OTTAWA — As tensions heat up over federal cuts to refugee health coverage, the Canadian Medical Association Journal has weighed in with a scathing editorial that calls them “medically irrational” and “economically irresponsible.”
In the editorial, published earlier this month, deputy editor Dr. Matthew B. Stanbrook argued that cuts to primary and preventive care have resulted in refugee claimants showing up at hospital emergency departments with expensive acute problems that could have been dealt with at earlier stages for less cost.
Asthma suffers, for example, have lost access to inhalers, thus exacerbating their symptoms, he wrote. The editorial added that while a number of public-health conditions are covered, the testing required to diagnose these illnesses is not.
“This results in a failure to protect either the public or the patient,” Stanbrook said.
The cuts, he added, disproportionately affect women and their babies, who are born Canadian despite being denied care in utero.
“Through it all, the changes have created such confusion and bureaucracy that coverage has often been denied erroneously to refugees who do qualify for it,” he wrote.
Stanbrook praised the handful of provinces that have stepped up to provide care despite federal cuts and called on Health Minister Rona Ambrose who has been “essentially silent” on the matter to “do the right thing” and reverse them.
A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said the government planned to submit a response to the journal to “refute some of the inaccurate and misleading assertions” made in the editorial.
“All genuine refugees in Canada receive primary health-care coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) that is similar to that received under provincial/territorial health-care programs,” Alexis Pavlich maintained.
“Recent changes to the IFHP ensure that rejected asylum claimants no longer receive taxpayer-funded benefits that are more generous than those provided to Canadians.”
The federal government cut certain health coverage for refugee claimants over a year ago. The move was supposed to save the government an estimated $100 million over five years and deter bogus claimants from seeking asylum, but it has also led to a massive backlash. In recent months, five provinces have vowed to restore coverage.
Last week Immigration Minister Chris Alexander laced into Canada’s largest province, Ontario, for joining the bandwagon.
“This is reckless policy. It will force Ontario taxpayers and their families to line up for care behind failed asylum seekers,” he said. “The sooner the Ontario government gets serious about protecting Ontario taxpayers and stops undermining the success of our national refugee reforms, the better and fairer it will be for all Canadians.”
