APPEAL #
PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the January 13, 2015 reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social
Development and Social Innovation (the “ministry”) wherein the ministry declined to provide coverage
for the appellant’s dentist’s fees for a cytology exam performed on May 15, 2014 and for
reimbursement of related laboratory fees. The basis for the ministry’s decision was that these
services are not covered in the Schedule of Fee Allowances – Dentist.
The ministry also decided that the requested coverage could not be provided under the “imminent life
threatening need” provisions of section 69 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Regulation (“EAPWDR”) since this section does not apply to dental and denture
supplements.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
EAPWDR sections 62 and 63.
EAPWDR, Schedule C, sections 1and 4
Schedule of Fee Allowances-Dentist
APPEAL #
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant is a recipient of disability assistance. Through an arrangement with Pacific Blue Cross
(“PBC”), the ministry provides recipients with basic dental service and emergency dental service as
those terms are defined in section 1 of Schedule C of the EAPWDR.
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
•
A list of claims made by the appellant and paid on behalf of the appellant by PBC for the
period March 27, 2013 to December 9, 2014.
•
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated January 1, 2015, including her written
submission.
•
A claim form submitted by the appellant’s dentist, claiming $50 for his fee and $100 for a lab
charge for a procedure performed on May 15, 2014 and identified with the code 04401. The
dentist included narrative as follows: “Brush biopsy to obtain cytological smear for assessment
and determination of risk of a lesion being oral cancer.”
•
The appellant’s request for a crisis supplement in respect of the cytology testing, dated
September 25, 2014.
•
Notification from PBC (dated October 22, 2014 and stamped as being received by the ministry
on January 9, 2015) advising that PBC could not provide reimbursement for a lab fee of $100
identified with the procedure code 04603 as “It is not a covered benefit under your plan.”
•
A sales invoice from the lab that performed the cytology test, showing payment of its fee of
$100.00 by Visa card on June 25, 2014.
The panel assessed the evidence as follows:
The appellant attended her dentist’s office on May 15, 2014 for some routine dental work when the
dentist became concerned with a lesion in her mouth. With the appellant’s consent, he took a cell
sample with a brush
biopsy and sent the sample to a lab for testing for cancer. The results eventually
came back indicating the lesion was not cancerous.
The physician paid the lab its $100 lab fee. He subsequently submitted a claim to PBC – under
procedure code 04401 - in the amount of $150, consisting of $50 for his fee for taking the brush
biopsy sample, and $100 for the lab fee. PBC determined that the appellant’s plan doesn’t provide
coverage for the services that were performed.
On September 26, 2014 the appellant requested that the ministry pay the cost of the cytology testing,
and followed up with the ministry again on October 7, 2014.
Ministry staff contacted the dentist’s office on October 14, 2014 to determine whether some other
procedure code would be appropriate. The dentist submitted a new claim to PBC using code 04603,
this time claiming only coverage of the $100 lab fee. PBC advised the dentist on October 22, 2014
that this procedure code also was not covered by the appellant’s plan.
On November 10, 2014 the appellant contacted the ministry to advise that the dentist’s claim had
again been denied, and asked for reconsideration of the ministry’s decision not to pay the $100 lab
fee. The reconsideration decision which is the subject of this appeal was the result of the appellant’s
request.
APPEAL #
In her reconsideration submission the appellant wrote that:
“…I went to my dentist for a cleaning and he recommended that I get an area of my month
tested for cancer. I of course agreed and he took the test.
I was very surprised that the test was not covered. (I have enclosed the paperwork that they
sent off)
So I am filing reconsideration for this as:
1)
Why is a cancer test not covered on disability? I would think that it would be
considered a necessary test.
2)
The government does not give us enough money to live, never mind a test.
3)
I was appalled that this is not cover and I am sure that if people knew of this they too
would be appalled.
4)
You say find a dentist that takes payments,…. Well in 45 years of going to a dentist, I
have never had 1 that takes payments unless for braces. So that is just an stupid
statement.
5)
If I had not gotten the test and had month cancer, well I would have been on my
way to death now. Is that what the government wants to kill of the poor? Sure
sounds like it.
6)
The government pays you more money to review these reconsiderations that it
cost to cover the request. What a waste of tax payer’s money.
7)
Bottom line,… it should be cover for all Canadians. No if, and or buts about it”…
In her oral testimony on appeal, the appellant essentially reiterated her reconsideration submission,
and also stated that:
•
The appellant was at the dentist’s office for a routine cleaning when he noted a lesion in her
mouth. She has attended this dentist’s office regularly since 2010 and this was the first time
he had seen the lesion. The appellant is a smoker so the dentist said the lesion should be
tested and they should keep an eye on it.
•
Before doing the brush biopsy the dentist had his staff try to contact PBC to confirm that the
biopsy and lab test would be covered by the appellant’s plan. His staff was unable to speak to
anyone at PBC.
•
At the time the dentist conducted the brush biopsy and submitted the sample to the lab, both
he and the appellant thought the procedure would be covered by PBC.
•
The lesion hasn’t gone away and her dentist will be monitoring it to see if it progresses. The
appellant doesn’t have the funds to pay for continuing future cytology tests if they are required.
•
The ministry’s policies and procedures are so complicated that even ministry staff doesn’t
understand them half the time.
•
The appellant is currently living on $890 per month, since the ministry is currently “clawing
back” an amount each month for a course that she had taken and income that she had earned
as a result of misinformation from the ministry. It is not enough to live on and she can’t afford
to pay the costs of the cytology test.
•
She paid the dentist’s fee of $50.
APPEAL #
•
She understands that the ministry workers’ hands were tied by the legislation, and she expects
the ministry’s decision will be confirmed by the appeal panel, but she would like to go on to
challenge the decision “for everybody” as it’s simply wrong not to cover tests for cancer. She
stated that the decision “is just wrong.”
The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and provided no additional information.
The appellant’s oral statements tended to corroborate information which had been before the ministry
at reconsideration. In accordance with section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act, the
panel accepted her statements as oral testimony in support.
APPEAL #
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue on appeal is whether the ministry’s January 13, 2015 reconsideration decision was
reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation in the
circumstances of the appellant.
The relevant legislation is as follows:
EAPWDR
General health supplements
62 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2), the minister may provide any health supplement set
out in section 2 [general health supplements] or 3 [medical equipment and devices] of
Schedule C to or for a family unit if the health supplement is provided to or for a person in the
family unit who is
(a) a recipient of disability assistance…
Dental supplement
63 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the minister may provide any health supplement set out
in section 4 [dental supplements] of Schedule C that is provided to or for a family unit if the
health supplement is provided to or for a person in the family unit who is eligible for health
supplements under
(a) section 62 (1) (a)…
Health supplement for persons facing direct and imminent life threatening health need
69 The minister may provide to a family unit any health supplement set out in sections 2 (1) (a)
and (f) [general health supplements] and 3 [medical equipment and devices] of Schedule C, if
the health supplement is provided to or for a person in the family unit who is otherwise not
eligible for the health supplement under this regulation, and if the minister is satisfied that
(a) the person faces a direct and imminent life threatening need and there are
no resources available to the person's family unit with which to meet that need,
(b) the health supplement is necessary to meet that need,
(c) the person's family unit is receiving premium assistance under the Medicare
Protection Act, and
(d) the requirements specified in the following provisions of Schedule C, as
applicable, are met:
(i) paragraph (a) or (f) of section (2) (1);
(ii) sections 3 to 3.12, other than paragraph (a) of section 3 (1).
Schedule C
Definitions
1 In this Schedule:
…
APPEAL #
"basic dental service" means a dental service that
(a) if provided by a dentist,
(i) is set out in the Schedule of Fee Allowances – Dentist that is effective
April 1, 2010 and is on file with the office of the deputy minister,
(ii) is provided at the rate set out for the service in that Schedule…
"emergency dental service" means a dental service necessary for the immediate relief
of pain that,
(a) if provided by a dentist,
(i) is set out in the Schedule of Fee Allowances – Emergency Dental –
Dentist, that is effective April 1, 2010 and is on file with the office of the
deputy minister, and
(ii) is provided at the rate set out in that Schedule…
Dental supplements
4 (1.1) The health supplements that may be paid under section 63 [dental supplements] of this
regulation are basic dental services …
* * *
The appellant’s position is – while she acknowledges the limitations imposed by the legislation – that
testing for potential cancer should be covered either by the medical plan or as a basic dental service
for all Canadians, and for recipients of disability assistance in particular. She stated that the
ministry’s policies and procedures are so complicated that even the dentist thought that the testing
would be covered by her plan. Finally, she argued that it is a necessary test, and that waiting to find
out whether or not it was covered could have put her life at risk.
The ministry’s position, as set out in its reconsideration decision, is that it does not have any
discretion in this matter. It argued that the legislation limits its authority to covering only those
services that are specified in the Schedule of Fee Allowances – Dentist, and that this Schedule does
not include a code for either the brush biopsy performed by the dentist or the lab fee. While
acknowledging that the appellant may have faced a direct and imminent life-threatening need for the
services performed, the ministry stated that the remedy provided by section 69 only applies to the
specified medical supplies, medical transportation and medical equipment and devices. The ministry
argued that dental and denture supplements are not covered by section 69.
Panel Decision
With respect to dental services, the ministry is only authorized to provide coverage of a basic dental
service or an emergency dental service as those terms are defined in section 1 of Schedule C of the
EAPWDR. Basic dental services include those set out in the Schedule of Fee Allowances – Dentist.
While that Schedule does cover some types of biopsy (under codes 04311, 04312, and 04322) it
does not cover a brush biopsy as performed by the appellant’s dentist or the resulting lab fee.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded it does not have the authority to
pay for the services requested by the appellant as basic dental services.
The ministry did not expressly address the appellant’s request in terms of being an emergency dental
APPEAL #
service but the panel notes that the Schedule of Fee Allowances – Emergency Dental – Dentist also
does not include the codes for the procedures claimed by the appellant.
With respect to coverage under section 69, the legislation expressly applies to medical supplies and
medical transportation as set out in sections 2(1)(a) and (f) respectively of Schedule C of the
EAPWDR, and to medical equipment and devices as identified in section 3 of Schedule C. Dental
services are not included in section 69. Accordingly, the panel finds the ministry reasonably
concluded that it could not utilize the provisions of section 69 to approve the appellant’s request.
The panel acknowledges that the appellant is frustrated with the coverage provided, however the
change she is seeking will likely have to be pursued through political processes. This panel is bound
to apply the legislation as it currently stands. Based on the foregoing reasons and analysis, the panel
concludes that the ministry’s reconsideration decision is a reasonable application of the applicable
enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. Accordingly, the ministry’s decision is confirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.