If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Jun 30th 2017, 2:44 am
#1
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,937
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
I'll keep this as short as I can 
Before my wife died 2 years ago she was being treated with an expensive drug (Remicade) by IV at a clinic. In the UK apparently this would have been NHS treatment within the hospital. Not here. Prescription drug, cost a few thousand $$ per session, several times a year.
Okay, this is the system in Canada, so let's accept it. At least there was a system in place to assist with the costs if there was no insurance to cover it (she was denied for pre-existing conditions) and we had to show that our finances couldn't cover the annual cost. Fair enough. It's the same system everyone faces if they have drug costs and difficulty paying
That annual cost was $60k. Yes, that's right, $60,000.
I dare say there aren't that many on BE who could pay that if they didn't have insurance.
Even ignoring the property tax, heating, food, other medical costs and all other expenses, the cost of that drug alone was around 4 times the household income.
No simple job of confirming income with CRA - which would include interest on any capital of significance - oh no, we had to attend an interview, sign authorities for banks, CRA, employers etc, to be contacted and provide every household bill (water, phone, insurance etc) wage slips, pension slips, surrender value of life insurance, bank statements and proof of any other income (and outgoings relating to other income) including GST credits.
Every year we had to do this. Upon receipt of the application, existing drug coverage was cancelled for the period from then, through the waiting period for an appointment and through until they'd done a new assessment (same as the old one) and started it up again.
Need a medication refill during this period? Tough. But now that you know that happens take extra care with the timing next time.
When the mother in law (receiving OAS/GIS) came to live with us 6 months after the last interview I expected the formality of a reassessment, just tacking her income (some of it?) onto the household income to show total income was still a mile under the Remicade cost. What an idiot I was.
Full interview needed all over again. The same 63 documents and proofs provided 6 months earlier, coverage cancelled until all reinstated again.
Worse, MIL is told her RRSP will disqualify the application because 'her' money is now 'our' money. So she has to cash that in but she repays a loan so it makes no difference.
Not to us anyway. For her it means the following year her tax return shows an increased income (cashing in the RRSP) and she loses her GIS. Which means she loses her Seniors Drug coverage.
Yes, her income goes down - almost halved - and she has to pay the full cost of her prescriptions.
How is this system not broke?
Ignoring that it would be Hospital treatment in the UK and ignoring the much lower prescription costs even if it wasn't, this is far more convoluted (and mean) than any equivalent system in the UK.
Is it getting up Canadian noses and antagonistic to wonder why this is? Is it smug to say "in the UK you more or less confirm your situation is unchanged or say what has changed and the official incorporates that" with minimal fuss? For Job Seekers Allowance it's called a rapid reclaim but these "no change" procedures have existed since at least 1974 and I don't know for how many decades before that.
Is it not fair to point out that there is a better way? That this is all so unnecessary? Does it have to be the way it is?
I've just been looking over the application to renew the PR card. It asks for loads of info that was on the last application and it's not changed.
Why not a 'rapid reclaim' version where you can advise you've not left Canada since the last card (or you have but periods you tell them are a million miles away from being relevant) and just tell them a new passport number if that, too, has been changed?
Quicker to apply and quicker for them to process, thus improving their clearance times. Everyone's happy.
Except the if it ain't broke crowd.
Before my wife died 2 years ago she was being treated with an expensive drug (Remicade) by IV at a clinic. In the UK apparently this would have been NHS treatment within the hospital. Not here. Prescription drug, cost a few thousand $$ per session, several times a year.
Okay, this is the system in Canada, so let's accept it. At least there was a system in place to assist with the costs if there was no insurance to cover it (she was denied for pre-existing conditions) and we had to show that our finances couldn't cover the annual cost. Fair enough. It's the same system everyone faces if they have drug costs and difficulty paying
That annual cost was $60k. Yes, that's right, $60,000.
I dare say there aren't that many on BE who could pay that if they didn't have insurance.
Even ignoring the property tax, heating, food, other medical costs and all other expenses, the cost of that drug alone was around 4 times the household income.
No simple job of confirming income with CRA - which would include interest on any capital of significance - oh no, we had to attend an interview, sign authorities for banks, CRA, employers etc, to be contacted and provide every household bill (water, phone, insurance etc) wage slips, pension slips, surrender value of life insurance, bank statements and proof of any other income (and outgoings relating to other income) including GST credits.
Every year we had to do this. Upon receipt of the application, existing drug coverage was cancelled for the period from then, through the waiting period for an appointment and through until they'd done a new assessment (same as the old one) and started it up again.
Need a medication refill during this period? Tough. But now that you know that happens take extra care with the timing next time.
When the mother in law (receiving OAS/GIS) came to live with us 6 months after the last interview I expected the formality of a reassessment, just tacking her income (some of it?) onto the household income to show total income was still a mile under the Remicade cost. What an idiot I was.
Full interview needed all over again. The same 63 documents and proofs provided 6 months earlier, coverage cancelled until all reinstated again.
Worse, MIL is told her RRSP will disqualify the application because 'her' money is now 'our' money. So she has to cash that in but she repays a loan so it makes no difference.
Not to us anyway. For her it means the following year her tax return shows an increased income (cashing in the RRSP) and she loses her GIS. Which means she loses her Seniors Drug coverage.
Yes, her income goes down - almost halved - and she has to pay the full cost of her prescriptions.
How is this system not broke?
Ignoring that it would be Hospital treatment in the UK and ignoring the much lower prescription costs even if it wasn't, this is far more convoluted (and mean) than any equivalent system in the UK.
Is it getting up Canadian noses and antagonistic to wonder why this is? Is it smug to say "in the UK you more or less confirm your situation is unchanged or say what has changed and the official incorporates that" with minimal fuss? For Job Seekers Allowance it's called a rapid reclaim but these "no change" procedures have existed since at least 1974 and I don't know for how many decades before that.
Is it not fair to point out that there is a better way? That this is all so unnecessary? Does it have to be the way it is?
I've just been looking over the application to renew the PR card. It asks for loads of info that was on the last application and it's not changed.
Why not a 'rapid reclaim' version where you can advise you've not left Canada since the last card (or you have but periods you tell them are a million miles away from being relevant) and just tell them a new passport number if that, too, has been changed?
Quicker to apply and quicker for them to process, thus improving their clearance times. Everyone's happy.
Except the if it ain't broke crowd.
Jun 30th 2017, 2:53 am
#2
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2013
Location: AB
Posts: 905
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Keeps Canadians in over paid underachieving pointless jobs. Canada is shite! Sorry to hear about your frustrations....I think we all feel your pain.
Question....why don't Canadians look our of the window in the morning...Answer....
They would having nothing to do in the afternoon.
Question....why don't Canadians look our of the window in the morning...Answer....
They would having nothing to do in the afternoon.
Jun 30th 2017, 4:40 am
#3
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: Cochrane, Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
When it comes to official bureaucracy, I'm not sure if Canada is up to 1974 yet 😉
Jun 30th 2017, 11:46 am
#4
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,937
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
From a previous post
A bit like identifying everyone's level of child benefit, GST refund, and Income Tax refund and issuing seventeen payments instead of combining some of them.
Or that time when NB announced it would offset the increase in electricity bills one year by covering 8% of domestic bills.
But instead of having the Power company charge customers 92% and the government the other 8% - or even charge the full rate but issue a single statement to customers identifying the amount for the year and, thus, the 8% amount - it was decided that all customers had to pay the full rate, save their bills and then at the end of the year send off 12 bills for the government department to have to add up the 12 amounts, calculate 8% and then send out a cheque (and return the bills in hefty envelopes at not insignificant cost) to each and every account holder and the subsequent investigations for missing cheques that would inevitably not arrive when a few hundred thousand are involved.
Canada eh?
Makes you wonder why computers were invented.
Or that time when NB announced it would offset the increase in electricity bills one year by covering 8% of domestic bills.
But instead of having the Power company charge customers 92% and the government the other 8% - or even charge the full rate but issue a single statement to customers identifying the amount for the year and, thus, the 8% amount - it was decided that all customers had to pay the full rate, save their bills and then at the end of the year send off 12 bills for the government department to have to add up the 12 amounts, calculate 8% and then send out a cheque (and return the bills in hefty envelopes at not insignificant cost) to each and every account holder and the subsequent investigations for missing cheques that would inevitably not arrive when a few hundred thousand are involved.
Canada eh?
Makes you wonder why computers were invented.
Last edited by BristolUK; Jun 30th 2017 at 12:23 pm.
Jun 30th 2017, 11:58 am
#5
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Sounds complicated. I only have a few experiences in BC in regards to needing assistance for medication or assistance with premiums and the applications were always short and easy. For premium assistance it was simply a 1 or 2 page form and a signature for BC to access my CRA returns.
What you went through seems overly complicated.
What you went through seems overly complicated.
Jun 30th 2017, 11:59 am
#6
Stand-up Philosopher
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Regina Saskatchewan
Posts: 16,344
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Sounds like it could be a case for CBC News | Go Public
CBC's Go Public features Rosa Marchitelli and Erica Johnson.
There are two ways to reach us with your story.
You can email us directly at [email protected], with your name, contact information and details of the story you would like us to look into - or - you can use the story submission form below.
CBC's Go Public features Rosa Marchitelli and Erica Johnson.
There are two ways to reach us with your story.
You can email us directly at [email protected], with your name, contact information and details of the story you would like us to look into - or - you can use the story submission form below.
Jun 30th 2017, 12:40 pm
#7
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,937
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
I did as much as I could at the time - short of antagonising those administering it all.
MP...the relevant ministers in the old government and then of the new one...couple of pressure groups ('pressure groups'??? don't make me laugh, they couldn't put pressure on a dried out egg shell.
)
Somewhere there's a research document from a disability group where our experience is included.
It's all to no avail as all the officials hide behind the "payer of last resort" mantra which is missing the point somewhat, while the public whinges about their tax dollars, not appreciating that the same or better results could be achieved at much less cost to their tax dollars.
Maybe the saying should be "It's broke but don't break it more"
MP...the relevant ministers in the old government and then of the new one...couple of pressure groups ('pressure groups'??? don't make me laugh, they couldn't put pressure on a dried out egg shell.
)Somewhere there's a research document from a disability group where our experience is included.
It's all to no avail as all the officials hide behind the "payer of last resort" mantra which is missing the point somewhat, while the public whinges about their tax dollars, not appreciating that the same or better results could be achieved at much less cost to their tax dollars.
Maybe the saying should be "It's broke but don't break it more"
Last edited by BristolUK; Jun 30th 2017 at 12:43 pm.
Jun 30th 2017, 1:01 pm
#8
Stand-up Philosopher
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Regina Saskatchewan
Posts: 16,344
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Don't under-estimate the power of media attention on official incompetence, especially when they're cast in an unsympathetic light. Public servants are scared as hell of the prospect of losing their pensions or being denied advancement, and they can't slam the door or run away like the private shysters being hounded by reporters.
This isn't an isolated case, and if CBC thinks it would make a good subject, the potential for a review of the rules (not only in NB) is there and could benefit a lot of people.
This isn't an isolated case, and if CBC thinks it would make a good subject, the potential for a review of the rules (not only in NB) is there and could benefit a lot of people.
Last edited by caretaker; Jun 30th 2017 at 1:20 pm.
Jun 30th 2017, 1:08 pm
#9
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,232
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Well, I don't velieve Justin (never miss a photo-op) Trudeau is anything as effective as he promised to be and I'm not overly impressed with him at all. If he wants his time in office to make a mark on Canadian history he should introduce free drug care for all Canadians. I've been very fortunate. I have never had to pay for prescriptions, even when they cost over $5,000 monthly, and I wasn't 65+ at that time, but in my frequent contact with medicine over a number of years now I have witnessed many people unable to deal with drug costs and with serious life-threatening illnesses.
Jun 30th 2017, 2:46 pm
#10
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,937
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Don't under-estimate the power of media attention on official incompetence, especially when they're cast in an unsympathetic light. Public servants are scared as hell of the prospect of losing their pensions or being denied advancement, and they can't slam the door or run away like the private shysters being hounded by reporters.
This isn't an isolated case, and if CBC thinks it would make a good subject, the potential for a review of the rules (not only in NB) is there and could benefit a lot of people.
This isn't an isolated case, and if CBC thinks it would make a good subject, the potential for a review of the rules (not only in NB) is there and could benefit a lot of people.
Also, while this system still exists, NB has a "new" system for anyone without insurance, that sets premiums and co-payments according to income bands. It's essentially blue cross/province plan with similarities to MSP in BC, except that it is for Prescription costs.
So there's now a bridge between employer/private coverage and the cap in hand system, with many people being able to afford it and fewer having to rely on the nightmare scenario.
There's actually another interesting angle on this. Under that system my wife and I also qualified for diabetic supplies.
To try to keep it simple, I'll just stick to test strips. Each of us testing 4 times daily, 100 strips would last 25 days. For a 30 day month the need is 120. Each.
The Province, for some odd reason, couldn't handle paying the pharmacy every 25 days because this would involve 2 payments sometimes in the "same month" and it "had to be 12 monthly payments."
The strips are sold by the 100 - they used to do 50 as well.
But because the Province couldn't do it every 25 days, they could only cover the need of 120 by paying for 200 x 12. Each
They could have done 300 between us. Or even 250 when 50s were available. But they couldn't do it jointly, it had to be each of us.
But they could still have done it as 200 for one and 100 for the other. That would only have given 60 too many.
But, no, they had to do 200 each to cover the 120 each needed. So they were paying for 160 more than was needed.
I tried to negate this criminal waste of "tax dollars" by not collecting any when the spares from the previous couple of months left enough for the new month. But it seemed that a month where nothing was paid was as complicated for them as the 100 lasts 25 days system.
So we played by their rules and just received 400 every month instead of the 240 needed.
My supplies stopped 3 years ago (too complicated to go into) and my wife died two years ago, but thanks to the build up of all those spares, I've only recently finished using them.
It just makes no sense to have all that fuss over the system, with all that penny pinching only to then dole out 66% more $$ than was needed.
Jun 30th 2017, 4:19 pm
#11
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2013
Location: AB
Posts: 905
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Well, I don't velieve Justin (never miss a photo-op) Trudeau is anything as effective as he promised to be and I'm not overly impressed with him at all. If he wants his time in office to make a mark on Canadian history he should introduce free drug care for all Canadians. I've been very fortunate. I have never had to pay for prescriptions, even when they cost over $5,000 monthly, and I wasn't 65+ at that time, but in my frequent contact with medicine over a number of years now I have witnessed many people unable to deal with drug costs and with serious life-threatening illnesses.
Jun 30th 2017, 4:44 pm
#12
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Govt seems to pay more then they need to on many things.
The ministry pays a premium for my wifes cpap supplies. I can find sever websites that sell the supplies for 40% less but the ministry only uses approved suppliers which seem to charge a premium because its the government.
The ministry pays a premium for my wifes cpap supplies. I can find sever websites that sell the supplies for 40% less but the ministry only uses approved suppliers which seem to charge a premium because its the government.
Hmmm...I may do some more research and see if they've ever covered it. I don't know if I'm taking you too literally regarding incompetence but it's more 'policy' than getting it wrong
Also, while this system still exists, NB has a "new" system for anyone without insurance, that sets premiums and co-payments according to income bands. It's essentially blue cross/province plan with similarities to MSP in BC, except that it is for Prescription costs.
So there's now a bridge between employer/private coverage and the cap in hand system, with many people being able to afford it and fewer having to rely on the nightmare scenario.
There's actually another interesting angle on this. Under that system my wife and I also qualified for diabetic supplies.
To try to keep it simple, I'll just stick to test strips. Each of us testing 4 times daily, 100 strips would last 25 days. For a 30 day month the need is 120. Each.
The Province, for some odd reason, couldn't handle paying the pharmacy every 25 days because this would involve 2 payments sometimes in the "same month" and it "had to be 12 monthly payments."
The strips are sold by the 100 - they used to do 50 as well.
But because the Province couldn't do it every 25 days, they could only cover the need of 120 by paying for 200 x 12. Each
They could have done 300 between us. Or even 250 when 50s were available. But they couldn't do it jointly, it had to be each of us.
But they could still have done it as 200 for one and 100 for the other. That would only have given 60 too many.
But, no, they had to do 200 each to cover the 120 each needed. So they were paying for 160 more than was needed.
I tried to negate this criminal waste of "tax dollars" by not collecting any when the spares from the previous couple of months left enough for the new month. But it seemed that a month where nothing was paid was as complicated for them as the 100 lasts 25 days system.
So we played by their rules and just received 400 every month instead of the 240 needed.
My supplies stopped 3 years ago (too complicated to go into) and my wife died two years ago, but thanks to the build up of all those spares, I've only recently finished using them.
It just makes no sense to have all that fuss over the system, with all that penny pinching only to then dole out 66% more $$ than was needed.
Also, while this system still exists, NB has a "new" system for anyone without insurance, that sets premiums and co-payments according to income bands. It's essentially blue cross/province plan with similarities to MSP in BC, except that it is for Prescription costs.
So there's now a bridge between employer/private coverage and the cap in hand system, with many people being able to afford it and fewer having to rely on the nightmare scenario.
There's actually another interesting angle on this. Under that system my wife and I also qualified for diabetic supplies.
To try to keep it simple, I'll just stick to test strips. Each of us testing 4 times daily, 100 strips would last 25 days. For a 30 day month the need is 120. Each.
The Province, for some odd reason, couldn't handle paying the pharmacy every 25 days because this would involve 2 payments sometimes in the "same month" and it "had to be 12 monthly payments."
The strips are sold by the 100 - they used to do 50 as well.
But because the Province couldn't do it every 25 days, they could only cover the need of 120 by paying for 200 x 12. Each
They could have done 300 between us. Or even 250 when 50s were available. But they couldn't do it jointly, it had to be each of us.
But they could still have done it as 200 for one and 100 for the other. That would only have given 60 too many.
But, no, they had to do 200 each to cover the 120 each needed. So they were paying for 160 more than was needed.
I tried to negate this criminal waste of "tax dollars" by not collecting any when the spares from the previous couple of months left enough for the new month. But it seemed that a month where nothing was paid was as complicated for them as the 100 lasts 25 days system.
So we played by their rules and just received 400 every month instead of the 240 needed.
My supplies stopped 3 years ago (too complicated to go into) and my wife died two years ago, but thanks to the build up of all those spares, I've only recently finished using them.
It just makes no sense to have all that fuss over the system, with all that penny pinching only to then dole out 66% more $$ than was needed.
Last edited by scrubbedexpat091; Jun 30th 2017 at 4:46 pm.
Jun 30th 2017, 4:55 pm
#13
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Hmmm...I may do some more research and see if they've ever covered it. I don't know if I'm taking you too literally regarding incompetence but it's more 'policy' than getting it wrong
Also, while this system still exists, NB has a "new" system for anyone without insurance, that sets premiums and co-payments according to income bands. It's essentially blue cross/province plan with similarities to MSP in BC, except that it is for Prescription costs.
So there's now a bridge between employer/private coverage and the cap in hand system, with many people being able to afford it and fewer having to rely on the nightmare scenario.
There's actually another interesting angle on this. Under that system my wife and I also qualified for diabetic supplies.
To try to keep it simple, I'll just stick to test strips. Each of us testing 4 times daily, 100 strips would last 25 days. For a 30 day month the need is 120. Each.
The Province, for some odd reason, couldn't handle paying the pharmacy every 25 days because this would involve 2 payments sometimes in the "same month" and it "had to be 12 monthly payments."
The strips are sold by the 100 - they used to do 50 as well.
But because the Province couldn't do it every 25 days, they could only cover the need of 120 by paying for 200 x 12. Each
They could have done 300 between us. Or even 250 when 50s were available. But they couldn't do it jointly, it had to be each of us.
But they could still have done it as 200 for one and 100 for the other. That would only have given 60 too many.
But, no, they had to do 200 each to cover the 120 each needed. So they were paying for 160 more than was needed.
I tried to negate this criminal waste of "tax dollars" by not collecting any when the spares from the previous couple of months left enough for the new month. But it seemed that a month where nothing was paid was as complicated for them as the 100 lasts 25 days system.
So we played by their rules and just received 400 every month instead of the 240 needed.
My supplies stopped 3 years ago (too complicated to go into) and my wife died two years ago, but thanks to the build up of all those spares, I've only recently finished using them.
It just makes no sense to have all that fuss over the system, with all that penny pinching only to then dole out 66% more $$ than was needed.
Also, while this system still exists, NB has a "new" system for anyone without insurance, that sets premiums and co-payments according to income bands. It's essentially blue cross/province plan with similarities to MSP in BC, except that it is for Prescription costs.
So there's now a bridge between employer/private coverage and the cap in hand system, with many people being able to afford it and fewer having to rely on the nightmare scenario.
There's actually another interesting angle on this. Under that system my wife and I also qualified for diabetic supplies.
To try to keep it simple, I'll just stick to test strips. Each of us testing 4 times daily, 100 strips would last 25 days. For a 30 day month the need is 120. Each.
The Province, for some odd reason, couldn't handle paying the pharmacy every 25 days because this would involve 2 payments sometimes in the "same month" and it "had to be 12 monthly payments."
The strips are sold by the 100 - they used to do 50 as well.
But because the Province couldn't do it every 25 days, they could only cover the need of 120 by paying for 200 x 12. Each
They could have done 300 between us. Or even 250 when 50s were available. But they couldn't do it jointly, it had to be each of us.
But they could still have done it as 200 for one and 100 for the other. That would only have given 60 too many.
But, no, they had to do 200 each to cover the 120 each needed. So they were paying for 160 more than was needed.
I tried to negate this criminal waste of "tax dollars" by not collecting any when the spares from the previous couple of months left enough for the new month. But it seemed that a month where nothing was paid was as complicated for them as the 100 lasts 25 days system.
So we played by their rules and just received 400 every month instead of the 240 needed.
My supplies stopped 3 years ago (too complicated to go into) and my wife died two years ago, but thanks to the build up of all those spares, I've only recently finished using them.
It just makes no sense to have all that fuss over the system, with all that penny pinching only to then dole out 66% more $$ than was needed.
I have tested myself 3 times a day for 20 years with no issues.
Jun 30th 2017, 5:13 pm
#14
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,937
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
That aside, I am surprised to see you not condemning the public sector for inflexibility.
Jun 30th 2017, 5:38 pm
#15
Stand-up Philosopher
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Regina Saskatchewan
Posts: 16,344
Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
It's the Catch-22 aspect that seems so unfair. It's possible to fall through cracks in the system a level at a time without ever doing anything to deserve it.