FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
The Plan FINAL DRAFT AUG CTI GUIDELINE
FAIR response to the Draft Superindendent’s Common Traffic Impairment (CTI) Guideline Sept 11 2015
ORA Response to Draft Superintendent’s CTI Guideline (1)
OPA Sept 11 2015 Submission re CTI Guideline Sept 11, 2015 SENT
Rehab First Submission-Superintendent’s CTI Implementation Proposal September 2015
Restitutio ad integrum (To be made whole again)
With tens of thousands of Ontarians injured each year in auto accidents, and $2,800,000.00 to work with it is unfortunate that the Panel chose to interview a mere 11 MVA victims about their claims experience when designing a system to serve that very group of individuals. It certainly doesn’t speak to a focus on the injured person as the title suggests. The ill-conceived Minor Injury Guideline was designed as an interim measure in 2010 while this evidence-based treatment protocol was developed so with 5 years of history to review, surely the victim sample of recovery results, experiences and/or suggestions should have included a larger group of participants to keep the study relative to the estimated 300,000 MVA injury claims that have been made since the 2010 introduction of the MIG? http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/Pages/minor-injury-treatment-protocol.aspx
FAIR response to the Final Report of the Minor Injury Treatment Protocol Project July 31 2015
OTHER STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES:
ORA Response to the Minor Injury Treatment Protocol Final Report
OPA response to Report on Common Traffic Injuries , July 31, 2015
FAIR submission to Minister of Finance regarding SABS June 2015
We ask that our government push the pause button on the proposed changes and review the information that has recently been put in front of them in regards to insurer profits. There needs to be better information about victim recovery post the 2010 reductions and whether Ontario‟s insurers deserved to get those reductions in 2010 and profit billions on the backs of the injured. It may be the time to review whether Ontario should continue with the present private industry No-Fault coverage going forward. It isn‟t working for victims and they are the half of the equation that counts and the half that is being left without the resources and tools for recovery. We will undoubtedly see fellow Ontarians whose horrific crashes result in quadriplegia, severe brain injuries and amputations live the rest of their lives with little to no dignity. The impact of choosing between help to complete daily activities and rehabilitation to reduce the need for help in the future is magnified tenfold in this population. The future of these individuals’ children, wives, husbands or parents will be forever changed as they have to rededicate their lives to becoming full time caregivers in light of deep cuts to the benefits. We urge decision makers to spend a day with a catastrophically injured individual in order to understand the impact of the proposed cuts. We have also heard government officials suggest that Ontario’s costs are out of control compared to other provinces. Again, this is a very misleading statement. For example, here in Ontario, insurers rely heavily on the abusive practice of subjecting as many as 50 per cent of all injured accident victims to excessive medical assessments for the purpose of denying their claims. It is not at all uncommon for those assessment costs to vastly outstrip the actual treatment dollars. To add insult to injury, insurance companies count all these assessments broadly as “treatment” and then complain that our overall treatment costs are high, and that Ontario victims are more needy than people elsewhere. Government’s stated intentions vs unintended consequences The government has stated that it intends to “Update the definition of catastrophic impairment (CAT) to reflect the most up to date medical information and knowledge”. While it is reasonable to strive to incorporate relevant new medical information, “updating” must provide real improvement rather than incorporating newer, but more flawed and discriminatory methods.To: The Legislative Assembly of Ontario
Where the Ontario Regulation 347/13 makes four changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) should be removed, as it puts at risk the well-being of individuals jeopardizing their optimal recovery, health, and lifestyle.
We the Undersigned Petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as Follows:
Ontario Regulation 347/13 has made four changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), also known as Ontario Regulation 34/10 effective Feb 1, 2014. These regulations have considerably reduced the dollar amounts allocated for patients receiving assessments and treatment following a motor vehicle accident. Implementation of Section 18 (1) and Section 18 (2); The Minor Injury Guideline in the new Ontario Legislation for Accident Benefits Coverage, which came into effect September 1, 2010 was a direct result of recommendations made by the Insurance Industry, while recommendations made by the Ontario Chiropractic Association and Canadian Society of Chiropractic Evaluators was disregarded.
Make your own comment about the latest slashes to coverage at: http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=18442&language=en
Comment by email: https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/email.jsp;jsessionid=SlPY5EXnzQg38K5YW5dG2iJ?action=displayComment
Comment due date June 29, 2015
Why is it that there is so little mention of the priorities/concerns of the injured victims the system purports to serve?
If it is truly the mandate of the FSCO and the “measurement of providing regulatory services that protect the public interest and enhance public confidence in the regulated sectors” then shouldn’t the quality of the coverage and access to that coverage be of utmost importance?
If people had confidence in the quality of the coverage and access to benefits as promised, would over 20,000 people be signing a petition?
When hundreds of people rally at Queen’s Park to protest the cuts to benefits to the most catastrophically injured of Ontario’s auto accident victims; is that not a clear signal that consumers (in this case people who have used the product) have lost confidence in our coverage?
Auto insurance should provide sufficient benefits to those who need them most – the people who are seriously injured in collisions.
The FAIR lobbyists hang their hats on a recent self-funded study by personal injury lawyers. At Insurance Bureau of Canada, we believe the study is flawed. The authors’ cherry-picked assumptions are quite different from those they made in a similar study they did for the insurance regulator (FSCO) in 2013. By FAIR’s own admission, all Ontario auto insurers had losses of -1.1% from 2001-2011, yet the authors chose to highlight a 9.7% profit for companies by ignoring in their study the one-third of insurers that reported losses.
http://www.northumberlandview.ca/index.php?module=news&type=user&func=display&sid=34267
Change the standard benefit level for medical and rehabilitation benefits to
$65,000 (from $50,000) and include attendant care services under this
benefit limit. Consumers will also have an option to increase that coverage
up to $1 million;
Include attendant care services with the $1 million medical and
rehabilitation benefit for catastrophic impairments, and provide the option
for additional coverage of $1 million, for $2 million in total coverage;
Reduce the standard duration of medical and rehabilitation benefits from
10 years to five years for all claimants except children;
262873654-Ontario-provincial-budget-2015
Read the excerpt on auto insurance only 2015 Ontario Budget re auto insurance section