The Minister of Finance solicited input from various organizations including FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform. The following submissions have been received as a result of the consultation on the review of Ontario’s Dispute Resolution System. Stakeholder submissions by external organizations – an interesting read on how do we fix our broken Dispute Resolution System.
News and Views
Independent Medical Exams are not Independent at all
Tampa attorney Matt Powell explains what you may want to know if you have to attend an insurance examination for your injury claim. Find out what you can expect at the exam, and what some of the tricks that can be used against you. This is from the US but some of the information applies to our system as well.
Have Your Say – upcoming deadlines for comments
College of Physicians and Surgeons has launched a multi-staged initiative that will see them examine their information-sharing practices and determine how they might make more information available about decisions and processes. The College is inviting feedback on this consultation from the profession, the public and other stakeholders. Names of individual participants will not be posted, however the names of organizations will be posted. Check the CPSO website for further details about posting guidelines. Deadline for feedback: November 11, 2013 http://policyconsult.cpso.on.
Financial Services Commission of Ontario : The Insurance Policy Unit at the Industrial and Financial Policy Branch of the Ministry of Finance is seeking comments on the proposed regulations that “Give the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) authority to license and oversee business practices of health clinics and practitioners who invoice auto insurers”. Comments are due by November 24, 2013 http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=14282&language=en
RMR: Insurance Brokers – We take your money.
Rick Mercer on insurance – hilarious take on our insurance industry marketing strategies and what we get for our money.
FAIR will attend discussions at the Dispute Resolution System Review on October 8, 2012
The intent of Rule 41.01 is unachievable if prior adverse comments about an expert witness are not allowed…Is it fair to injured, vulnerable litigants to do nothing when Ontario’s arbitrators call the reports they must rely on to decide eligibility to benefits “inaccurate, failed, misleading, defective, incomplete, deficient, not correct and flawed”. (http://www.fairassociation.ca/the-independent-medical-examination-imeie/) Lowering the standard of ‘expert testimony’ has lowered the possibility for justice and created an unsafe environment for injured auto accident victims.
FAIR submission to the Ontario Dispute Resolution System Review September 20 2013
College launches conversation on transparency – have your say about IME physician oversight
The College has launched a multi-staged initiative that will see us examine our information-sharing practices and determine how we might make more information available about decisions and processes. The College is inviting feedback on this consultation from the profession, the public and other stakeholders. Names of individual participants will not be posted, however the names of organizations will be posted. Check the CPSO website for further details about posting guidelines. Deadline for feedback: November 11, 2013
http://policyconsult.cpso.on.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/
Transparency Principles http://policyconsult.cpso.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Transparency-Principles.pdf
FAIR submission to the Review of Ontario Regulation 237-13 Industry-wide Rate Reduction Target September 30 2013
Cracking down on fraud or cutting costs does not mean that cracking the backs of the vulnerable and cognitively impaired citizens is the right thing to do. The interests of big business (profit, profit, profit) should not surpass those interests of the most injured and disabled among us or our society as a whole. Allowing further cuts to benefits to support the cuts to premiums will only shift the responsibilities and costs to our society and to the taxpayers. Surely accident victims deserve better treatment than to be abandoned by those who are supposed to be looking out for them in a time of need – first by the insurer who fails to live up to the promise of coverage and then by the government who fails to act to protect their interests.
Examining the examiners
“. . . there is a dark underbelly in the business . . . many patients “are being profoundly mistreated.” This article from 2007 may be old but it sure explains some of what happened to balanced medical assessments – with the demise of rebuttal IMEs the advantage is now in the insurers court.
http://www.ciws.ca/articles_independent_medical_examiners.htm
FAIR submission to Consultation on Modernizing Disciplinary Hearings for Insurance Agents and Adjusters in Ontario September 30 2013
It is odd to consider changing the disciplinary process for adjusters when there is no adequate process in place for hearing those complaints in the first place. In fact, we were unable to find any record on the Financial Services website that documents any complaints at any time about any adjuster. Could this lack of openness about complaints have resulted in no complaints being heard officially by the Advisory Board (AB)?
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/insurance/Documents/IDRC-2013.pdf