FOI materials reveal Expert Panel had serious concerns about insurance coverage ?gaps? and scope of project
OTLA MPP Advisor
Catastrophic Impairment Review
OTLA obtained information this summer that was not
previously made public by the government or FSCO
concerning the review of catastrophic impairment. We think
it reveals serious concerns by the panel itself:
Imposing restrictions without full scientific review
The FOI materials on the discussions of the Expert Panel reveal
for the first time that Members had serious concerns about
imposing punitive restrictions to the definition of catastrophic
impairment. Further, contrary to what MPPs have been
told, the Expert Panel was frustrated in its efforts to examine
relevant science on catastrophic impairment.
It also becomes clear that the Panel Chair was not willing
to undertake a thorough review of the scientific data. Dr.
Pierre Côté, Chair of the Expert Panel, made this comment:
“How things are done in the field is beyond the scope
of this project.”
He further stated:
“A comprehensive review will take two to three years
at least. We will be using scientific evidence, but in
terms of doing a full and comprehensive review, it
can’t be done.” (emphasis added)
Potential gap in coverage for accident victims
Expert Panel Members were concerned how potential
changes would impact claimants. Dr. Arthur Ameis said:
“As a definition, it is a financial construct, not a
medical one. What is the line from the government’s
perspective? We need to know that, then we can
make the recommendations.”
Panel Member, Dr. Michel Lacerte, said:
“…That’s what the catastrophic definition is all about.
It is used to determine the maximum payout. If the
claimant does not have the money, they are out of
luck. Ethically, if people fall in the gap or they do not
have a claim, they are out of luck.”
Full financial impact not considered
FSCO official Willie Handler even noted that the cost
implications of the Expert Panel’s work was not to be part
of the discussion. He said:
“Note that cost impact is not part of the discussions for
the panel. It will be a discussion that the government
will be undertaking later.”
Essentially, what these FOI materials reveal is that the Expert
Panel’s recommendations were made within a limited
scope, without the benefit of a comprehensive review or
knowledge of financial implications. And that should be of
concern to all of us!
We think writer Alan Shanoff best summarizes the issue, in
this excerpt from his article in Law Times on Sept. 10, 2012:
“The composition of the expert panel was problematic
at the outset. It made a recommendation
without conducting a comprehensive review. The
superintendent has followed that recommendation
and in turn made an ill-informed recommendation that
cloaks a policy issue as a scientific one to the Ontario
government. It’s now up to the government to do the
right thing and reject it.” (emphasis added)
YOU can help the government reject these recommendations.
BEFORE a decision is made, tell the Minister of Finance to
review all the facts and take more time to get it right.