Dr. Philip Berger, a member of CDRC, said that since changes were made to the interim federal health program (IFHP) on June 30, doctors treating asylum seekers covered by the program have encountered a number of administrative problems.
Dr. Berger, chief of family medicine at Toronto’s St. Michael’s Hospital, said that new refugee claimants face a six-week delay before they’re granted IFH coverage, and clinics are unable to confirm patients’ IFH coverage outside of daytime business hours because the Blue Cross confirmation line closes after 4:30 p.m. In other cases, Dr. Berger said that asylum seekers who should be eligible for care are incorrectly classified as ineligible.
The result, he said, is that some clinics are turning away IFH claimants because of the difficulty administrators are having in confirming coverage.
“Even if people do have IFH coverage, some clinics aren’t accepting it because they have no confidence in the system,” Dr. Berger told The Hill Times. “It’s a total, bungled mess right now, and the worst part of it hasn’t even hit yet.”
Dr. Berger said that the IFHP will be further undermined when Citizenship and Immigration Canada introduces a planned designated countries of origin (DCO) list, which will deny IFH coverage for refugee claimants from countries that are not typically sources of refugees.
“When the DCO list comes out it will be unambiguous. Virtually no health coverage for prenatal care, for medical emergencies, for anything other than if the condition of the patient is a threat to public health and safety,” he said.
CDRC, which organized protests and publicly confronted federal Cabinet ministers over the IFHP cuts throughout the summer, last week reported “several dozen” cases where asylum seekers have been denied urgent care due to changes to the program. Cases include delays in prenatal care for expecting mothers, emergency room hospital visits due to the suspension of IFHP drug coverage, and the denial of care on the grounds that a claimant’s condition does not pose a threat to public health.
Alexis Pavlich, press secretary to Mr. Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.), questioned the veracity of the group’s claims.
“The majority of the alleged cases ... are either factually incorrect or the real status of these individuals has been purposely altered,” Ms. Pavlich stated in an email response to The Hill Times. “[C]urrently, any ‘refugee claimant’ in Canada receives the same access to health care as any Canadian taxpayer receives through their provincial health care. This includes doctors visits and pregnancy care.”
The IFHP previously provided supplementary health coverage for refugee claimants and officially “protected persons,” but on April 25, Mr. Kenney announced that the program would be limited to provide asylum seekers with care similar to that provided to Canadian citizens under provincial and territorial health programs.
The new order in council eliminated eye and dental care for refugees, while pharmacare coverage was limited to illnesses posing a public health risk. Non-communicable diseases such cancer and diabetes were no longer covered, birth control for refugees was discontinued, and maternal care was limited.
The changes took affect on June 30, but not before a last-minute about face by CIC, which reinstated full coverage for government assisted-refugees—a category of protected persons. CIC plans to introduce a DCO list that will likely deny IFH coverage to refugee claimants from the U.S. and EU member states.
“We do not believe that illegal immigrants and rejected asylum claimants from safe countries, such as the United States and the democracies of the European Union, should receive health care benefits that are more generous than for those which Canadian taxpayers are eligible,” stated Ms. Pavlich, who pointed out that 23 per cent of current refugee claims are made by EU nationals, and 95 per cent of these claims are rejected by Canadian Immigration and Refugee Boards.
Ms. Pavlich was unable to specify when the DCO list would come into effect, but said that under the policy individuals from DCO “safe countries” would “only receive health care necessary to protect public health and safety [such as] tuberculosis, HIV, and anti-psychotic drugs.”
Scarborough-based physician Paul Caulford, who has run a volunteer health clinic for patients without health insurance for the last 13 years, said that his clinic has seen an influx of asylum seekers in need of medical attention since June 30. Dr. Caulford has documented cases of fallout from the IFHP cuts on his website, www.refugeediaries.ca.
“It’s been really an unprecedented wave of patients coming to our clinic. We would have jumped from 10 or 12 on a reasonable night at the free drop-in clinic, to sometimes upwards of 35 patients. We’ve been seeing about half children—kids with asthma, lacerations, fevers; kids who can’t get medications. All of which are very manageable, in most cases, but without care these could deteriorate into potentially serious ailments,” Dr. Caulford said.
He added that both doctors and refugees are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising awareness about the impacts of the cuts.
“We’re up against cuts, but to top that off, there has been a mis-messaging. There has been specific messaging architecture that CIC is expert at. It’s very difficult for us who are not [public relations] guys,” Dr. Caulford observed. “It’s almost as if it were planned confusion.”
NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims (Newton-North Delta, B.C.) questioned the economic rationale for discontinuing temporary health coverage for what she called some of the “most vulnerable” people in Canada.
“Some are going to end up being a greater cost to Canadian taxpayers. At the end of the day they’re going to end up in a hospital because they are not getting much lower cost care that would prevent the higher costs that are waiting down the road,” Ms. Sims said.
An estimated 125,000 protected persons and refugee claimants receive some form of temporary health coverage under the IFHP. According to CIC, the cost of the program has more than doubled from $40-million to $84.6-million in the last four years. The department estimates that it will save $100-million over the next five years through changes to the IFHP.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: CHRIS PLECASH
No comments:
Post a Comment