Millions in infected blood compensation handed to ‘strangers'
Thousands of families who lost loved ones to the infected blood scandal could be locked out of the Government's £11.8bn compensation scheme, The Telegraph can reveal.
In one shocking case, the child of someone who died of AIDS in the 1990s could receive nothing. Meanwhile, the children of an old family friend get a taxpayer-funded payout of over £1m.
More than 30,000 people contracted hepatitis C and HIV after being given contaminated blood samples in the 1970s and 1980s.
The Government has earmarked £11.8bn for the victims of the biggest scandal in NHS history, which resulted in the deaths of at least 3,000 people.
Compensation amounts are assessed on a case-by-case basis but a person infected with HIV could expect to get over £1m.
According to the rules of the scheme, if an infected person has died, then payment will be made into their estate and distributed according to their will.
But many infected people died without wills, while others wrote down their wishes up to four decades ago – often with very little in assets and with no hope for compensation.
As a result, family members who were not named as beneficiaries could lose compensation after decades of campaigning.
The Telegraph has spoken to one individual whose father died of AIDS when they were young. Their solicitor has told them they might not receive any compensation because their father left a small estate to a friend who has since died. As a result, that friend's children now stand to inherit at least £1m.
The individual, who asked to remain anonymous, said: 'They didn't even know him.'
Campaigners have hit out at the Government for its handling of the scheme.
Kate Burt, of the Haemophilia Society, said: 'The Government utterly failed to grasp the complexities of interim compensation payments on behalf of estates when it opened applications last year.
'The result is that many bereaved families at the centre of the infected blood scandal are being re traumatised by an unaccountable and insensitive process.'
It recently emerged that families could have to wait until 2029 to receive compensation.
Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, said: 'The pace at which compensation has been paid out to date is unacceptable and has to improve. Too many people are dying before they get justice.'
Julian Miller was 22 years old when he was diagnosed with HIV.
In 1971 doctors began giving him Factor VIII, a blood clotting protein used to treat haemophilia. It later emerged that many Factor VII products had been tainted with viruses because they were made from the commercially donated plasma of thousands including US prisoners and drug addicts.
Mr Miller died at the age of 29, leaving behind his parents and two brothers.
His brother, Rupert, 67, who now lives in Poland, said the impact on the family had been devastating.
'I was sacked from my job because I was caring for him as my parents couldn't cope. We all knew he was going to die.
'He went from a 6 foot, 15 stone guy down to someone who weighed four stone. My parents and I were watching this happen – and the effect was catastrophic.
'Julian's death destroyed our parents and I went off the rails.'
But Rupert said his brother 'did not die in vain'. In his final years, Julian threw himself behind the Haemophilia Society's campaign for compensation, speaking openly about his HIV diagnosis in the press.
He was one of three victims who met John Moore, the then-health secretary, in 1987 in what was considered a pivotal moment for the campaign that helped to secure £10m in financial support for the infected.
According to the inquiry report, a civil servant later said: 'I've never really seen any meeting that's kind of changed direction so quickly or to such a great effect as that.'
Rupert said: 'He was a remarkable, very brave young man, who should be alive today. I do not doubt in my mind that without his input at the very beginning, and continuing up until very shortly before his death, we all may well be in a very different place.'
Decades after his death, Julian's family are finally on the verge of getting compensation. His parents have since passed away, leaving his two brothers. You might expect this to be divided up equally between them.
But Rupert has been told by the probate office that he will receive only one third while his brother will get the rest.
Julian died without a will. When this happens, the deceased person's estate is distributed according to the rules of intestacy, prioritising the closest of a kin.
These rules state that if the deceased had siblings but no living spouse, parents or children, then those siblings will share the estate equally.
However, Julian died years before his parents. So technically, his mother inherited his estate.
The probate office has said that therefore the compensation must be distributed according to her will – and Rupert's mother decided to leave a larger share of her estate to his older brother.
He said: 'I've asked quite a few solicitors to look into this and many have said, 'It's not for us, it's too complicated'. But I cannot be the only person affected.
'The Government is hoping if they delay it as long as they can so that people will die and their claim dies with them.'
If an 'affected person' like Rupert passes away before they receive compensation, then their own relatives cannot make a claim.
'They're putting us through all these hoops. There's so many complicated situations – but people aren't dealing with it because they can't afford to.'
Adam Fleming, of BTMK Solicitors, who was infected with Hepatitis C in the 1980s and has since been cleared of the virus, said he had come across a number of cases like Rupert's.
'We all saw this issue coming as soon as the Government said compensation would be attributed to people with a grant of probate.
'A lot of the people who passed away didn't have a lot because they were ill and out of work, so many didn't have a will – or they did but they never thought this would happen.'
A grant of probate is a legal document used to distribute the estate to the beneficiaries after a death.
Mr Fleming said using probate to distribute compensation was the 'easiest way to get the money into the community' but 'not the right solution'.
He said: 'The compensation is going to the people who stand to inherit the estate and that's not the ethos of the scheme.'
He said the scheme had likely been 'rushed' without sufficient engagement with charities because the Government felt under pressure to act.
'It deserved so much more thought and consideration,' he added.
One person the Telegraph spoke to, who asked to remain anonymous, lost their dad to AIDS when they were young.
His dad had a very small estate and chose to leave this to his friend. Since that friend has now died, their children are in line for potentially millions of pounds in taxpayer-funded compensation.
The bereaved person said this would be a 'catastrophe'.
They said: 'It's stressful because I don't know where I stand in my dad's estate as his child. So we've had to fork out for solicitors to try and get a better understanding to try and get his estate back within the family where it should be.
'It opens up old wounds. You leave a room, you shut the door behind you. That's what I want to do with my childhood. But I can't. I keep having to open the door to delve into my past which makes me very anxious and want to just shut down.'
Some families are having to fork out hundreds or even thousands of pounds in legal fees just to apply for compensation. In some cases they may also have to go through the courts. The Government has said it will only cover a maximum of £1,500.
Gary Rycroft, legal expert of the Ask a Lawyer Telegraph column, said a restitution claim was one possibility for Rupert.
'You would argue that when mum made her will with an unequal split, she was doing so with her own estate in mind, which was of course fine for her to do. But she did not do so with the £1m compensation now being offered in mind – so on that basis it could be argued it is unfair for the unexpected windfall cash to be split the same way.'
Ms Burt, of the Haemophilia Society, said: 'Many people infected through contaminated blood died without a will, yet the process for making a claim in these circumstances is complex and unclear, especially if the applicant is not the parent.
'To many it feels as if the goalposts are constantly moving as they try to navigate a system which is being updated on the hoof as problems arise.
'This isn't good enough. Applicants should have their own dedicated caseworker who takes responsibility for decisions. It should be clear what documentation is needed to make a claim. We hope lessons are being learned.'
So far, over 400 interim payments have been paid to the estates of deceased infected people, totalling more than £40m. The Government said it could not comment on individual cases.
The Ministry of Justice – which oversees the probate office – said contaminated blood compensation is distributed through standard probate and intestacy rules.
The Cabinet Office said it was not for the Government to intervene with the wishes of a deceased person. It said affected persons are able to make claims in their own right.
However the awards for affected persons are much smaller than those for infected persons. Generally the compensation for someone who died young without dependents will also be less than for someone still living with HIV today.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
I'm a GP, and I'm sick of the NHS always winning
Another Spending Review, another promise of increased funding for the NHS. This week Rachel Reeves has said £30 billion will be invested over the next five years in day-to-day maintenance and repair of the health service estate. But will these cash injections ever be enough? Or is a centrally run and funded system simply no longer able to keep pace with the population's needs and demands for healthcare in our modern era? The Times has also reported on Government plans to drastically shift care from hospitals into the community, in a bid to create a 'neighbourhood health service'; with the bulk of routine specialist appointments delivered in locations such as GP surgeries and high street opticians. How GP surgeries are expected to cope with the extra demand – when many patients are already unable to secure an appointment – is not made clear. Yet the crux of the matter is not primarily where appointments take place; but individual decisions made by the public around when, where and how they use the health service. Starmer is clutching at straws to meet his manifesto pledge for 92 per cent of patients to be seen within 18 weeks after referral for non-urgent conditions. Currently only 60 per cent of patients are receiving treatment within this timeframe. However, since Labour are focussing on the wrong problem, their solution will fail. Working as a GP in the NHS, it has frequently struck me how much of the healthcare demand in the UK might disappear if the public were contributing in some way. Take the patient who calls to discuss their child's difficult bedtime routine, or one who recently asked for exceptional NHS funding to have a small fatty lump removed from their back. Day after day, GPs see patients who would not contact the health service if they even had to pay £10 for an appointment. The same is repeated in A&E departments and outpatient clinics. Demand has been spiralling for years without the counterbalance that comes from a degree of personal responsibility. The result is that patients are offered tests and investigations they don't need, hospital referrals that may offer minimal benefit, and now many simply cannot get through to their GP at all. Emergency departments in the UK mirror scenes you might expect to see in a warzone: patients covered in blood and vomit, writhing in pain, or being left for hours in hospital corridors. Nobody seems able to rationalise which services the NHS should be delivering; meanwhile the system is descending into chaos and delivering increasingly substandard care. The Amazon Prime generation expects healthcare demands to be met at the click of a button – but better still, it is free! If the NHS can offer weight loss surgery, knee replacements, diabetes medication and more; then what is the point in striving to improve your health? The British public have, to a degree, learnt to expect the health service to pick up the pieces for their poor lifestyle choices. The results are seen across society: from overweight children in our primary schools, to millions declared unfit to work due to mental health conditions. Despite healthcare expenditure continuing to increase, and accounting for a larger share of the UK's GDP; productivity in NHS hospitals has fallen, waiting times for outpatient appointments have ballooned, the UK has markedly higher cancer mortality rates than other countries, and life expectancy improvements have stalled. Coupled with the number of working-aged people who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness, it is not unreasonable to wonder how long this can continue. Labour are right to identify that too many patients currently receive hospital treatment for conditions that could be managed by GPs, but they fail to see the bigger picture on the need for healthcare reform. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results – this seems to reflect our position on the NHS. Dr Katie Musgrave is a general practitioner Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Health Line
4 hours ago
- Health Line
HIV: As Scientists Inch Closer to a Vaccine, Cuts to Funding Could Stall Progress
The Trump administration reportedly plans to cut almost all funding for HIV vaccine research. Experts say the decision comes at a time when research in this field is making substantial progress. Many effective treatments are available for HIV, but these are lifelong commitments that manage a chronic disease rather than cure it. Treatments for HIV infection have come a long way since the 1980s, when too many lives were lost during the epidemic. Today, antiretroviral therapies and other treatments allow people with HIV to live longer lives and, in many cases, prevent the transmission of the virus that causes the disease to other people. Scientists now say the next step in the fight is a vaccine that protects against HIV. However, that next development could be on the chopping block. Trump administration officials reportedly plan to halt funding for a wide array of HIV vaccine research. Researchers told CBS News they have been informed by officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has instructed the agency not to issue any more funding during the next fiscal year for HIV vaccine research. NIH officials said HHS officials have instead decided to 'go with currently available approaches to eliminate HIV.' The decision will close down HIV vaccine research projects at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute and the Scripps Research Institute, according to a report in the journal Science. Officials at Moderna also told CBS News that their current clinical trials on HIV vaccines have been put on hold. Experts say the decision to cut funding for an HIV vaccine is short-sighted and reckless. 'I'm stunned by this decision,' said Jake Scott, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in California who specializes in infectious diseases. 'There is no scientific or medical evidence to justify these cuts at the exact moment this field is showing real promise,' he told Healthline. Carl Baloney Jr., the chief executive officer-elect of AIDS United, agreed. 'Eliminating funding for HIV vaccine research undermines decades of scientific progress and turns our back on a future where HIV could be preventable for all, regardless of where someone lives, their income, or access to healthcare,' he told Healthline. Why an HIV vaccine is important Experts say that treatments for HIV are incredibly effective. However, they note that most involve daily adherence and aren't necessarily readily available or affordable for many people. 'There are a lot of good options, but they can be really expensive,' Scott said. 'These medications are also not a cure. They are a lifetime burden.' The experts add that people with low levels of HIV in their system can still have weakened immune systems. That can raise the risk of serious infections as well as inflammation that can lead to conditions such as heart disease. 'A vaccine can help prevent all this,' said Scott. Experts note that a vaccine research program may be difficult to put back together even if a new administration restored funding in the near future. They say it took decades to build these programs and restarting them would take time. In addition, researchers will leave the field of HIV prevention to set up shop in another industry that is receiving funding. 'We could lose an entire generation of scientists,' said Scott. 'This is setting the field back a decade or more at a critical time.' 'This isn't just about canceling [a] clinical trial. It's about sidelining the scientists, institutions, and community partners driving innovation forward,' added Baloney. 'These setbacks could delay the development of a successful HIV vaccine by years or even decades.' How scientists fought against HIV The first treatment for HIV was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1987. Azidothymidine (AZT) was first developed in 1964 as a treatment for cancer. It was ineffective in that usage, but in the 1980s, scientists discovered AZT could suppress HIV replication without damaging healthy cells. It helped treat people with AIDS as well as people who were HIV positive but had no symptoms. In the 1990s, other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) were developed and approved. Laboratory tests to measure viral load and cell counts accelerated this research. From there, scientists experimented with combining drugs to help counter the HIV virus's ability to mutate and replicate. In 1996, a triple-drug therapy proved effective in thwarting HIV replication and creating a barrier against drug resistance. Since then, these antiretroviral drugs have become more effective and more available. The effectiveness of these medications is nothing short of miraculous. In the 1980s, the average life expectancy after an AIDS diagnosis was one year. Today, people who adhere to combination antiretroviral drug therapies can expect to live a near-normal life span. In some cases, the medications can reduce the HIV viral load in a person to the point where the virus is undetectable and can't be transmitted to another person. How is HIV treated today? More than 50 types of HIV medications are now approved for use. Some of the more commonly used antiretroviral medications are: Combination NRTI drugs that include Truvada and Descovy. These medications work by preventing HIV from converting its RNA into DNA. This prevents the virus from making copies of itself.. Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) that include Vocabria and Biktarvy. These drugs work by blocking an enzyme that HIV uses to put HIV DNA into human DNA inside cells. Protease inhibitors (PIs) such as Lexiva and Crixivan. These medications work by blocking an enzyme that HIV needs as part of its life cycle. Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that include Intelence and Viramune. These drugs work by preventing the HIV virus from making copies of itself. Entry inhibitors such as Fuzeon and Selzentry. These medications work by blocking HIV from entering CD4 T cells. In addition, there are drugs known as Cytochrome P4503A (CYP3A) inhibitors, such as Tybost and Norvir, that help boost the levels of HIV medications in the bloodstream. There are also medications known as post-attachment inhibitors that when used with antiretroviral drugs can help prevent HIV from entering immune cells. Trogarzo was the first of these drugs to become available, having been approved in 2018. In addition, there are attachment inhibitor medications, a newer form of HIV drug that works by attaching to a viral protein, which prevents that protein from entering healthy T cells. Only one type of this medication, Rubokia, is currently available, having been approved in 2020. Most people with HIV are given medications, but there also are long-acting injections that are given once a month or once every other month. Scott said these treatments are cures that have turned HIV into a 'managed chronic disease' to the point where he and other colleagues now refer to AIDS as 'advanced HIV.' Baloney said, however, there are limits to how much treatments can do. 'Current treatments and prevention tools have transformed HIV into a manageable chronic condition, but they are not a cure and they're not accessible to everyone,' he said. 'An HIV vaccine would be a game-changer, especially for communities facing systemic barriers to care.' Preventive measures for HIV Even with the available treatments, experts agree that it's better for a person if they don't contract HIV in the first place. They say condom use, along with dental dams and gloves, can be effective barriers to contracting HIV. Limiting sexual partners is also recommended, as are sterile needles for intravenous drug users. Getting tested for HIV is also an important component. It's estimated that more than 1 million people in the United States have HIV, and 13% of them don't know they have contracted the virus. There are medications available that can be taken as a precaution or after potential exposure to HIV. These drugs include: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP): These medications can be taken as a daily pill or a bimonthly injection. The first injectable PrEP drug was Apretude, which was approved by the FDA in 2021. Truvada can also be used as PrEP therapy. These medications help prevent HIV from getting a foothold in the body. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) drugs: These are designed to be taken within 72 hours of potential exposure to HIV. It is a pill ingested once a day for 28 days. Lenacapavir: This injectable drug has been tested in clinical trials as a potential PrEP therapy. The FDA is scheduled to vote on its approval on June 19. Experts say all these preventive measures are good practices, but they note that vaccines are still the most effective.
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
HIV, TB, malaria treatment in Kenya threatened by KSh 11.4B funding reduction
Kenya's Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi presented the estimates in Parliament on Thursday, showing a drop in HIV, TB, and malaria funding from KSh 28.7 billion in the current financial year to KSh 17.3 billion. This comes after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) withdrew their financial support earlier this year, leaving Kenya's health sector exposed to severe funding gaps. In March, the Ministry of Health indicated that KSh 13.54 billion was urgently needed to sustain HIV, TB, and malaria programs for the remainder of the year. This included KSh 7.68 billion for the procurement of essential medical commodities and KSh 5.8 billion to maintain the employment of 11,059 frontline healthcare workers. Within the new allocation, the Treasury has included contributions to the Global Fund for HIV, TB, and malaria, alongside KSh 4.6 billion for vaccines and immunization and KSh 500 million for family planning and reproductive health commodities. Concerns rise amid USAID exit However, it remains unclear whether these allocations will be sufficient to cover the funding vacuum created by the exit of USAID and PEPFAR. For years, these donor programs have played a crucial role in supporting Kenya's efforts against HIV and other communicable diseases. Their withdrawal marks a significant setback for ongoing public health interventions. Geopolitical economist Aly-Khan Satchu described the situation as a major stress test for Kenya's health infrastructure. ' To some degree, there is no HIV or vaccine program without PEPFAR,' he said. ' They are going to have to achieve this now in a shock therapy type moment.' The announcement has raised alarm among health stakeholders, who have previously appealed to the government to act swiftly in addressing the budget gap. As the new fiscal plan awaits legislative scrutiny, questions are being raised about how Kenya intends to meet its public health commitments without the financial backing it has relied on for years.
