Dear Carmel Sepuloni,

1. Where in these clauses does it say that a beneficiary can only receive Emergency Medical Treatment assistance once every 52 weeks?

13.3

Emergency Medical Treatment

13.3.1

MSD may make a Grant of not more than $300 towards the costs of emergency medical treatment (including doctors' fees, prescription charges or hospital care).

13.3.2

MSD may make more than one Grant under clause 13.3.1 for a similar purpose in any 52 Week Period.

Your staff interpret the above clauses as $300 maximum every 52 weeks. It doesn't read that way to me. And even if there is some hidden clause or legislation then why is it being made public?

Furthermore there is the possibility of consideration of exceptional circumstances. There are exceptional circumstances and yet there aren't according to your staff.

Who decides what an exceptional circumstance is? The client or her advocate or work and income case managers?

If it is Work and Income - provide me a work and income list of exceptional circumstances.

My client has multiple serious health needs (including a smashed pelvis and a broken hip and life threatening illnesses (emergency admissions for heart attacks in 2017, 2018). And yet she has to wait on a list to see the public health system (orthopedic surgeon and public health physio treatment) - so she has no choice - and because of pain and suffering - she has to see private specialists.

She doesn't receive enough to live on supported living, DA and part TAS. Part of the cost for her weekly physio treatment is covered by DA and TAS but she still doesn't enough to cover the total cost of the fees. Her rent for a damp house at Kapiti is unaffordable, although its considered a low rent and her health costs are high.

We should not have to go to Superloans to pawn items for small loans at 30% + interest to pay for a physio.
This is an urgent, there are exceptional circumstances - and you need to see how different regions make decisions. If my client's case was being considered in the Wellington region, she'd likely get the support. You have stupid system (which no one obviously monitors) where you allow your SCM's to run offices how they see fit. That an cause terrible discrimination and disadvantage to some categories of beneficiaries. Surely, the law and the policy is the same New Zealand wide.

Sincerely
S. Paurini

Dear Carmel Sepuloni,

I have withdrawn this request

Yours faithfully,

S. Paurini