Charges for elderly nursing-home patients
Kenny asks whether contributions charged to elderly public nursing-home patients are unlawful despite the 2001 legislation granting free inpatient care, and seeks retrospective redress. The Taoiseach says legislation based on the 1976 regulations is being drafted for publication in January, but it will not be retrospective.
Six weeks ago I raised with the Taoiseach the question of the charging, since 2001, of elderly patients in public nursing homes. He and the Tánaiste, who is now advising him on this matter, are aware that, prior to 2001, health boards were legally entitled to seek a contribution from medical card holders in long-term care. However, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2001 conferred full eligibility to free in-patient services for all those over 70 years of age. Despite this legislative provision, contributions have continued to be taken from elderly long-stay patients. The Taoiseach indicated six weeks ago that the Attorney General was advising the Government on this matter. The Tánaiste said legislation would be brought before the House prior to Christmas, but there are only five sitting days left before the recess. Today's newspapers state that more than 16,000 long-stay patients could be entitled to free care, which could expose the Exchequer to a possible bill of at least €400 million. Will the Taoiseach respond in respect of what he said he would do six weeks ago and come clean on this issue? Is the advice of the Attorney General that the payments extracted from the long-stay patients since 2001 were illegal? Does the Government intend to make repayments where applicable, bearing in mind the recommendations in respect of overcharging by AIB? If the Tánaiste wishes to respond to my queries, she might do so.
Comment on this
Deputy Kenny raised this matter with me. The Attorney General has considered it and reported to the Tánaiste a few weeks ago. The Tánaiste is drafting relevant legislation. It will not be introduced in the House before the Christmas recess but will be published in January in time for the spring session. As I understand it, there will be no retrospective element in the legislation. There are some legal difficulties pertaining to patients not staying in public accommodation and these will have to be examined to determine whether there is a way in which they can be dealt with. The legislation should be before the House shortly.
Comment on this
The Tánaiste indicated on a number of occasions that this Bill would be before the House before Christmas. Obviously, certain drafting difficulties have arisen. Any legislation introduced is introduced for a purpose. What is the purpose of the legislation being drafted? Is it because the Attorney General has given advice to the Government that contributions taken from long-stay patients in public beds in long-stay units are illegal? Does the Taoiseach not agree that, because the Minister for Health and Children needs to draft legislation to deal with this matter, retrospective retribution should be made to patients or their next of kin where illegal charges have been imposed?
This issue has been topical for quite some time. The Tánaiste gave specific guarantees on at least four occasions that the legislation would be introduced in the House before Christmas. It will not be in the House until February and published before then. Will the Taoiseach tell us the essence of the legal advice from the Attorney General? Are these payments illegal? What is the purpose of the legislation to be drafted? What outstanding legal difficulties does the Tánaiste face, to which the Taoiseach has referred? The Taoiseach might answer these questions and ease the minds and concern of those patients in long-stay care from whom payments are being extracted.
Comment on this
The Attorney General reported on this matter only a few weeks ago and the Tánaiste gave an undertaking the legislation would be ready as soon as possible and if it is not drafted by Christmas it will be ready shortly afterwards. Without going through the contents of the legislation, the Attorney General advises that what happens is governed by the 1976 regulations but this should be done by primary legislation. To deal with this issue we must have primary legislation. There is no retrospective factor in the legislation which is never the case anyway — we do not have retrospective legislation. Whatever happens in the future will be set out in the legislation when published.