Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services primarily from the point of view of the concerns of my constituents in Hay River who are senior citizens.
Now, I first of all want to say that we have a remarkable package of services and support under our health and social services system for the seniors in the Northwest Territories. We have chosen, we have paid for that, we have done that. I need to know what analysis has been done about the impacts or the potential impacts of now pulling that back and not having that. We hear about the cost of living in the communities. We hear about seniors on fixed incomes, and no doubt there are folks who are receiving these benefits who are in a higher income bracket, but this is what they have become accustomed to. They have a higher income bracket, but they also probably have higher expenses than most seniors who might live down south and we don’t want to lose...(inaudible)... Has the analysis been done on the impact if we were to lose seniors out of the Northwest Territories as a result of these changes? Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also received the letter that the Member is talking about and we are aware of the concerns that the seniors have. The important thing to know is that our information shows that this will benefit seniors on fixed incomes and low income in the same way as it would benefit every citizen who’s on a lower income. Our information has shown that there are people over 60 who have high incomes, just as there is for any other age group. So, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, even with these changes, this Extended Health Benefits Program will be very robust. So there will not be another program, even for the seniors, that’s going to be much better that it would encourage them to move.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at this chart that shows exactly what the income level is and what the threshold is and who would continue to get 100 percent coverage, and at which income level they would start contributing to the cost of extended health benefits, and you will find that even for those who are making $190,000 of income, no matter what age, that they would still get support from this government. I have to tell you, in no other jurisdiction would you still get extended health benefits at $190,000 net income, of any age. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, because the seniors who are currently receiving the benefit of this program regardless of income who are over 60 years of age in the Northwest Territories have planned that they would have this coverage, have become accustomed to this coverage, has the Department of Health and Social Services given any thought to grandfathering those folks who are already covered by this and phasing in a change to supplementary health benefits so that younger people like myself, for example, could begin at an earlier age to start to plan for the fact that they may need to think about insurance or putting money aside for sickness or so on? Has any thought been given to that? Because I’m just very afraid of the outcome of pulling this back from people who are already receiving it. Thank you.
We are interested in listening to our public about transitional measures or the option of grandfathering. That was discussed with the stakeholder groups. Some have said no. We are getting feedback on that on the website; people are divided on yes or no. But definitely that is a legitimate issue for discussion and I’d be happy to receive input from the Members and others out there. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, to be clear, what is driving this change to our policy on supplementary health benefits? From what I understand is the projected costs going forward and the sustainability of those costs and also the people who are not currently receiving coverage, there’s a group, there’s a gap, there’s a group that are left out. If it is the cost that is driving this review, I think that the issue of cost, which Ms. Lee has indicated, is not something easy to quantify. It is difficult to have a fulsome debate on this when we don’t know what those costs would be. Because those are the kinds of decisions that government and policymakers can make, that they say it’s going to cost us this much, even on a projected basis. Well, we choose and we say that is a good expenditure of public funds and we want to do that. So, I mean, are there any costs that are part of this equation in this consideration? Thank you.
The Member knows and everybody here knows projecting to the last dollar what our health care expenditures are going to be, whether how much it will cost to run Stanton tomorrow or Extended Health Benefits Program, what’s it going to be at Hay River, whatever, that is, I mean, there are lots of formulas to do that, but at the end of the day, it’s a projection.
Mr. Speaker, sustainability of health care programs is a national issue. It’s an issue for every government. We know that on the whole that we will continue to see increases and we budget accordingly. So sustainability is an issue that we need to consider, but the thrust of this policy is not to reduce costs or to decrease costs, but it is to see how do we fix this program so that it works better. Because we know that it’s not working as well as it should. The program criteria that it has is not backed up by evidence, because we know that people of all ages have all different incomes and ability to pay and different medical needs. We are, right now, under the existing policy, excluding a whole bunch of groups of people, and we are trying to find a way to see if we can bring them on, and to ask those who can afford to pay something, to contribute to their health care costs. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So it is about the redistribution of resources. It is taking resources which are now expended on behalf of those seniors who are in a certain income bracket and re-profiling those resources to a group of people who are not receiving them. So it is a redistribution of the resources this government has. But if we were given a number and we were told, Members of the Legislature, if we would commit to expend this much money, we could take care of the folks who aren’t being looked after plus we could leave the Seniors Supplementary Health Benefits the way they are. But how can we make that decision in a vacuum, in the absence of any kind of financial projections? That’s the kind of information I’m saying that we need in order to make a decision like that. Is there any effort on the Department of Health and Social Services, even on a projection basis, to estimate what it would cost to include those people who are not covered now, while at the same time not taking anything away from those people who are covered? Thank you.
I know that any debate about health benefits is difficult, it’s emotional, and it’s a difficult thing to do. In answering the Member‘s question, it is a little bit about redistributing resources, but most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it’s about fairness.
I hope you don’t mind if I use this example, but it just keeps coming at me. In this Assembly there is myself, MLA Bisaro, the Member herself, Member Ramsay, Member Bromley, Member Abernethy and Member Hawkins who would belong to this program. Right now, when some of us hit 60 years old, they will get so many dollars for glasses and $1,000 dental benefits. We have very nice third-party coverage through our employer. I don’t know why anybody here among us that I just named, when they turn 60, they automatically get dental benefits and eyeglasses when I don’t -- I guess I will when I hit 60 -- when we could get that coverage by our employer insurance and especially when there are people out there who do not get benefit of that dental benefit and eyeglasses even if they can afford it because they are not 60 and we do not look at their ability to pay. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, all six of us could afford to pay our own dental benefits. This is not just about redistribution of resources; it is about what is fair and what is equitable. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
