How 'there's a new rule' broke me

By Louise Kinross

Hoops. This is another story about the unnecessary hoops people with disabilities and their families are forced to jump through to get government supports.

A year ago I wrote about the nonsensical, make-work project the Ontario Disability Support Program puts families through to get NEW documentation for long-term disabilities.

At the time, I’d learned that we could get our son’s hearing aid batteries covered through the program.

However, ODSP first required us to take our son to see our family doctor, to get that doctor to write a note saying he had hearing loss.

A family doctor cannot diagnose hearing loss. Only a regulated audiologist can. 

But ODSP would not accept 20 years’ worth of audiology reports documenting my son’s permanent hearing loss.

Instead, ODSP insisted that my husband and son take a morning off to go to the family doctor, to ask the family doctor to write a note saying my son had hearing loss.  

Then—wait for it—ODSP required my husband to hand-deliver the doctor’s note to the distant ODSP office. The government would not accept a faxed or scanned copy of the letter from the doctor’s office.

I had almost forgotten this outrageous and unnecessary run-around.

UNTIL THIS MORNING.

That's when I called our hearing aid provider to tell them we needed a refill on my son’s hearing aid batteries.

These are the batteries approved for coverage by the ODSP. How difficult could this task be?

"I'm afraid there's a new rule," the provider said. 

Heart drop. Why did I even entertain the idea that I could accomplish this task with one call?

"We used to be able to e-mail a request for the batteries to ODSP," she continued. "But now ODSP stipulates that we e-mail the request to the family, and the family needs to physically take the paper request to their ODSP worker for approval."

What? What?

We are ALREADY approved for the batteries.

The "request" that I could drive over to the ODSP office is the same one that the hearing aid provider could e-mail.

Why must I take time off from work to take a piece of paper to the far-away ODSP office for an item that has already been approved, for a disability that has been documented for over 20 years? A disability that doesn’t change over time (unless it gets worse).

Why must an adult with a disability, and possibly a mobility problem, have to take time from their day to go to an ODSP office to get an item covered that has already been approved?

Why are we wasting the time of people with disabilities, their families and family doctors, as well as the time of the ODSP worker who has to entertain these visits, rather than accepting documentation from an audiologist that a person has a hearing loss?

Why? 

Then, the provider added: "Just so you know, even if you take this sheet of paper over to the ODSP worker, it may not be approved right away."

That's when I reached breaking point.

Why do I need to get an in-person approval for something that is ALREADY APPROVED?

I got out my Visa card and told the provider to charge us the $50 for the hearing aid batteries and to put them in the express post.

Then, I came in to work and wrote this article. Because I want everyone to understand how a population that is already marginalized is being disadvantaged by the very government that purports to serve it. And how our dollars are being wasted.

Read More

Make work? Families still face too much of it

By Louise Kinross

A couple of weeks ago a story with this headline appeared in The Toronto Star: Easier path to cash for adults, kids with disabilities.

It kind of gives one the image of a limitless pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, doesn’t it?

The story is about how people apply for Special Services at Home funding and the Ontario Disability Support Program—and cumbersome red tape that made them prove their disability again and again.

SSAH is funding that enables families to hire a worker to help a child develop skills and participate in the community while giving the family respite.

In the past, families had to reapply every year—filling out numerous forms each time—even though in most cases the disability didn’t change.

It was a gigantic make-work project—for families and program administrators alike.

It’s reminiscent of stories we’ve read about Canadian war veterans who had to “prove” that they still had no legs—on an annual basis.

The changes to SSAH came after the provincial ombudsman’s scathing report on disability services last month. I’m not sure that what The Star calls “an easier path to cash” merits congratulations.

Perhaps “I’m sorry we’ve been putting SSAH families through this unnecessarily for decades” from a government spokesperson would be more appropriate.

There was no exchange of “cash” in the SSAH program in the way the headline implies. Workers invoice parents, who then pay them. Parents then send those invoices in to the government, and receive a cheque or deposit to compensate them, up to their funded amount.

The Toronto Star story also notes another change. Once a person with disability has met the criteria for adult services, they don’t have to prove their disability again to apply for ODSP. The ODSP covers basic needs like food, clothing and shelter and some health benefits.

That's good, but the story doesn't mention that you may have to get new documentation of old disabilities after you're on the program.

Recent case in point: I was told that hearing-aid batteries are covered through ODSP, but I'd never followed up on this.

My son’s hearing loss has been documented since he was 18 months old. In fact, I’m sure it was included in our application to ODSP in the first place.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I asked our hearing aid provider about how to get batteries covered through ODSP, and I was told that due to a new regulation, we would have to take our son to see our family doctor, and get that doctor to write a note saying he had hearing loss.

Now, our hearing aid provider has decades of hearing tests on hand for our son. They could have easily sent these to ODSP, but apparently that wasn’t sufficient.

No, it would require two members of our family meeting with a family doctor who isn’t an expert in hearing loss to meet the new regulation. Other than seeing that my son was wearing hearing aids, the doctor couldn’t assess his hearing loss on the spot. Yes, she too would have had all of his hearing tests in her file.

But why, when his hearing loss has been documented for more than 20 years, was it necessary to get a new doctor to document it? Why weren’t the audiology tests that the hearing aid provider had sufficient evidence? Audiologists are regulated professionals are they not?

Then, after making the doctor’s visit with my son, my husband had to physically take the document to the hearing aid provider. We were told the government wouldn’t accept a faxed or scanned copy from the doctor.

Why?

And to top it off, my husband was told he’d have to do the same thing next year.

How does this benefit anyone—families, doctors or program administrators—in the system? 

Are there really people out there scamming the government for hearing aid batteries they don't need?

Read More