In the last speech of politician Hubert Humphrey, he delivered wise words we should all remember come election time: “…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/22/ontarios-government-leaves-most-injured-forgotten
The issue of remedial costs, previously discussed here, posed one of the few checks on the growing power of insurance companies in Ontario for motor vehicle collisions.
http://www.slaw.ca/2015/05/24/a-meaningful-mediation-avoiding-remedial-costs/
TORONTO – A small number of paraplegics are now able to feel some sensation after having neural stem cells transplanted into their damaged spinal cords as part of a study, raising hope that the therapy may help restore movement in some paralyzed patients.
Immediately after an accident, insurance company will send a claim adjuster to try to settle the case as inexpensively as possible. That is beneficial for the insurer, but as the insured looking out for your interest is a top priority.
“Our 100 year old system is being destroyed by uncaring government bureaucrats David Marshall and Kathleen Wynne. Their callous disregard for the plight of injured workers is evident in the cost cutting attacks upon injured workers’ benefits. The denial of a workers’ right to fair compensation is fundamentally wrong and goes against what the system was set up to do,” said Peter Page. “If a worker is injured at work, she or he should be compensated for any resulting disability not pushed into poverty and forgotten.”
The study, led by Dr. Angela Colantonio, senior scientist, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, UHN, examined nearly 30,000 TBI patients discharged from Ontario hospitals over the span of eight years. Published in the May edition of Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the study found that about 36 per cent of patients with TBI had been re-hospitalized within three years of their initial injury due to a variety of factors. Previously, readmission rates had been reported at about 25 per cent.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-05-re-hospitalization-traumatic-brain-injury-higher.html
The poorest Canadians are twice as likely to develop diabetes as the richest. They’re more likely to suffer from cardiovascular diseases, respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, depression and arthritis. As Toronto Public Health reported in April, poorer young women are more likely to get chlamydia infections.
Regulators have rebuked an Ontario doctor for misleading family members about the role of a “gross medication error” in their loved one’s death, a rare case of a physician being censured for secrecy around a health-care mistake.
Ministry: Ministry of Finance Regulation Number(s): O. Reg. 461/96: Court Proceedings For Automobile Accidents That Occur on or After November 1, 1996
Bill or Act: Insurance Act Summary of Proposal: Further to the 2015 Ontario Budget commitment to ensure that the auto insurance system reflects the effects of inflation and to restore the policy rationale and integrity of the tort deductibles to when they were last updated in 2003, amendments to Insurance Act Regulation to 461/96 (Court Proceedings For Automobile Accidents That Occur On Or After November 1, 1996) are proposed to adjust the deductibles on court awards for non-pecuniary (i.e. pain and suffering) damages to reflect inflation since 2003, and link the deductibles to future changes in inflation.
The current $30,000 deductible amount in the case of damages for non-pecuniary loss would be adjusted to $36,540 untilDecember 31, 2015, and on January 1, 2016 and every subsequent year, this amount would be revised by adjusting the amount by the indexation percentage published under Insurance Act subsection 268.1 (1) for that year.
The current $15,000 deductible amount in the case of damages for non-pecuniary loss under clause 61 (2) (e) of the Family Law Act, would be adjusted to $18,270, and on January 1, 2016 and every subsequent year, this amount would be revised by adjusting the amount by the indexation percentage published under Insurance Act subsection 268.1 (1) for that year.
These proposed regulation amendments are consistent with the Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015 proposed amendments that, if passed, will amend the Insurance Act to adjust the monetary thresholds beyond which the tort deductible does not apply to reflect inflation since 2003, and link the thresholds to future changes in inflation.
Existing optional coverage (Added Coverage to Offset Tort Deductibles) to reduce the tort deductible amounts will remain unchanged, and consumers will continue to have options to customize their coverages to suit their needs.
Further Information: O. Reg. 461/96: Court Proceedings For Automobile Accidents That Occur On Or After November 1, 1996
Insurance Act
Proposal Number: 15-MOF012 Posting Date: May 14, 2015 Comments Due Date: June 29, 2015 Contact Address: Insurance Policy Unit
Financial Institutions Policy Branch
Ministry of Finance
95 Grosvenor Street
Frost Building North, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1Z1 Comment on this proposal via email
_____________________________________________________________
We will undoubtedly see fellow Ontarians, whose horrific crashes result in quadriplegia, severe brain injuries and amputations, live the rest of their lives with little or no dignity. The future of their children, wives, husbands or parents will be forever changed as they have to rededicate their lives to being full-time caregivers in light of these deep cuts to the benefits.
We hope you take this testimony seriously and really encourage our government to look at these auto insurance benefits and their thresholds because we feel that we can provide support in that. The budget can’t go through with just the 50% reduction. It will destroy people’s lives and we will be more dependent on the health care and public system. We hope that you can consider making amendments to this Bill 91 to ensure that people are having the appropriate services under the catastrophic injury legislation.
If there still have to be further savings, and if that needs to be done outside—we have to have a profitable insurance product, absolutely, but if more savings have to be done, don’t do it on the backs of the quadriplegics and the severe traumatic brain injuries. Look elsewhere to make your savings. Look at changing the system, procedural changes so that it’s easier for people to make claims without lawyering up. There are all kinds of different avenues.
The AIAC supports the revision of the definition of “catastrophic impairment.” That being said, there are currently only a few hundred properly trained and qualified experts in Ontario to conduct these complex and important assessments. In the event that there is any change, there should be an appropriate rollout period allowing for proper training and certification.
Ms. Karen Rucas: It means fewer people are going to get catastrophic impairment. Right off the top, they’re getting rid of the Glasgow coma scale. Those are the people who are unconscious at the scene.
There are other more stringent measurement tools that they’re going to be using, so fewer people are going to be—as it is, only 1% are catastrophic. So now even fewer than 1%—and, again, I don’t understand why the insurers are tackling the most seriously injured.
In fact, I think what consumers think is that they actually have $1 million of coverage, but they don’t. They’re shocked when they find out—“It’s $3,500? You mean, that’s all I get?” Often, again, they run out of the $3,500. We’re making these levels so arbitrary, and it’s just not feasible anymore to provide them with the rehab they need and to get them back to work and get them back functioning. Instead, these people go on CPP or what have you.