By: Lucaiah Smith-Miodownik, News Writer
The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) is a national program designed to provide temporary care to vulnerable groups, such as refugees, until they are eligible for permanent public health insurance.
Since its inception in 1957, the policy has undergone significant shifts. In 2012, then prime minister Stephen Harper introduced dramatic cuts to the program, resulting in a total denial of health-care for some refugees, and a drastic reduction for most. With treatments such as medications or prosthetics left uncovered, serious pushback from health care workers ensued. Ultimately the cuts were found to be unconstitutional, and in 2016, the IFHP was fully restored to its former capacity.
Now, a decade later, the pendulum swings once again.
Beginning May 1, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Department (IRCC) announced reductions to the policy’s supplemental coverage, meaning that refugees are required to pay “$4 for each eligible prescription medication filled or refilled under the IFHP,” and “30% of the cost of other eligible supplemental health products and services, including dental care, vision care, counselling, and assistive devices.”
The Peak spoke with Byron Cruz, a member of Sanctuary Health, for more information on these policy cuts. Sanctuary Health, a part of the Migrant Rights Network, focuses on ensuring “access to services for all regardless of immigration status or documentation.”
Cruz explained the extreme challenges brought on by original reductions to the IFHP in 2012, including “phone calls from pregnant women who did not have access to health-care,” and people having “to go at 4 o’clock in the morning to do a line to the immigration office in order to get an approval to go and see the doctor.”
While he worries these same challenges will once again become common, current coinciding federal policies will make these cuts even more detrimental. Cruz referenced Bill C-12, which allows for unprecedented “information sharing about migrants across all government levels,” both in and outside of the country, among other measures.
“C-12 and the cuts to IFHP are part of the same package.” Cruz added,
“We have provincial politicians in British Columbia blaming migrants for using health-care, for using social services, or using foodbanks.”
— Byron Cruz, Sanctuary Health outreach worker
While reductions to IFHP will harm migrants, many also consider the decision to be a financial mistake. According to the British Columbia Medical Journal, these cuts “will result in a need for more emergency room visits, more in-patient hospital stays, more physician time, and, ultimately, higher costs overall.
“By pushing people who are unable to afford entry-level access to care into clogged emergency departments and hospitals bursting with patients, the IRCC decision tightens critical bottlenecks in an already overstretched health system and makes it harder for everyone to access what they need.”
Despite these claims, the government maintains that cuts to migrant health-care are designed to support “the long-term sustainability of the IFHP so it can continue providing essential support to current and future beneficiaries.”
The Peak reached out to IRCC Minister Lena Metlege Diab for comment, but did not hear back by the publication deadline.
