Compassionate care program under fire
By ANDRÉ PICARD
Thursday, December 15, 2005 Page A12
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER
The program designed to provide financial relief to Canadians caring for a terminally ill loved one, launched with much fanfare two years ago by the federal government, is a dismal, money-gobbling failure, according to a new report.
The Health Council of Canada says the Compassionate Care Benefit is a bureaucratic boondoggle that provides little practical help in times of need, and does so in a heartless and sometimes offensive manner.
"Somewhere between the good idea and the implementation, this program seems to have crashed up on the rocks," Michael Decter, chairman of the national health watchdog agency, said in an interview. "It's hard to be anything but appalled."
The 50-page report, being released today, says the program -- which is supposed to provide six weeks of employment-insurance benefits to family caregivers -- is "important and necessary" but impractically designed and poorly administered.
Mr. Decter saved his sharpest criticism for the way money is spent: Over a two-year period, $69-million was spent on administration while only $11-million was distributed in benefits to those in need.
Jan Clark of Kemptville, Ont., whose husband Stephen has terminal lung cancer, said she was thrilled to learn there was a compassionate care program, but was left devastated and disillusioned by the reality, which she described as a "load of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense devoid of compassion."
As an entrepreneur running a home-cleaning business, Ms. Clark was ineligible for benefits. She thought of taking a salaried position but realized the program would allow her a maximum of six weeks of EI benefits, a nonsensical limit.
"Are you telling me that I have to turn to my terminally ill husband and ask: 'Dear, which six weeks of the rest of your life do you want me to sit with you?' "
The Health Council report says the failings of the compassionate care benefit program are wide-ranging, including:
The nature of the benefit: Because it is an EI benefit, large numbers of Canadians are ineligible, including the unemployed, self-employed and part-time, temporary and seasonal workers; the maximum benefit was pegged at $413 weekly.
Length of benefit: The six-week paid benefit period, which must be taken within a 26-week window, does not recognize the unpredictability of the dying process.
Sharing of the benefit: Families are limited to a total of eight weeks of compassionate care, and it is difficult to split or share the benefit.
Definition of family: Benefits can only be claimed by close family members, and excludes siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friends (the government, however, has already promised to change that aspect of the law).
Paperwork: The claims process is onerous and requires, among other things, a medical certificate attesting that the person being cared for will likely die within 26 weeks.
Discriminates against women: The program fails to make provisions for the fact that the vast majority of caregivers are women and that for a number of reasons -- childbearing, child-rearing, part-time work, self-employment, sole-income household -- they are least likely to meet the eligibility criteria for the program.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...C/20051215/COMPASSION15/TPNational/?query=EI+
By ANDRÉ PICARD
Thursday, December 15, 2005 Page A12
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER
The program designed to provide financial relief to Canadians caring for a terminally ill loved one, launched with much fanfare two years ago by the federal government, is a dismal, money-gobbling failure, according to a new report.
The Health Council of Canada says the Compassionate Care Benefit is a bureaucratic boondoggle that provides little practical help in times of need, and does so in a heartless and sometimes offensive manner.
"Somewhere between the good idea and the implementation, this program seems to have crashed up on the rocks," Michael Decter, chairman of the national health watchdog agency, said in an interview. "It's hard to be anything but appalled."
The 50-page report, being released today, says the program -- which is supposed to provide six weeks of employment-insurance benefits to family caregivers -- is "important and necessary" but impractically designed and poorly administered.
Mr. Decter saved his sharpest criticism for the way money is spent: Over a two-year period, $69-million was spent on administration while only $11-million was distributed in benefits to those in need.
Jan Clark of Kemptville, Ont., whose husband Stephen has terminal lung cancer, said she was thrilled to learn there was a compassionate care program, but was left devastated and disillusioned by the reality, which she described as a "load of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense devoid of compassion."
As an entrepreneur running a home-cleaning business, Ms. Clark was ineligible for benefits. She thought of taking a salaried position but realized the program would allow her a maximum of six weeks of EI benefits, a nonsensical limit.
"Are you telling me that I have to turn to my terminally ill husband and ask: 'Dear, which six weeks of the rest of your life do you want me to sit with you?' "
The Health Council report says the failings of the compassionate care benefit program are wide-ranging, including:
The nature of the benefit: Because it is an EI benefit, large numbers of Canadians are ineligible, including the unemployed, self-employed and part-time, temporary and seasonal workers; the maximum benefit was pegged at $413 weekly.
Length of benefit: The six-week paid benefit period, which must be taken within a 26-week window, does not recognize the unpredictability of the dying process.
Sharing of the benefit: Families are limited to a total of eight weeks of compassionate care, and it is difficult to split or share the benefit.
Definition of family: Benefits can only be claimed by close family members, and excludes siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friends (the government, however, has already promised to change that aspect of the law).
Paperwork: The claims process is onerous and requires, among other things, a medical certificate attesting that the person being cared for will likely die within 26 weeks.
Discriminates against women: The program fails to make provisions for the fact that the vast majority of caregivers are women and that for a number of reasons -- childbearing, child-rearing, part-time work, self-employment, sole-income household -- they are least likely to meet the eligibility criteria for the program.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...C/20051215/COMPASSION15/TPNational/?query=EI+
