New medical card will not solve problems, say SVP

THE idea that the new “doctor-only” medical card will alleviate the financial burden on those with low incomes is “total and absolute nonsense”, the Society of St Vincent de Paul (SVP) said yesterday.

This is because most of the recipients would still need prescriptions which they would have to pay for themselves, SVP vice president John Monaghan said.

Under the scheme, 200,000 people on low incomes, but above the standard medical card threshold, would be entitled to see a GP for free, with the Government meeting the cost. When announcing the scheme last November, Tanaiste Mary Harney said: “People will be able to get the advice and reassurance they need from their GP and, in many cases, no additional costs will arise.”

But the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) has disputed that point. Its members - who will boycott the scheme’s planned introduction this month because of contractual concerns they say the Government has not addressed - argue that most patients would still require costly medication.

SVP yesterday agreed with this view. Mr Monaghan and other members, speaking before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social and Family Affairs, said it was imperative that full medical card entitlements be extended to those targeted by the initiative.

National social policy officer Audry Deane said offering these people a doctor-only card was merely “tinkering” with the system and not solving the real problems.

“We have extremely stark and shameful health inequalities,” she said.

Ms Deane cited preliminary results from research by economists at UCC which indicated that 77% of medical-card holders needed prescriptions following a visit to the doctor.

She said that this showed that the doctor-only card would not be sufficient to meet the needs of those who receive it.

The voluntary organisation also expressed disappointment with crucial aspects of the last budget.

In a statement to the committee, SVP said: “A key weakness of Budget 2005 was its failure to adequately tackle child poverty. While the emphasis of the budget was clearly on increases to lower-income adults, children living in poverty were not sufficiently assisted, in particular due to only very modest increases in Child Benefit and no increase in the more targeted payment, Child Dependent Allowance.”