What are the new co-payments for refugees?

The new co-payment system introduces a $4 fee on every prescription dispensed and a 30% charge for services such as dental, vision, and mental health care.

Why is the government implementing co-pays for refugees?

The government states the changes are necessary for the sustainability of the Interim Federal Health Program and are expected to save significant amounts of money.

How will the new co-pay system affect refugee healthcare access?

Medical professionals and advocates warn that the added costs will create barriers, making essential healthcare and prescription medications inaccessible for many refugees.

Home / Health / Refugee Healthcare Fees Spark Outrage

Refugee Healthcare Fees Spark Outrage

15 Apr

•

Summary

New co-pay system to charge refugees for prescriptions and care.
Medical community warns of reduced access to vital services.
Government cites program sustainability for the changes.

Starting May 1, the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) will implement a co-payment system for refugee claimants. This change introduces a $4 fee on every prescription and a 30% charge for services like dental, vision, and mental health care. Medical professionals, including Dr. Christine Aubrey-Bassler, a family physician and advocate, are speaking out against the policy.

Dr. Aubrey-Bassler and the No Cuts to Care Coalition argue the co-pays will create significant barriers, making healthcare inaccessible for many vulnerable refugees. They point to research suggesting increased costs lead to fewer prescriptions being filled, potentially causing more severe health issues and higher long-term costs. This move is seen as an attack on universal healthcare principles.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) defends the changes as necessary for program sustainability, citing projected savings of $126.8 million this fiscal year. They assert that essential services like doctor visits and vaccinations remain fully covered. However, the Canadian Medical Association has drawn parallels to a 2012 policy that was deemed "cruel and unusual treatment."

Disclaimer: This story has been auto-aggregated and auto-summarised by a computer program. This story has not been edited or created by the Feedzop team.