is the problem. He outlined what will happen as opposed to what has happened.

Any time Fianna Fáil commissioned a report, it was simply put on the shelf and left there.

What has happened in the meantime is that we have a situation whereby home help hours-----

Some people are trying to rewrite history.

This is a basic but efficient way of providing care and of allowing people to stay in a home environment for as long as possible.

Why did those in Fianna Fáil make a mess of it when they were in Government?

We have seen those hours reduced. There are difficulties whereby public health nurses are under extreme pressure to deliver care in the community. If the Minister does not believe me, he should talk to them. They are providing care on a shoestring budget and under great personal sacrifice in terms of the commitment they are making day in, day out to provide care in the community. That is a critical part of care in the community. GPs are under pressure, which means patients and customers may not be afforded the time they need for consultation and any treatments they may require.

The Minister referred to shifting chronic illness out of the acute hospital setting. While he should do it, he cannot do it at the expense of another person who cannot see his GP on the same day as a result. If the Minister is referring to shifting these medical treatments out of hospitals and into GP surgeries, he must resource it in some way to ensure those who need GP services are not discommoded.

One thing people value is the fact that they can access a GP within 24 hours. If the Minister continues down the road he is going, people will be unable to see their GP within a 24 hour period. It is not a question of Billy Kelleher saying this. Doctors are saying it by getting on the aeroplane and leaving the country.

GPs are not leaving the country.

The reason they are leaving the country is because there is major pressure in terms of finance but also in the fact that the Minister is pursuing a policy of landing more people in the surgery without any support. There are fewer supports. That will impact on the ability of doctors and other primary care providers to look after people in the home environment setting. It is another attack on older people, coupled with the home help hours and the inability of the Minister to assess home care packages.

(Interruptions).

I remind the Minister that these issue are happening on his watch. It is not always about resourcing. This is about assessing the most efficient way of providing and resourcing care. Let us consider the position of home help hours, home care hours and home care packages. The Minister has advocated time and again that these are the best ways of treating people and providing support for people to live independently in the home environment for as long as possible. The Minister's policies are the opposite in the context of the reduction of home help hours.

Deputy Kelleher should read them.

Equally, the Government's policies are opposite. One thing that is important for a person at home is the telephone, but the Government has taken away the telephone allowance. It has decided to cut home help hours and it has decided not to fund public health nurses.

Moreover, the Government has decided not to bring forward supports in the primary care setting that would allow people to stay at home. On top of that, in this legislation, which amounts to a shameless U-turn, the Minister is asking Members to endorse the cutting of the eligibility threshold to €500 per week for an individual or €900 per week for a couple. A point regarding the criteria that always was brought forward is that people were treated as individuals in the context of this issue. Why have the limits been set at €500 per person but at €900 for a couple? This is another area about which the Minister previously made a song and dance. My difficulty with all this is that it is an attack on older people that drives a coach and four through the Minister's acclaimed policy of universality. It will have an impact on the quality of life of older people and if people could die in 2008 because the eligibility threshold had been set at €1,400 per week the same could happen if one reduces the eligibility criteria to those being proposed in this Bill.

They still have free GP care.

That is what the Minister said in 2008.

Another area in which one can discern an attack on people who have medical cards and who are dependent on prescriptions is the cost of the prescription charge. On taking up office as Minister for Health, the first thing done by the Minister, with great fanfare, was the sacking of the board of the Health Service Executive. However, the other policy announcement made with great fanfare in April 2011, when no longer in opposition but when the Minister was in government, was that he intended to abolish the prescription charge of 50 cent per item. He stated it would discourage people from accessing basic medical care and could cost lives because people would not be able to or would be discouraged from getting a prescription and hence the medication. It is now near the end of 2013 and it was decided in the recent budget to raise this charge to €2.50 per item, up to a maximum of €25 per month. By any stretch of the imagination, this is a further undermining of the basic living standards of those who are dependent on medicine.

This constitutes a further undermining of the basic principle that people who are sick and who need support from the State will get such support and will do so based on their need and not on their ability to pay. While that is what the Minister keeps saying, he is doing the opposite here by denying the sickest people the ability to access medicines because they now are being charged €2.50 per prescription. Moreover, it is not just me saying this in 2013 because I can quote the Minister saying this in 2008, 2009 and 2010. More importantly, I can quote him saying this while Minister for Health, an office he still holds. What was the change in policy in respect of this particular measure of a prescription fee discouraging people from accessing basic medicine? The Minister stated this was a fool's policy because people would end up in an acute hospital setting because they would be unable to access the basic medicines they need.

I did not state it was a fool's policy.

That is what the Minister had to say when the fee was 50 cent. As the fee has now risen to €2.50, I seek an explanation as to how the Minister can square that circle in respect of this U-turn or change of policy.

Overall, this Bill shows one thing only, namely, the Minister has brought forward policies that are at variance with everything he has said about universality and about people being able to access medical care based on their need as opposed to their ability to pay. He has introduced legislation that will undermine the living standards of elderly people. He has introduced this legislation to subsidise the under-fives and he cannot convince me or more importantly, anyone else, because they know this is what is happening.

That is rubbish.

This is the reason that were the Minister to come into this Chamber-----

-----to announce the rolling out of free GP care to the under-fives-----

It is a nice convenient Fianna Fáil construction.

-----but that he would not ask those who are the sickest in society to subsidise it.

Fianna Fáil is correct on this one.

-----the Minister might then have got a pat on the back. However, he will not receive a pat on the back for this measure and I will not support the shameless betrayal the Minister is introducing today.

Hear, hear. This is a U-turn.

This is the second Bill with the same title that the Government has brought before Members in 2013, both of which were designed to remove medical card coverage from more older people over 70 years of age. It has been an annus horribilis for senior citizens. The position has moved from having in place universal medical card coverage for over-70s under the previous Government to that Government’s move to end universal over-70s coverage altogether. In that regard it was interesting to hear Deputy Kelleher's just-concluded contribution. This was followed by massive protests by older people, on which I commend them, followed by a partial U-turn with provision for the over-70s being made subject to a higher income limit. Under the present Government, that income limit was lowered once in budget 2013 and now has been lowered again in budget 2014, which is being facilitated by the legislation before Members.

Speaking on radio recently, the Minister's Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, defended the taking of discretionary medical cards from children with disabilities by asking if it was right that such children from wealthy families should have them. At the same time, however, the Government intends to provide GP cards for all children of five and under from next year, regardless of income or wealth. Where is the consistency in these policies, if one can even refer to them as policies at all? There is no consistency, it is piecemeal and is a case of making it up as one goes along. A Fine Gael-Labour Party Government that states it is committed to the provision of GP care for all at the point of delivery actually is moving in the opposite direction. Discretionary medical cards are being cut back, even for some of the most needy citizens, young and old.

Under this Bill, more people over 70 years of age will lose their cards and fewer will qualify when they reach the age of 70. Prior to 2008, people over 70 received a medical card without a means test. When the Fianna Fáil-led Government decided to end that entitlement, the present Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, then Fine Gael health spokesperson, described it on the floor of this Chamber as a “vicious attack” and went on to state it was a “savage assault on the elderly”. He was right. Then came the Fianna Fáil-led Government’s climb-down in the face of mass protest by older people. The 2008 legislation set the income limit for over-70s medical card qualification at €700 per week for a single person and €1,400 for a couple. What did Deputy Reilly, then in opposition, say in response? Here in this Chamber he stated it was a “desperate climb-down” that represented but a “tinkering with income limits" and was "nowhere near good enough”. Since then, Deputy Reilly has become Minister for Health.

Has the hardship for older citizens lessened since that day in 2011 when the Minister got his ministerial seal of office? Has the situation improved for our older citizens? No, it certainly has not. Is the removal of medical cards any less an attack today than it was back when it was proposed by Fianna Fáil? The answer again is "No, it definitely is not". However, the difference is that the Minister for Health is now Deputy James Reilly and clearly different standards apply. In budget 2013 we had the dropping of the income limit for medical card qualification for those aged over 70 from €700 per week to €600 for a single person and from €1,400 per week to €1,200 for a couple. It seems that tinkering with income limits, as the Minister described it, is good enough when it is this Government that is doing the tinkering. The problem only arose of course when it was a Fianna Fáil-led coalition. Now in the Bill before us the income limits are being cut again this time to €500 per week for a single person and by a whopping €300 to €900 per week for a couple. It is expected that some 35,000 older citizens will lose their medical cards as a result of this change. Age Action Ireland has stated: "It is contradictory to be removing means-tested cards from a section of society which has high medical needs, in a budget which is rolling out free GP care for children and heralding it as the roll out of its universal primary care plans.”

For all medical card holders prescription charges have been increased to five times the original charge per item introduced by a former Minister for Health, Mary Harney, a measure that both Fine Gael and the Labour Party vehemently opposed here in the Houses of the Oireachtas, as did I. This increase once again hits older people especially badly. This Bill, taken together with the abolition of the telephone allowance and the prescription charges increase, make budget 2014 a particularly nasty one for older people. There is no getting away from that.

I want to remind the Government, as I did when the last Bill of this title was on Second Stage only a little more than six months ago in March, that the Minister, Deputy Reilly, championed Fine Gael’s FairCare health policy with its promise of universal primary care. Fine Gael and the Labour Party received record mandates in the general election in February 2011 with manifestos that promised, first, greatly extended and then universal entitlement to free primary care. The Fine Gael-Labour Party programme for Government tells us that universal primary care will remove fees for GP care and will be introduced within this Government’s term of office. We are also told:

Access to primary care without fees will be extended in the first year to claimants of free drugs under the Long-Term Illness scheme at a cost of €17 million. Access to primary care without fees will be extended in the second year to claimants of free drugs under the High-Tech Drugs scheme at a cost of €15 million. Access to subsidised care will be extended to all in the next phase. Access to care without fees will be extended to all in the final phase.

We had a programme, a plan and were able to consider what was to happen and the steps to be taken. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, promised that the first phase, the extension of free primary care to claimants of free drugs under the long-term illness scheme, would be in place in summer 2012 but that did not happen. There were supposed to be drafting difficulties because of the change from entitlement based on income to entitlement based on forms of illness. In the autumn of last year we were told by the Minister that it was still on track and there would be a Bill.

When the Health (Alteration of Criteria for Eligibility) (No. 1) Bill came before us last March, there was no Bill to extend free primary care in any way. The Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, had come full circle - from IMO opponent of over 70s universality, to IMO beneficiary of it, to vociferous Dáil opponent of change to it and now to imposing a further restriction to the scheme, leading to thousands of older people losing their medical cards. Again today this Bill, which the Minister presented, further restricts access and plans to cut medical card entitlement for a further 35,000 people.

Both parties, when in opposition, pointed out that restricting access to primary care was penny wise and pound foolish because older people would suffer poorer health outcomes and require more hospital visits, inpatient care and residential nursing home care.

They will keep their GP card.

Now they further restrict medical card access as a so-called savings measure that will adversely affect the health of our older citizens. It is another smooth transition, make no mistake about it, from Fianna Fáil to Fine Gael. There is no other way to describe what is being presented here and I cannot leave the Labour Party out of that story. Despite the sham fight we witnessed between the Minister and Deputy Kelleher this morning which fools nobody any more, make no mistake about it, there is not a hair's breadth between them in terms of their policies and approach. We will be told that the difference now is that the Government has provided for universal free GP care for those aged five and under, and I have welcomed that. It was something I argued for in our prebudget submission. However, I must point out that I welcome it only as far as it goes. The Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, was quite correct this morning when he added the comment, which reflects my own caution and concern, that it is welcome only as a measure as part of a package that will lead to the universal roll out of access to free GP care for all. If it is not part of a clear programme of extension of free GP care for all with a limited timeframe, a plan like that which was outlined in the programme for Government in 2011, it will undermine the principle of universality and there will be no public confidence in it and no welcome for it.

My concern was borne out only this week when one mother - others must have noted her contribution on television - whose disabled child aged over five lost her medical card, said that she did not want the under fives card for her other child but wanted the restoration of the card to her child with particular challenges in life, her disabled child, as she was the one who needed it most. The disabled child lost the card as a result of the Government’s policy of restricting access to discretionary medical cards.

If this Government was genuinely pursuing a policy of universality and a single-tier health service with access based on medical need alone, the Minister would have my wholehearted support without hesitation. However, this is not the Minister's intention. There may be those in the Labour Party who delude themselves into believing they are pursuing such a path - some of them genuinely so - but it is far from the position of Fine Gael in this Government.

A total of €37 million is to be spent on GP cards for the under-fives but €149 million is to be taken out of the medical card budget - not just €113 million under the heading of probity. The total is €149 million. That will mean more people losing their medical cards, including those older people losing out as a result of this Bill. The extension of free GP care to children aged five and under, comes at the expense of taking medical cards from other sections of the population who need them. This is not universality; it can only be described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. I can think of no other way to refer to it.

In our alternative budget Sinn Féin provided for the extension of free GP care to all children aged five and under without depriving anyone else of their medical card entitlement. Nobody would have suffered on the basis of our approach to this issue as are now suffering as a result of this Bill. As we said at the time of the budget, the Government’s idea of universal health care is to give out GP-only cards with one hand and take back full medical cards with the other. This is a completely indefensible position. The medical card probity heading in the budget document is still as mysterious as it was when it was published. I have tried to elicit some further clarification in the course of questions to the Minister this morning at Question Time. Under this heading, the Minister, Deputy Reilly and the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, have targeted a huge so-called saving of €113 million. The Ministers are still unable to account for this figure. It has never been explained. It is not as if it is a round figure of €60 million, €80 million or €100 million. Where did the figure of €113 million come from? How was it computed, calculated and arrived at? It seems clear now, as we said in response to the budget, that it was cooked up to provide a sizeable chunk of the at least €666 million signalled for reduction in the health budget in 2014. Similarly, it seems that the figure of €666 million – not a popular figure at any time - is not clear. It could be €1 billion, in the words of the director general of the HSE. This will have a significant impact on the preparation of the HSE national service plan which is currently deferred at the approval of the Minister. Perhaps it may be deferred once again before the end of this week, as the Minister has indicated earlier this morning.

I also spoke to the Minister this morning about the warning from the chief executive officers of the four major Dublin hospitals about the impact of such cuts in 2014. These are not just four Dublin hospitals; these are four national centres of excellence. All areas of this State depend on these centres. I acknowledge that savings need to be made and Sinn Féin's pre-budget submission has identified a number of savings that could be pursued. Therefore, I do not want my contribution to labelled as always being in opposition to measures being undertaken by the Government. I will oppose them on the basis of their merit or otherwise. I am equally conscious of the responsibility of elected office to outline where savings can be made and where more effective and efficient systems can be employed and which I have outlined, year on year and in even greater detail this year than at any time in the past.

Sinn Féin has identified savings on expenditure on medicines which are far in excess of the Government’s. We also addressed the issue this morning. However, this Government seems incapable of reaching even its own modest targets in this regard as we see that the HSE is still paying multiples of what the NHS is paying for commonly prescribed drugs. This morning I instanced the situation of generic substitution for Lipitor. The HSE is paying four and a half times the sum being paid for the same drug as against what is being paid North of the Border under the terms of the NHS. This is after the introduction of the reference pricing and generic substitution is taken into account. Instead, the Government prefers to make patients pay and in the case of this Bill, our older citizens are very much the target of the day of this Minister and this Government and many will lose their medical cards as a consequence. I wish to record my opposition to this Bill. The Minister's intent, what he seeks to introduce, is outrageous, insulting to older people and there is no explaining it away. I have seen the worry and the concern of people and I have met people who are immediately affected by the drops in the threshold for qualification. These are not people living in excessive comfort by any stretch of the imagination. This Bill is doing a great disservice to our older citizens. With all respect to the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and to his colleagues in Government, he is doing exactly the same as those he lambasted across this Chamber but a few short years ago. There is not a hair's breadth of difference between them.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has two minutes until the commencement of Leaders' Questions.

I have been on tenterhooks waiting to see whether it would be before or after lunch.

I strongly oppose this Bill which is a disgraceful attack on the elderly and the chronically sick. It represents a monstrous betrayal on the part of this Government of the promises that were made prior to the election about dealing with the crisis in our public health service and dealing with the two-tier system that persists in our public health service. As a general comment, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the singular attribute of this Government is an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes by manipulating the debate in this House and manipulating the media debate about what it is doing in order to cover its tracks for gross betrayals of election promises and for savage assaults on some of the most vulnerable sectors of our society. Nowhere is this more clear than in the butchering the Minister is meting out to the health service, to the chronically sick, to the vulnerable and to the elderly and we have seen the latest instalment in this outrageous budget.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share