The government of the Community of Madrid on Monday rejected accusations of establishing a co-payment for patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Sources from the Ministry of Family, Youth and Social Affairs described information suggesting a reduction in subsidies for the most severe patients, classified as Grade III+, as "false" and "crude manipulation."
According to the Madrid administration, the aid approved by the Government of Spain is governed by regulations that require adjustments based on the beneficiary's economic capacity, the cost of the contracted service, and the receipt of other similar benefits. The Ministry points out that the design of this aid, linked to the contracting of regulated home care or personal assistance services, does not adequately recognize the reality of ALS patients or their caregivers, and believes this situation requires a reformulation at the state level.
The regional president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, defended her government's work in supporting ALS patients from the outset, highlighting the implementation of "high-quality" and "incomparable" treatments and programs. She lamented that such a sensitive issue, affecting patients with a particularly harsh illness, is being used for political purposes.
The Ministry emphasized its commitment to ALS patients, reporting that the first 100 affected individuals in Grade III+ status have already been recognized and that payments for aid corresponding to April and May will begin this week. They assert that Madrid is among the pioneering communities in processing and paying these benefits.
Nevertheless, the regional executive insists that the conditions for access, calculation, and potential reductions are determined by the state dependency framework. Therefore, the Community of Madrid has reiterated its demand for greater state funding in dependency matters, estimating the debt of Pedro Sánchez's Government to the region for this concept at over 3 billion euros. They argue that the state finances only 27.9% of the total cost, when legally it should contribute 50%, which impacts the management of these sensitive benefits.
