Medical Card holders can now apply for a Long Term Illness Card

barry711

Diabetes Ireland has just learned that following a recent change in Department of Health policy, if you are a person with diabetes who holds a medical card, you can also now apply for, and be granted, a Long Term Illness (LTI) card.

Diabetes is one of the conditions recognised for inclusion in the LTI scheme. The LTI card allows you to receive drugs medicines and medical appliances directly related to your condition, free of charge. It does not depend on your income or other circumstances. The medical card on the other hand is means tested, but can also be provided on a discretionary basis in exceptional circumstances.

What does this mean?

As you may know, medical card holders must pay a €2.50 prescription charge for each item dispensed by the pharmacist through this scheme. There are no prescription charges associated with the LTI card.

If you are currently accessing medications for diabetes, and by association, cholesterol and/or blood pressure medications through your medical card, you can now get these through the LTI card and still retain the use of your medical card for other purposes. This would result in you avoiding prescription charges and could potentially save you up to €25 per month.

Next steps

Therefore, if you currently have a medical card, apply for an LTI card if you already do not have one. An application can be got from your GP or download it here: http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/1/schemes/lti/ltiform.pdf

Your GP or Consultant will need to sign it to confirm your condition and list your medications. Once signed, bring it to your local health office for processing.

http://www.diabetes.ie/2013/12/medical-card-holders-can-now-apply-for-a-long-term-illness-card/

locum-motion

There is absolutely NO new information in this post, and some of what is there is obsolete or (slightly) inaccurate. These issues have already been discussed and clarified on other threads here and/or in the Health Science forum.

barry711

aww I'm sure you'll get to be a mod one day

locum-motion

barry711 wrote: »

aww I'm sure you'll get to be a mod one day

I've been one, Barry. Wouldn't again!

nesf

I really wish they'd rename that scheme.

locum-motion

nesf wrote: »

I really wish they'd rename that scheme.

Because it clashes with the name of this forum?

Or because it doesn't include all long-term illnesses, just the 16 or whatever specified ones?

nesf

locum-motion wrote: »

Or because it doesn't include all long-term illnesses, just the 16 or whatever specified ones?

Pretty much, I still remember the first time I heard the name, got all excited about something that might help me and then find myself staring a list that made no sense to me. I just can't see how that list works on any logical basis, not even on a political one.

Beano

locum-motion wrote: »

There is absolutely NO new information in this post, and some of what is there is obsolete or (slightly) inaccurate. These issues have already been discussed and clarified on other threads here and/or in the Health Science forum.

Not new to you perhaps but it was news to me. My mother will be pleased.

ash23

That came in a little while back and I found out about it here. Now I am the proud holder of a medical card and a long term illness book. Free drugs! Yay!

heartseeker

Why does it specify that only people with long term mental illnesses BELOW 16 are elligible?is this not ageist and discriminatory?

nesf

heartseeker wrote: »

Why does it specify that only people with long term mental illnesses BELOW 16 are elligible?is this not ageist and discriminatory?

My first thought when I saw that list first years ago was: Well the vast majority of mentally ill individuals (i.e. with diagnoses) are 16 or over because all the common illnesses are rarely diagnosed before then, so they want to keep numbers accessing the scheme down.

Then I see diabetes there which is one of the most common LTIs so I don't know. Maybe diabetes is a lot cheaper to treat? Maybe the view is the individuals who are most ill with bipolar/schizophrenia/whatever will be unemployed and on the medical card already, whereas diabetes doesn't have as much of an impact on people's ability to work? I don't know.

ash23

I'd imagine it's a costing issue.

For example the cost of providing insulin vs the cost of treating the implications of untreated diabetes (dialysis, amputations and physio etc etc).
The cost of providing MS meds vs the cost of long term care for people who are getting more and more disabled.

It all boils down to money and whether or not providing free treatment saves money long term.

I'd imagine psychiatric care for a child/young person is very very expensive as facilities aren't designed with them in mind. So it pays the government to ensure they are treated. Whereas with adults it's probably not as cost effective.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

I'd imagine it's a costing issue.

For example the cost of providing insulin vs the cost of treating the implications of untreated diabetes (dialysis, amputations and physio etc etc).
The cost of providing MS meds vs the cost of long term care for people who are getting more and more disabled.

It all boils down to money and whether or not providing free treatment saves money long term.

I'd imagine psychiatric care for a child/young person is very very expensive as facilities aren't designed with them in mind. So it pays the government to ensure they are treated. Whereas with adults it's probably not as cost effective.

I've seen the opposite argument actually regarding adult psychiatric healthcare costs. We apparently waste a ton of money by not providing proper community care for individuals. There's a fair amount of debate about this but in terms of the outpatient care covered by the scheme I'm not sure why it'd be cheaper for adults, is the medication and that's paid per mg and doses for teenagers and preteens are normally quite a bit smaller than adults and really, adult hospitilisation is far, far from cheap. Psychiatric in-patient care is expensive (per person, due to average length of stay etc) no matter which way you look at it.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

I've seen the opposite argument actually regarding adult psychiatric healthcare costs. We apparently waste a ton of money by not providing proper community care for individuals. There's a fair amount of debate about this but in terms of the outpatient care covered by the scheme I'm not sure why it'd be cheaper for adults, is the medication and that's paid per mg and doses for teenagers and preteens are normally quite a bit smaller than adults and really, adult hospitilisation is far, far from cheap. Psychiatric in-patient care is expensive (per person, due to average length of stay etc) no matter which way you look at it.

When you weigh up the volume of people suffering for mild mental health issues, as in those who are on low doses of anxiety meds or anti depressants, versus the volume of people who actually end up needing hospitalisation or outpatient treatment, I'd imagine that is where the savings come into play.

If they were to cover all mental illness, regardless of age or severity, they'd be paying out a fortune compared to what they currently pay for in-patients and out-patients.

gctest50

nesf wrote: »

I've seen the opposite argument actually regarding adult psychiatric healthcare costs. We apparently waste a ton of money by not providing proper community care for individuals. .........

and now and again not providing care goes wrong

"Enda thought life was a cartoon and he was in it. He thought he was a character in 'South Park', that's just the way he was.
"He would do worse and worse things and each time he thought it was fun. He got in with people who thought what he did was funny."
She said her pleas to the authorities to have him sent to the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum fell on deaf ears.
"He would come back out of prison worse than before. People in there would dare him to do things and he would come out and he would do it.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-man-in-stabbing-rampage-thought-life-was-just-a-cartoon-30385706.html

echo beach

ash23 wrote: »

I'd imagine it's a costing issue.

For example the cost of providing insulin vs the cost of treating the implications of untreated diabetes (dialysis, amputations and physio etc etc).
The cost of providing MS meds vs the cost of long term care for people who are getting more and more disabled.

It all boils down to money and whether or not providing free treatment saves money long term.

That is what you might think but you are making the mistake of trying to find logic in a scheme that has no basis in logic. It started life as the diabetic scheme, long before the medical card scheme existed. Over the years various other illness were added in an ad hoc way based to a emotional reaction to individual 'hard cases' who happen to draw the compassion of particular ministers. There was never any assessment of medical needs or even more bizarrely of expected costs.

Then one day a decision was taken that no more illness would be added. Nobody knows who made that decision or when but no new illnesses have been added for decades despite intensive lobbying by several patient organisations.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

When you weigh up the volume of people suffering for mild mental health issues, as in those who are on low doses of anxiety meds or anti depressants, versus the volume of people who actually end up needing hospitalisation or outpatient treatment, I'd imagine that is where the savings come into play.

If they were to cover all mental illness, regardless of age or severity, they'd be paying out a fortune compared to what they currently pay for in-patients and out-patients.

You could make the exact same argument for diabetes no? We're paying for the diabetes drugs for an awful lot of people who could afford them with the help of the DPS scheme (I don't disagree with this, I just wouldn't put diabetes at the top of the list for free meds by a long shot). It's an anomaly at best.

Moyglish

Just wondering if this is for definite if a medical card holder can also qualify for a LTI card whilst retaining their medical card?

I told my mother about this as she has a medical card and has diabetes which comes under the LTI criteria, and when she enquired about it from her pharmacist she was told that she could only have one OR the other - if she got the LTI card, then she would lose her medical card. Was this pharmacist wrong in this instance?

quadrifoglio verde

Moyglish wrote: »

Just wondering if this is for definite if a medical card holder can also qualify for a LTI card whilst retaining their medical card?

I told my mother about this as she has a medical card and has diabetes which comes under the LTI criteria, and when she enquired about it from her pharmacist she was told that she could only have one OR the other - if she got the LTI card, then she would lose her medical card. Was this pharmacist wrong in this instance?

Yep, if she has diabetes, she's able to get both.
There's a form that she fills out, gets her gp to sign and sends off.
More details here.
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/1/schemes/lti/Your_Guide_to_the_Long-Term_Illness_Scheme.html

locum-motion

Moyglish wrote: »

... Was this pharmacist wrong in this instance?

Yes. 100%.

ash23

I have both a medical card and a LTI card

Moyglish

Thanks guys, I'll mention it to her again

petal25

Hey everyone,

I was on the welfare websites and citizen advice and have read all the rules regarding the entitlements of a long term illness card. I found something which seems odd to me.

Why are under 16's only entitled to a long term illness card? I have a long term illness and I am 25. I am just unsure as to why it only applies to under 16's?

Does anyone know why this is?

Kind regards,

Petal25.

locum-motion

petal25 wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I was on the welfare websites and citizen advice and have read all the rules regarding the entitlements of a long term illness card. I found something which seems odd to me.

Why are under 16's only entitled to a long term illness card? I have a long term illness and I am 25. I am just unsure as to why it only applies to under 16's?

Does anyone know why this is?

Kind regards,

Petal25.

From your post, I think you think that the U.16's restriction applies to everyone. If so, you should read the rules more closely.

There are about 16 illnesses listed, including (for example) diabetes, parkinson's, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis. None of these has any age restrictions.

Mental Illness is the only one listed that has an age restriction.

I don't know why, but I'm afraid that's the way it is.

So, while an adult with mental illness might have a long-term illness (note lack of capitals), they do not have a Long Term Illness!