English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In June 2012, the federal government made cuts to the Interim Federal Health (IFH) Program that reduced or eliminated health insurance for refugee claimants in Canada. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the cuts on emergency department (ED) use among patients claiming IFH benefits.  Methods:  We conducted a health records review at two tertiary care EDs in Ottawa. We reviewed all ED visits wherein an IFH claim was made at triage, for 18 months before and 18 months after the changes to the program on June 30, 2012 (2011-2013). Claims made before and after the cuts were compared in terms of basic demographics, chief presenting complaints, acuity, diagnosis, presence of primary care, and financial status of the claim.  Results:  There were a total of 612 IFH claims made in the ED from 2011-2013. The demographic characteristics, acuity of presentation and discharge diagnosis were similar during both the before and after periods. Overall, 28.6% fewer claims were made under the IFH program after the cuts. Of the claims made, significantly more were rejected after the cuts than before (13.7% after vs. 3.9% before, p&lt;0.05). The majority (75.0%) of rejected claims have not been paid by patients. Fewer patients after the cuts indicated that they had a family physician (20.4% after vs. 30% before, p&lt;0.05) yet a higher proportion of these patients were still advised to follow up with their family doctor during the after period (67.2% after vs. 41.8% before, p&lt;0.05).  Conclusion:  A higher proportion of both rejected and subsequently unpaid claims after the IFH cuts in June 2012 represents a potential barrier to emergency medical care, as well as a new financial burden to be shouldered by patients and hospitals. A reduction in IFH claims in the ED and a reduction in the number of patients with access to a family physician also suggests inadequate care for this population. Yet, the lack of primary care was not reflected in the follow-up advice offered by ED physicians to patients.

P010: Use of the emergency department by refugees under the Interim Federal Health Program