HOT OFF THE PRESS: IBCA Cuts Reporting as Deceased Claim Figures Stall

# HOT OFF THE PRESS: IBCA Cuts Reporting as Deceased Claim Figures Stall

IBCA has today announced that it will stop publishing compensation and registration figures every two weeks and move to monthly reporting instead.

The reason given?

“Community feedback.”

But within minutes, people across the infected blood community were asking the same question:

Who asked for less transparency?

The timing could hardly be more controversial.

IBCA’s latest figures show that for people acting on behalf of a deceased infected person:

1,099 have been asked to start a claim 904 have started the process Only 80 have received an offer Just 69 have actually been paid

Sixty-nine.

And now, at the very moment families are watching those numbers more closely than ever, IBCA has decided the public should see them less often.

A clearer, steadier view — or fewer opportunities for scrutiny?

IBCA says monthly reporting will make progress easier to understand.

But many families will see it differently.

Fortnightly figures allowed people to track movement.

They could see whether promises of acceleration were translating into real invitations, offers and payments.

Now that window doubles.

That means fewer public checkpoints, fewer opportunities to compare progress and fewer moments when IBCA’s performance is placed under direct scrutiny.

Why now?

We cannot say why IBCA has chosen this moment.

But people are entitled to ask whether the increasingly uncomfortable figures have anything to do with it.

Because the latest deceased figures are not good enough.

More than a thousand people have been invited to begin.

Hundreds are already inside the process.

Yet only 69 have reached payment.

For families who have waited decades, that is not a reassuring picture.

“Community feedback” — whose community?

IBCA says the change follows feedback from community groups and its Community Advisory Panel.

But that phrase needs unpacking.

The infected blood community is much bigger than any panel.

Much bigger than the people who attend meetings.

Much bigger than the organisations IBCA speaks to most often.

It includes bereaved families, infected people, affected people, carers, siblings, adult children, partners and estates.

Many have never been in one of these rooms.

Many have never been asked what they think.

So if the decision really was driven by community feedback, then tell people:

Who was consulted?

How many people supported monthly reporting?

Were bereaved families included?

Were estates included?

Were affected people included?

And was anyone outside the usual engagement structures asked at all?

Because people who were never consulted cannot fairly be presented as having agreed.

This is not just about data

The compensation process is already taking a psychological toll.

People are being asked to revisit medical records, deaths, hospital experiences, caring responsibilities, stigma and trauma that many have carried for decades.

Some are discovering information they were never told at the time.

Some are reliving the death of parents, partners, siblings and children while trying to prove what happened.

Families are describing anxiety, sleeplessness, distress and exhaustion.

For some, the process feels less like compensation and more like being forced to reopen wounds that never fully healed.

How much uncertainty are people expected to tolerate?

At what point does prolonged delay begin creating fresh psychological harm?

Less transparency is not what this community needs

If IBCA is genuinely accelerating, then show it.

If deceased claims are genuinely a priority, then show it.

If “community feedback” really supports this change, then show that too.

Because right now, the message many families will take from today’s announcement is simple:

The figures are poor — and now we are going to see them less often.

That is why people are angry.

That is why people are questioning the timing.

And that is why this decision will not quietly pass without scrutiny.

Were you asked whether IBCA should move from fortnightly to monthly reporting?

Do you think this gives a clearer picture?

Or does it simply make it harder to see what is happening?

Comment below.

Let’s make them hear your injustice.

— The Unheard Voice

— The Unheard Voice