HIV confirmed, claim stalled: why is haemophilia co-infection policy still unresolved?
A bereaved family’s compensation claim has been left waiting while IBCA develops its approach to presumed hepatitis C co-infection. A response from the Hepatitis C Trust, forwarded to The Unheard Voice, reinforces concerns about the delay and whether claim managers know the policy is under review.
By Anonymous · Oct 22, 2026
“Families need a decision, a date and a clear explanation of what happens to their claim in the meantime.”
The HIV infection is documented. The estate claim passed security checks, a solicitor was allocated and an initial meeting took place.
Then progress stopped.
According to the account shared with The Unheard Voice, IBCA said its position on presuming hepatitis C infection where HIV was attributed to treatment with Factor VIII or IX was still being developed.
The family was told the claim could not progress until further guidance became available.
Their identity remains protected.
For this family, the uncertainty concerns possible hepatitis C co-infection alongside documented HIV. They have reached the claims process only to encounter an assessment question that IBCA has not yet resolved.
The scheme already recognises HIV alongside hepatitis B or hepatitis C. The issue is how IBCA establishes an additional infection where historical evidence may be incomplete.
In a response forwarded to The Unheard Voice, Rosie McKearney, the Hepatitis C Trust’s Infected Blood Policy and Advocacy Specialist, expressed concern about the lack of progress on the co-infection issue for haemophiliacs.
She said the Cabinet Office and IBCA were actively discussing it and that the Trust understood a decision was expected soon.
She also said she had contacted IBCA chief executive David Foley directly about concerns that some claim managers appeared unaware the policy was under review.
Credit must go to the Hepatitis C Trust for its continued work on behalf of the infected and affected community.
Rosie’s response shows the work happening behind the scenes: raising the co-infection delay with the Cabinet Office and IBCA, contacting David Foley directly and pressing for claim managers to be properly informed.
The Unheard Voice wants to give Rosie and the wider Trust team a huge thank you for listening, taking these concerns seriously and pushing for answers. For families facing an exhausting claims process, that support matters.
The concerns the Trust has raised require a clear response. If an approach is being reconsidered, how can claimants receive reliable explanations when some of those handling their claims may not know about the review?
The Trust’s expectation of a decision is not an official implementation date. The forwarded response provides no confirmed deadline or final policy wording.
It also leaves unanswered why the work remains unfinished.
The wider evidence problem is already public. On 7 October, the Haemophilia Society reported concerns about parts of claims being rejected because of missing evidence, often relating to hepatitis B and C. It described haemophilia centres searching large medical files for a single test result that may not exist.
IBCA says it considers missing or incomplete information, seeks evidence from other sources and assesses eligibility on the balance of probabilities: whether something is more likely than not.
Families need to understand how those principles apply to a haemophiliac whose HIV infection is attributed to clotting-factor treatment, but whose records do not conclusively establish hepatitis C.
They also need clarity about what happens while that question is considered.
Can an undisputed part of the claim progress? Is any payment available without prejudicing the unresolved co-infection assessment? What happens to people who have already accepted a single-infection award?
In her response, Rosie suggested that claimants should think carefully before accepting a single-infection payment, while recognising that each decision depends on individual circumstances.
That concern makes clear written guidance essential. Claimants should receive an explanation of their options and the consequences of accepting an offer, including whether a later policy change could lead to reassessment.
IBCA and the Cabinet Office should identify exactly what decision remains outstanding, who is responsible for it and when the resulting guidance will be issued.
They should also explain how many claims are waiting, whether relevant claim managers have been informed, and what safeguards apply to those receiving offers during the review.
For the anonymous family at the centre of this case, the immediate problem is clear: documented HIV has not been enough to allow their estate claim to move forward while the approach to possible hepatitis C remains unresolved.
The correspondence establishes the delay. It does not establish its justification.
That is the answer families are still owed.