Landed as PR, now left Canada for long term period

[canuck78]

Feel free to contact the province to confirm the residency obligation.

 

[usthb]

Sorry this is too big to let it go.
Look at this fictitious story:

Jim moved with his family and has been admitted to Canada as new PR. Jim invested his personal and financial resources to make this move a success. Jim moved to Canada in Jan 2018. He immediately settled, secured accommodation and started to actively seek for job. He secured medical coverage, driver license and all the rest of it.
Sadly during month 4, Jim had a fall which resulted in severe injury ; he was admitted into a hospital and got extensive surgery which costed about 60000 Canadian dollars. Thankfully he was covered and did not have to bear the costs of this unfortunate event. Jim recovered quickly.
During month 5, Jim received a call from country of origin telling him that he has to travel on short notice due to family emergency. Jim soon realized that one of his close family member became seriously ill and needed his full time support. He decided that it is his duty to stay and to support his family member to go through this. He therefore informed the Canadian authorities that he has departed from Canada as of month 5 and that is on ground of personal reasons.

Several months later, Jim received an email from Health agency in Canada that he owes 60000 Canadian dollars to the province due to the fact that Jim did not stay for a full 6 month period of presence in Canada, that the nature of the care (emergency) is irrelevant and the underlying is that consequences will be incurred due to retroactive loss of eligibility.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

What I consider not acceptable is your way of making the statement explicit or not and that is not going to change. This is one.
Second, unless said retro active effects/consequences are stipulated in the terms and conditions, communicated to and accepted by the signee / applicant as such - there is no reason whatsoever that I am subject to reimbursements which have not been communicated to me and agreed upon upfront. Specifically, these supposed retroactive effects are not stated in BC health care website, nor are they stipulated in the MSP application form I filled.
Regarding the justification that you seem to put forward, there are smarter way to prevent abuse from happening, for example increase the 2/3 month waiting period for enrollment to MSP - which I believe is in itself a sufficient and enough drastic safeguard - anything else is an overkill. Certainly not enroll client and let them learn (or be misinformed - this is yet to be sorted out) - after the facts - what the rules are when these same rules are stipulated nowhere except discussed confusingly on a forum of public and informal nature.

The residency requirement is clearly stated. You agreed to meet that requirement. Pretty simple to understand that if you end up failing to meet that requirement, you don't qualify.

 

[vensak]

What I consider not acceptable is your way of making the statement explicit or not and that is not going to change. This is one.
Second, unless said retro active effects/consequences are stipulated in the terms and conditions, communicated to and accepted by the signee / applicant as such - there is no reason whatsoever that I am subject to reimbursements which have not been communicated to me and agreed upon upfront. Specifically, these supposed retroactive effects are not stated in BC health care website, nor are they stipulated in the MSP application form I filled.
Regarding the justification that you seem to put forward, there are smarter way to prevent abuse from happening, for example increase the 2/3 month waiting period for enrollment to MSP - which I believe is in itself a sufficient and enough drastic safeguard - anything else is an overkill. Certainly not enroll client and let them learn (or be misinformed - this is yet to be sorted out) - after the facts - what the rules are when these same rules are stipulated nowhere except discussed confusingly on a forum of public and informal nature.

You are trying to treat this as a contract to a private company. Unfortunately that is not the case. Health "insurance" is a service that is covered by a government (in this case provincial).
And as such it has a set of publicly listed obligations (same like tax obligations). So since you have used the services you do fall under this law. And in this case they do not have to inform you specifically, as long as the set of rules is publicly accessible (on internet for example).
And just to be clear. Same rule would apply if you would tell yourself, that now you want to move to Alberta or Ontario. You would owe money to BC, because of your short stay over there.

Now what is the probability, that they will go after you?
The higher the bill the higher probability.

 

[usthb]

You are trying to treat this as a contract to a private company. Unfortunately that is not the case. Health "insurance" is a service that is covered by a government (in this case provincial).
And as such it has a set of publicly listed obligations (same like tax obligations). So since you have used the services you do fall under this law. And in this case they do not have to inform you specifically, as long as the set of rules is publicly accessible (on internet for example).
And just to be clear. Same rule would apply if you would tell yourself, that now you want to move to Alberta or Ontario. You would owe money to BC, because of your short stay over there.

Now what is the probability, that they will go after you?
The higher the bill the higher probability.

For the bold part, where is this publicly accessible ?

For the other poster, some are very good at defending what is blatant theft. Applying law / terms and conditions retro actively is illegal in many countries. There is nothing more to say to that poster. Period.

 

[mats]

For the bold part, where is this publicly accessible ?

For the other poster, some are very good at defending what is blatant theft. Applying law / terms and conditions retro actively is illegal in many countries. There is nothing more to say to that poster. Period.

Are you in Canada right now? If you are in Canada,try telling the story you posted yesterday to the MSP call centre agent and see the official response. Then post the reply here.

 

[vensak]

For the bold part, where is this publicly accessible ?

For the other poster, some are very good at defending what is blatant theft. Applying law / terms and conditions retro actively is illegal in many countries. There is nothing more to say to that poster. Period.

Here you go:

So this is the law applicable to the health insurance
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96286_01

Here is the extract that points to you:

Cancellation of beneficiary enrolment
7.4 (1)The commission may cancel the enrolment of a beneficiary as follows:

(a)on application by an adult beneficiary, effective on a date subsequent to the date of the application as determined by the commission;

(b)if the commission believes the beneficiary has ceased to be a resident, effective on the date the commission determines to have been the date that the beneficiary ceased to be a resident;

(c)if the commission determines that the beneficiary was not eligible for enrolment, effective on the date of enrolment as a beneficiary.

(2)Subsection (1) (a) does not apply for the purpose of requesting that the enrolment of a child described by section 7 (1) (b) be cancelled.

(3)If a beneficiary does not apply to renew enrolment in accordance with section 7 (2), the beneficiary's enrolment is cancelled effective on the date by which the beneficiary was required by the regulations to renew.

And then here is the earlier citated conditions under which you can apply

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/eligibility-and-enrolment/are-you-eligible

A person must be a B.C. resident to qualify for medical coverage under MSP. A resident is a person who meets all of the following conditions:

• must be a citizen of Canada or be lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;
• must make his or her home in B.C.; and
• must be physically present in B.C. at least six months in a calendar year, or a shorter prescribed period.*

* Eligible B.C. residents (citizens of Canada or persons who are lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence) who are outside B.C. for vacation purposes only, are allowed a total absence of up to seven months in a calendar year.

So as you can see all the rules are easily accessible online. And yes it will be retroactive for 2018 if you leave BC sooner.

And since it is a public act, nobody had to specially spell it out to you. All then need is to have it publicly accessible.

Good luck.

 

[usthb]

No I am not in Canada but I will sort this out. And the discussion I am having here is pretty much irritating. On a side note, this adds up to some sloppy practices I've seen, in BC in particular - when filling certain administrative forms. Nothing related to the healthcare subject but I am pointing to certain terms conditions relatively to other business stuffs that left me flabbergasted in regard to what I have seen elsewhere in the civilized world ; be sure I wont elaborate one single word further on that - also not to derail the thread. I am not saying there is a deliberate intention to scam people, NO ; what I am saying is that I am now observing how few things are going with high level scrutiny.

Did someone inform me about the cost of the medical treatment in view of the risk I was facing? No. Emergency or not.
Should I be forced to pay/reimburse money (in my view this is pure extortion) I would comply with the law even if I know I will not join Canada again. The problem goes beyond the money. It is a matter of principle, read this: Where on earth is it EXPLICITLY stated that I will be obligated to reimburse medical treatment costs should I fail to meet the residency requirement for continued eligibility? just answer to this and I back off.
I go further: I failed to meet continued residency obligations, now what ? where have I been informed of the consequences of such an event?

 

[usthb]

Here you go:

So this is the law applicable to the health insurance
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96286_01

Here is the extract that points to you:

Cancellation of beneficiary enrolment
7.4 (1)The commission may cancel the enrolment of a beneficiary as follows:

(a)on application by an adult beneficiary, effective on a date subsequent to the date of the application as determined by the commission;

(b)if the commission believes the beneficiary has ceased to be a resident, effective on the date the commission determines to have been the date that the beneficiary ceased to be a resident;

(c)if the commission determines that the beneficiary was not eligible for enrolment, effective on the date of enrolment as a beneficiary.

(2)Subsection (1) (a) does not apply for the purpose of requesting that the enrolment of a child described by section 7 (1) (b) be cancelled.

(3)If a beneficiary does not apply to renew enrolment in accordance with section 7 (2), the beneficiary's enrolment is cancelled effective on the date by which the beneficiary was required by the regulations to renew.

And then here is the earlier citated conditions under which you can apply

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/eligibility-and-enrolment/are-you-eligible

A person must be a B.C. resident to qualify for medical coverage under MSP. A resident is a person who meets all of the following conditions:

• must be a citizen of Canada or be lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;
• must make his or her home in B.C.; and
• must be physically present in B.C. at least six months in a calendar year, or a shorter prescribed period.*

* Eligible B.C. residents (citizens of Canada or persons who are lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence) who are outside B.C. for vacation purposes only, are allowed a total absence of up to seven months in a calendar year.

So as you can see all the rules are easily accessible online. And yes it will be retroactive for 2018 if you leave BC sooner.

And since it is a public act, nobody had to specially spell it out to you. All then need is to have it publicly accessible.

Good luck.

I read this so many times. Please read my post. Because - do not take offense - this is becoming a circular discussion.

Where on earth is it EXPLICITLY stated that I will be obligated to reimburse medical treatment costs should I fail to meet the residency requirement for continued eligibility?

Saying that I will have to make reimbursement is called an "implied statement". Not stating explicitly the risks, is plain misinformation and abuse.

There is a lot of movement in EU actually on a totally different subject (protection of personal data) but of similar nature (abusive terms and conditions and misinformation) that led to a drastic change in privacy regulations all across EU. What I can say is that this beats them all.

 

[usthb]

Another flaw in the logic:
QUOTE
"if the commission determines that the beneficiary was not eligible for enrolment, effective on the date of enrolment as a beneficiary."
UNQUOTE

CONTEXT
Say my intent as of 1st jan 2018 is to settle as resident for a complete year in Canada .
Now circumstances have changed and for some reasons I cannot stay in Canada, I need to depart before the 6 month period would revolve.

I put forward that the following grounds are legitimate reasons to cancel eligibility retroactively:
- Misrepresentation of status
- Fallacious information provided
- Forged documents provided, etc.

But how could you determine that on 1st Jan 2018 I was not meeting the eligibility criteria due to an event which happened afterward?
This can only boil down to a completely different matter which is a misrepresentation of intent (good luck to prove it). Otherwise it is simple: this is just bogus logic.

 

[vensak]

I read this so many times. Please read my post. Because - do not take offense - this is becoming a circular discussion.

Where on earth is it EXPLICITLY stated that I will be obligated to reimburse medical treatment costs should I fail to meet the residency requirement for continued eligibility?

Saying that I will have to make reimbursement is called an "implied statement". Not stating explicitly the risks, is plain misinformation and abuse.

There is a lot of movement in EU actually on a totally different subject (protection of personal data) but of similar nature (abusive terms and conditions and misinformation) that led to a drastic change in privacy regulations all across EU. What I can say is that this beats them all.

Unfrotunatelly system in EU is different from Canada and therefore you cannot compare it.

And here is what you do not want to hear (I guess), but what will be your case according already mentioned Medicare protection act:

1. The commission will determine, that you were not eligible for the services (citation is in my previous post)
2. It will be identified that you have received benefits that you should not
3. Then depending your situation at that moment they will use one of these:

(3)Despite subsection (4), if the commission has reason to believe that the beneficiary is not a resident, it may make an order described in subsection (2) for a period of not longer than 30 days without hearing the beneficiary.

(4)Before making an order under subsection (2), or a cancellation under section 7.4 (1) (b) or (c), the commission must notify the beneficiary in a manner the beneficiary can understand

(a)of the commission's intention to proceed,

(b)of the circumstances giving rise to the commission's intended action,

(c)that the beneficiary has the right to a hearing, to be requested by the beneficiary within 21 days from the date that the notice was delivered, and to appear in person or with legal counsel at the hearing, and

(d)that if the beneficiary does not request a hearing or appear at the hearing, an order may be made in his or her absence.

4. And if they you will get cancellation since you will not be in BC anymore, you can end up with this:

(2)The commission may, for cause, after giving the beneficiary an opportunity to be heard, make an order to restrict

(a)the number of practitioners who will be paid for benefits rendered to that beneficiary, or

(b)the liability of the commission for payment for specified benefits rendered to that beneficiary.

Yes you can see nice past tense there. So they will recheck what you got for those 4 months and then they will limit their liability (they will say that they will not pay part or all your medical bills to the hospital). So yes you will be asked to pay it back.
And you can be determined to commit an offence on the top.

All there in the same piece of law.

 

[vensak]

Another flaw in the logic:
QUOTE
"if the commission determines that the beneficiary was not eligible for enrolment, effective on the date of enrolment as a beneficiary."
UNQUOTE

CONTEXT
Say my intent as of 1st jan 2018 is to settle as resident for a complete year in Canada .
Now circumstances have changed and for some reasons I cannot stay in Canada, I need to depart before the 6 month period would revolve.

I put forward that the following grounds are legitimate reasons to cancel eligibility retroactively:
- Misrepresentation of status
- Fallacious information provided
- Forged documents provided, etc.

But how could you determine that on 1st Jan 2018 I was not meeting the eligibility criteria due to an event which happened afterward?
This can only boil down to a completely different matter which is a misrepresentation of intent (good luck to prove it). Otherwise it is simple: this is just bogus logic.

Sorry if one of the conditions is to physically present in BC for 6 months (exceptionally for 5 months), then the only real circumstance I would see that would help you is if:
1. You would die - then you could not be able to meet the requirements, but I would assume that in this case it would be accepted.
2. If you were unable to return to BC (and I mean physically unable) - something like you were on the verge of death and you could not be transported back or you would be held a hostage. Or trapped somewhere after a major catastrophe. (nothing like taking care of a family, or going to a prison if of course you were taken into custody by justice).

Then I would see, that they might not decide against your case.

 

[Bs65]

This discussion seems to be going no where given the OP has their opinion and forum members have theirs but maybe the real issue might be if the OP ever returns to BC or Canada at some later point ( maybe they never plan to) and tries to enrol again in any provincial health plan given their history.

Once the OP informs BC MSP that they are no longer living in BC or Canada, which they are obliged to do then I guess they will find out what consequences there may or may not be, until then as said everyone in this democracy can have a view and respectively agree to disagree.

 

[bricksonly]

I think if it's emergency then OP won't be charge this fee. OP are not going to make an emergency to hurt himself to get the benefit of the system. My experience in Denmark in 2015 summer, my daughter hurted her finger by wrongly closing the car door and we are told it's an emergency, Denmark won't charge any emergency fee for anyone including visitors or undocumented immigrants. Nice country!

 

[YVR123]

I think if it's emergency then OP won't be charge this fee. OP are not going to make an emergency to hurt himself to get the benefit of the system. My experience in Denmark in 2015 summer, my daughter hurted her finger by wrongly closing the car door and we are told it's an emergency, Denmark won't charge any emergency fee for anyone including visitors or undocumented immigrants. Nice country!

Doesn't matter if it's emergency or not. How BC MSP works isn't the same as Denmark.