Dear Editor,
I am compelled with dismay to respond to an NIS advertisement in the Sunday Chronicle of February 15, 2009, in which it is stated that an NIS Pensioner/contributor must submit a prescription for drugs every three months. This will require the pensioner to find the financial resources to obtain a prescription and also pay transportation fees. What a caring social security system. Perhaps a twice annual system would have sufficed. It is stated, “Persons who have not uplifted any drug from NIS within one year shall be taken off the drug programme.” Was it meant after one year?
Could the management explain this. Assuming that the attending physician is of the opinion that the pensioner/contributor should be off drugs for over a year, and after a re-examination drugs were prescribed, would the pensioner be denied the entitlement? If so, this would defeat the whole purpose of the medical care intention. (Please refer to the other daily, Kaieteur News to determine which advertisement is correct.)
Another area of concern is that it is said that pensioners have to get their life certificates signed by someone outside of NIS. It gives one the impression that the management is questioning the integrity of its senior officers who would normally sign those life certificates that are tendered at NIS, thus saving the pensioner from spending more financial resources. The horses are out of the paddock and further hardships, especially in relation to the pensioners, would not complement the already negative performance of the scheme; this is compounded by the number of persons waiting for their pensions/entitlement, including appeals.
Mr Martinborough must be grieving silently for the erosion of the legacy he left. I wish the NIS Board could review the aforementioned concerns. Perhaps other pensioners may wish to voice their approval/disapproval through this medium.
Yours faithfully,
name and address supplied
