I’d also like to follow up with the Minister of Health on the supplementary health benefits questions. I’m wondering what the Minister has heard from the public that is valid, in her mind for review. What are the significant problems that have been identified by the public and that will be part of this review?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the announcement of this policy, I happened to have travelled to Fort Simpson, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok, and I have to say, when I explained that the changes are meant to expand the program so that we include a group of people that are excluded, people agree with that. When we say the senior cut-off is $55,000 net, and for most people that is a really good income on a retirement, because that means you have to make about $75,000 to $80,000. The gaps that we have found are that we need to revisit the income threshold itself, whether it’s too low or not, the difference between a couple and a single versus members of family, because we understand that there are all kinds of different characteristics and make-ups of a family, and the other gap that we have found is that catastrophic drug costs only covers drugs. We have learned that often the biggest cost item is not necessarily the drugs; it’s the medical equipment, medical supplies, if you have diabetes, all the stuff you have to use. So we need to make sure that those are included in the catastrophic drug medical equipment and supplies program rather than just drugs.
Another glaring error that, not error, but the issue that we need to look at is the fact that you don’t qualify for the Catastrophic Drug Program until you have spent 5 percent of your net income. People are telling us that is way too high. So we need to revisit that.
I believe with all the number crunching and everything, we can make it so that most people are covered. The vast majority of people are covered, and who are not covered, if it makes sense, I believe that people could see more about why the government felt the need to change this.
There are a few others that I’ve heard of, but one I’m very interested in is the universal coverage and stepping away from that towards the income testing. A lot of my constituents have brought that up with me. Canadians in general want health care, they’re willing to pay for it, and our tax system is already addressing availability to pay, which is not addressed with the income testing approach. So will universal coverage and moving away from income testing be up for part of the discussion in this public review?
The fact is we do not have universal coverage for supplementary health right now. We don’t. So we’re not moving away from universal coverage. The whole point is the impetus of changing this is the fact that we have a group of working poor, as we call them, or low-income families, or if you have a job that doesn’t have third-party insurance. So the self-employed. We have a group of people who are not covered under the existing system. So it is not accurate to say that we have a universal program. We have a universal program for those who are over 60. We have a universal program for those who have a specified condition that is eligible on the list.
We have to decide, as a society and as a government, whether we can afford to pay for everything to do with health issues for everybody all the time. There are implications to that: governing and making policies about making choices. I think for most people they would say the focus has to be on people who need it the most. Right now, under this program, we are excluding those people.
Of course, it is a matter of degree with universal coverage and income testing. We’re moving away from some degree of universal coverage and more and more towards income testing.
I like what the Minister had to say, that those are the issues. Will those issues be part of this public review? The public would like the opportunity to comment on that. There are lots of design ways that Canadians have figured out how to pay for health care, regardless of what their income is, so that it is universal coverage. That needs to be part of this discussion. Will the Minister commit to including that?
Unless the Member has information that I’m not aware of, there is no jurisdiction in Canada that has a universal coverage for supplementary health benefits. In fact, programs like home care services, which the NWT provides as a core service universally, is not included as supplementary health coverage. There is no jurisdiction in Canada that covers 100 percent for anybody who is over 60. There is no...It’s a supplementary health benefit, is what it is. It is supplementary. It’s extra. It’s not part of the Health Care Plan. So universality does not apply here.
We do have a more generous program than most other provinces and territories, and I believe it’s a goal that we want to meet. But we are trying to fill the gaps so we can include those who are not currently part of the program.
I hope that will be part of the discussion, because I think there are still a lot of opportunities to be mined there. Finally, I guess, will the Minister commit to following, as a review process, the model that was used in the review of the Income Support Program, which was a highly successful public consultation process?
I have asked the department to look at that process to see if we could borrow from that. I’m prepared to make a commitment to the Members here, that I will come back with an outline of how we propose to do the consultation and where the meetings will be and how they’re going to take place for the next little while. So consultation and consultative approach as we go forward to improve the changes are very much at the table and I’m prepared to work with the Members and the public to do that.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
