Appeared in CARP News, Volume 3, No. 1, Winter 1997
In Ontario, there is a new automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act, 1996. The legislation is very specific. It states that within six months of the passage of the Bill, the case management industry and property casualty insurance companies must conform to a fee schedule.
Depending on your perspective this could be good or bad. On the plus side, this could mean an overall reduction in the cost of rehabilitation and thus a reduction in premiums for people in Ontario. It also may streamline the actuarial process for insurers. As an example, based on a track record of rehabilitating quadriplegics, they should be able to determine the "necessary" costs for professional services. The main drawback of this proposed legislation is that the rate of compensation for case management companies may be set too low.
C.A.R.P. has been in existence for a quarter of a century. As an Association, it strives to ensure that its membership provide the best quality service to people with disabilities. Members of the Association, involved in case management in Ontario, have indicated their support of the association by asking them to present to the Fees and Protocol Committee of the Ontario Insurance Commission and negotiate on their behalf.
Appropriate compensation needs to be in place in order for case companies to maintain quality assurance. Rob Sampson, Parliamentary Assistant in charge of coordinating the new legislation, indicated that the government would not intervene in this process unless case management companies and the insurance industry could not agree on an appropriate rate. Ann McKenzie of Dominion of Canada has indicated that she believes that a consensus could be reached in a short period of time. She also emphasized that an agreement must be in place early in 1997 otherwise the government would impose a fee schedule.
For the record, I think this approach is sound. If consensus can be reached, insurers, claimants and professionals should be happy; however, it is imperative that a fair and equitable schedule be
established.
As a quadriplegic, I have specific costs such as attendant care when performing my job. When I first entered the workforce after my injury, I was deemed as being "gainfully employed". However, my attendant care costs were approximately $36,000 per annum and at that that time my annual renumeration was only $26,000. It is difficult to see how this is "gainful"? I pride myself on providing quality services to my clients. Having "been there, done that" brings a unique perspective to rehabilitation. It will be difficult to continue providing good quality service, if fair compensation is not sustained.
From the Editor: The Private Sector Committee of the Ontario Society has submitted a proposal to the Fees and Protocol Committee on behalf of its members involved in case management services. Seventy-five case management companies were surveyed and asked to submit their hourly fee. A range for the proposed fee was selected from the results of this confidential survey.
