ALMOST 8,500 people with disabilities living in long-stay care are being deducted up to 70% of their income under legislation introduced by minister of health Mary Harney in July 2005.
In addition, over the last few weeks, many families of people with disabilities living in care have received letters notifying them of money owed, as the payments are being backdated to the introduction of the legislation in July 2005. Some of these people are still owed rebates from the state for being illegally charged for their care prior to 2005.
The Health (Charge for In-Patient Services) Regulations 2005 was introduced after the Supreme Court ruling in February 2005 allowed for older people with medical cards in long-stay care to be charged for their care. As the act also applies to any care facility where nursing is provided, people with disabilities are also being charged for their care.
The type of care varies from residential homes with high levels of nursing care to social housing where people with disabilities are supported to live independently and a nurse may visit once a week.
People with disabilities living in care receive a disability allowance of 185.50 per week. The legislation allows for charging 90 per week for living in care and if nursing staff are employed, 125 or their total income less 35 (or whichever is less).
Letters from care providers to families of people with disabilities seen by the Sunday Tribune detail a charge of 120 per week. The letters also inform the family of money owed retrospectively to July 2005, although they were only made aware of the charges in the past few weeks and are yet to be billed.
Michael D Higgins, Labour TD for Galway, is accusing the minister for health of "washing her hands of people with disabilities in care". Higgins became aware of the issue in March when constituents approached him about being charged 5,000 retrospectively for the care of their son. Higgins says that in absence of amending the act, he is advising the family to contest the legality of retrospective charging.
The HSE were unable to respond to questions submitted in time for publication.
|