Cutting Back on Refugee Health Benefits

Jason Kenney, the Citizenship and Immigration Minister of the Conservative Party of Canada, had made an announcement last month that would involve changes in our health care system: the Tories are "scaling back" on refugee health benefits. The primary argument used to justify this political action is the fact that Canadians have (for too long) paid for benefits for refugee claimants that are more superior to what they themselves are entitled to (1).

The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides basic health care coverage to those who are protected, those who claim refugee status, and others who do not qualify for provincial/territorial coverage. $84 million was spent on this program last year, which also includes the coverage of supplemental health services like medications, dentistry, optometry, and mobility devices. It was said that most Canadians, through their provincial/territorial health plans, are not granted coverage for the aforementioned services, hence the reason behind the government's desire to make the cuts for refugee health benefits, which will be in effect as of this June. (Coverage for some refugees will only be given for medications and immunizations if there is a threat to public health) (1).

The "scaling back" on refugee health benefits is expected to save the government ~$100 million throughout the course of five years. "With this reform, we are also taking away an incentive from people who may be considering filing an unfounded refugee claim in Canada," said Kenney. "These reforms allow us to protect public health and safety, ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and defend the integrity of our immigration system all at the same time" (1).

Opposing parties have called this "scandalous behavior" (1). Many also assume that the government is doing this mainly because of the false nature of refugee claimants - that is, people who claim refugee status but do not face any danger in their home countries. If this were the case, then the Tories would be making the assumption that there are more fraudulent claimants than honest ones.

The argument made against this suggests that the majority (who are refugees and need their current benefits) are being deprived of what they are entitled to, all due to the ignorant belief that most of them are frauds.

Furthermore, it is thought that the Tories are attempting to create a bad image for refugees so that Canadians will be happy with the political decisions being made (2). In other words, Canadians are being made to believe that most refugees are bogus.



CRITICISMS

An example used to criticize the decision was that of diabetic patients who will not be covered for insulin, meaning they'd have to either "pay or go without" (2). Many believe this could lead to a long-term disaster, where people with chronic diseases will only get worse without coverage and will eventually be forced to seek urgent care, which they will be entitled to according to the new policy (2). It seems that this plan can potentially backfire, as we would be spending more for urgent care than we would to help avoid the problems all together before they reach such a level of severity.

It is also acknowledged that these refugees come here to start a new life, and without the coverage they had been receiving prior to June 2012, it will only prove to be much more challenging for them to adapt, as they may have health issues that do not quite meet the "urgent" category and thus will not be covered.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no doubt that this new policy will cause some setbacks for refugees who come here with the intention to begin a new life and leave their previous experiences of hardships behind. I feel that, for those who are true refugees, adapting will not be so problematic as some may expect - they will still be entitled to the same health benefits as most Canadians possess (the same Canadians who pay taxes that support the refugee benefits). A common question asked repetitively regarding this topic is: "why should refugees receive better benefits than Canadians through a Canadian health care system?" A fair question to ask, and perhaps the main thought that drives myself to support the new policy.

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, "refugee claimants... who are unable to pay for health care are eligible for benefits under the IFHP until they become eligible for provincial/territorial or private health plan coverage" (3). Although we'd like to think that all refugees are in desperate need, we cannot leave out the many that take advantage of our system. Kenney's announced policy cutbacks will ensure that only the honest refugee claimants will come to Canada, leaving the frauds to seek "aid" elsewhere.

It's Canada first. As "mean-spirited" as this notion may seem, taxpaying Canadians are the contributors to the health benefits for refugees, and should have (at least a sense of) equality in their health care. As per what Kenney had announced, refugee claimants are not being deprived of health care, but instead will no longer be entitled to the supplemental services (which most Canadians do not receive either). We are simply looking for ways to avoid being taken for granted while spending our tax dollars more wisely, and this may turn out to be an effective method by all means.

References

(1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/25/pol-refugees-health-coverage.html
(2) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/05/11/f-refugee-doctors-medical-care.html
(3) http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/outside/resettle-assist.asp