[Metrobeans]

B436 - Hospital Free Travel Bill - Labour

Hospital Free Travel Bill - Labour
The aim of this bill is to help those who are disadvantaged (specifically those below the poverty line) to be able to visit their loved ones while they are in hospital for a prolonged period of time.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Hospital Free Travel

(1) Travel costs to and from hospitals for the purpose of visiting a patient will be refundable by the Government providing the "Conditions" are met.
(2) For the purposes of this Act-

(i)"patient" means any person who has been officially admitted into an NHS hospital.
(ii)"hospital" means the NHS hospital that the relevant patient has been admitted to.
(iii)"applicant" means the person who is trying to get their travel costs refunded by the Government.

2. Conditions

(1) The patient must have been in hospital for at least seventy two hours (three days).
(2) The chosen route to the hospital must be the most direct route possible for the form of transport chosen.
(3) The form of transport must be either bus, train or taxi.
(4) Taxi may only be the chosen form of transport if transportation by bus or train would result in a distance having to be travelled by foot of over 3.2 kilometres (2 miles).
(5) The applicant must be either a spouse, child, parent, sibling or legal guardian of the patient.
(6) Only one applicant per patient will be eligible to receive reimbursement of their travel costs at any one time. If there are two or more applicants per patient at any one time the applicant who's "Free Hospital Travel Pack" is received first will be eligible for reimbursement.
(7) The applicant can only be reimbursed for a journey a maximum of once per calendar week.
(8) The percentage of the travel costs to be reimbursed varies according to the applicant's annual household income-

(i) £0-14,976 = 100%
(ii) £14,977-17,999 = 75%
(iii) £18,000-19,999 = 50%
(iv) £20,000-26,000 = 25%
(v) £26,000+ = 0%

3. Reimbursement

(1) "Free Hospital Travel Packs" are a collection of documents that explain how to claim back hospital travel costs, application form and include a label to a free post Government address that will handle all Free Hospital Travel applications.
(2) "Free Hospital Travel Packs" will be made available and can be requested by the applicant by calling a free phone telephone number. "Free Hospital Travel Packs" will also be downloadable on the "Direct Gov" website.
(3) The applicant must include all proof of purchase for journeys that they wish to be reimbursed for.
(4) The completed Free Hospital Travel pack must be received by no longer than 30 days after any journey(s) that the applicant wishes to be reimbursed for.
(5) Applicants will have the option to be reimbursed either by direct bank transfer or cheque.

4. Commencement, short title and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Hospital Free Travel Act 2012
(2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force within six months following Royal Assent.

Notes - xXedixXx

The condition concerning household income comes about due to £288 being the poverty line for two adults with two dependent children, and then multiplying this number by 52 for the annual figure.

- http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml

This is estimated to cost: £2,512,464.19 per day if everyone eligible to get this (last year) made one trip by train and £1,629,049.36 per day by bus.

This does not mean that the yearly cost for this would be those numbers multiplied by 365, because people don't tend to stay in hospital for an entire year, only a number of days.

This estimate comes from assuming the worst conditions of the applicant. For example those figures were created on the assumption that everyone applying would be entitled to the 100% discount.

[tehFrance]

No. You already get help with travel expenses... this is too far.

[Rakas21]

I shall thank you for costing it but as much as people visiting everyday is nice, it is not a right and should not be funded by the state (maybe get a charity involved).

[Bubble87]

I totally agree with this is the relative in question is either palliative or in ITU but for other cases it's a bit of a joke. And there don't seem to be any rules about a single person claiming. So I could be earning £25k and still claim back 25%! Unless there's something on the application about dependants etc.

[Abiraleft]

I think this is quite a good idea, personally. Out of interest, what's the motive behind condition (1)?

[Moleman1996]

There should be higher amounts of money available to cover travel expenses, but they certainly should not be entirely funded by the state.

[Mechie]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
There should be higher amounts of money available to cover travel expenses, but they certainly should not be entirely funded by the state.

They are only entirely funded by the state if they're living on the poverty line or below - it's not as if everybody is getting free travel.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
They are only entirely funded by the state if they're living on the poverty line or below - it's not as if everybody is getting free travel.

but people don't need to visit every day, you could be funding expenses for people who were simply visiting someone with a broken leg etc.

I'm more tempted to go down the line of free parking...

[TopHat]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but people don't need to visit every day, you could be funding expenses for people who were simply visiting someone with a broken leg etc.

I'm more tempted to go down the line of free parking...

But we're not funding them to do it every day - just once a week, as it points out in the bill.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
but people don't need to visit every day, you could be funding expenses for people who were simply visiting someone with a broken leg etc.

I'm more tempted to go down the line of free parking...

Once a week seems fair enough, tbh...

[ByronicHero]

I pointed out in the subforum why 2.(4) isn't appropriate and was told it would be changed and obviously it wasn't. There needs to be flexibility with regards to the physical capabilities of the visitor.

[xXedixXx]

This Bill ensures that the poorest people in our society have the opportunity to visit their loved ones when they require their family with them the most. For many people having to spend money to visit their loved ones while they're in hospital is too much of a strain and could mean that some of their basic needs can not be met; such as adequate housing, heating and food.

This Bill also works out relatively cheap with the conditions that have been put in place.

I started working on this Bill while my Dad was in hospital (on a ward), before he became incredibly sick and almost died, having been rushed into intensive care and then transported to another hospital for an emergency operation. Although my family is nowhere near the poverty line I realised that this must be incredibly hard for some poor families to deal with, considering the extra financial strain along with the emotional upset.
-----------------------------------------------------------

(Original post by paddy__power)
I pointed out in the subforum why 2.(4) isn't appropriate and was told it would be changed and obviously it wasn't. There needs to be flexibility with regards to the physical capabilities of the visitor.

Yes paddy, I also pointed out in the sub forum that disabled people already get benefits from the Government to cover their lack of mobility, such as free bus passes so they wouldn't need to use this legislation anyway.

(Original post by Abiraleft)
I think this is quite a good idea, personally. Out of interest, what's the motive behind condition (1)?

The motive behind condition 1 is to ensure that the patient isn't there for a short stay; this stops scenarios where the patient is just in for some day treatment etc.. Or just having to stay in other night then being released the next day. I didn't think the patient would need to be visited, funded by the Government, in these circumstances.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
This Bill ensures that the poorest people in our society have the opportunity to visit their loved ones when they require their family with them the most. For many people having to spend money to visit their loved ones while they're in hospital is too much of a strain and could mean that some of their basic needs can not be met; such as adequate housing, heating and food.

This Bill also works out relatively cheap with the conditions that have been put in place.

I started working on this Bill while my Dad was in hospital (on a ward), before he became incredibly sick and almost died, having been rushed into intensive care and then transported to another hospital for an emergency operation. Although my family is nowhere near the poverty line I realised that this must be incredibly hard for some poor families to deal with, considering the extra financial strain along with the emotional upset.
-----------------------------------------------------------



Yes paddy, I also pointed out in the sub forum that disabled people already get benefits from the Government to cover their lack of mobility, such as free bus passes so they wouldn't need to use this legislation anyway.



The motive behind condition 1 is to ensure that the patient isn't there for a short stay; this stops scenarios where the patient is just in for some day treatment etc.. Or just having to stay in other night then being released the next day. I didn't think the patient would need to be visited, funded by the Government, in these circumstances.

They would if they don't live within easy access of a bus route.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by paddy__power)
They would if they don't live within easy access of a bus route.

Ah okay. I think I see what you're getting at and you make a good point. I'll look into that change for a second reading.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Ah okay. I think I see what you're getting at and you make a good point. I'll look into that change for a second reading.

There is that and the fact that, for example, an old person - who may or may not have their free bus pass - may be too frail to realistically make the journey by bus but this shouldn't stop us helping them. Good

[CyclopsRock]

It's a good job we have so much money, isn't it? Otherwise we probably wouldn't pay people to go and visit people in hospital, because we'd probably have other, much bigger and more important issues to spend money on. Luckily, because we have so much money, we don't!

[calumsteele1]

personally im against this, an unnesesary cost especially in the current climate so no.

[D.R.E]

-.-

This is such a completely pointless bill... Nay.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by D.R.E)
-.-

This is such a completely pointless bill... Nay.

Mhm, "completely pointless" for those who can't afford to travel to hospital to see their loved ones when they need them the most; eh?

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Mhm, "completely pointless" for those who can't afford to travel to hospital to see their loved ones when they need them the most; eh?

They don't need them. They want them. For the last 60 years the NHS has been trundling along, gradually clawing more and more of the nations money, and as far as I'm aware, no one's died because their brother wasn't at their bedside. Through my taxes, I'm forced to pay for their dialysis machine. At least that saves a life. I shouldn't be forced to pay for their brother to get a cab to go visit them.