OPINIONS/COMMENTS on the 3 Jun 2014 NVC Report

ELB and EELB are essentially the same thing. at first you will be on ELB that's while you are on the rehab program. after you are declared TPI and have exhausted rehab options you will be taken off the rehab program its at this point the consider you to be on EELB.

propat

Understood propat but if I am already on LTD presently why would DVA even look at my case for ELB knowing that I am covered under LTD. That is the point where it gets confusing for me. Seems to me that DVA does not have an incentive to even process or consider me for ELB knowing that I am on LTD. Does this make any sense or am I crackers.

they did it for me why would you be different????

I never got a dime from them because I was already on SISIP.

many others have to.

im not saying you will not have to fight for it I had to fight for a long time JUST TO GET THE APPLICATION SENT but got approved first shot .

propat

Ok thanks propat, ELB application is in the DVA system today - time will tell.

great digger glad to here it.

propat

I like this forum we can get info and help eachother. You are right propat ELB and EELB is the same - sorry to confuse digger. have a great night guys.

cosmo

Maybe I can clarify the last few posts.

I applied and was approved for the Vocational Rehabilitation Program. That led to my ELB application and approval.
Now Vocational Rehabilitation Program is threefold...

1. Vocational assessment, written tests, your smarts, age,resume, job interests, experience, which may lead to VAC flipping the bill for training, college, job searches, etc.
2. Psycho-Social, i.e. mental health etc.
3. Medical considerations, i.e. how banged up you are.

The above is simplified and as straight as I can cut it..

When I was considered a write off for whatever of the above three, I applied for TPI and was approved.
TPI simply extends your ELB until you reach 65. My CM accordingly closed my Vocational Rehabilitation Program (with my permission)
BUT, I can re-approach parts of it if I'm cured or something. Never heard of an EELB form...

"It has been determined that you have completed your rehabilitation program as there is evidence that further rehabilitation interventions will not be effective in achieving the rehabilitation case plan desired outcomes"
Maybe my own example can help someone else... but everyones situation is different. Just approach the above 3 points for yours. pinger.

Digger, getting approved for ELB, even though you are getting SISIP, can only be a positive thing. First of all, is if these changes are made to ELB, but not sisip, ELB might still pay you any money that isn't covered by SISIP. Example, SISIP"s 75% amount is $2000/month, and the new ELB's 85% of net pay comes to $2100, then VAC will give you tha difference of $100/ month. Also, if for some reason your SISIP is cancelled, the ELB payments would start almost immediately, preventing any financial hardships on your part.

this could all be a moot point, since the report recommended that ALL person getting SISIP for a service related disability, be automatically switched to the ELB program, leaving SISIP to care for those whom it was initially intended, CF personnel being medically released for non service related injuries.

I thought the report requested that anyone receiving the EIA, be provided with the PIA supplement, even though they cannot receive the PIA itself. I know I read it somewhere, but unfortunately it is not included among these recommendations

I guys, it is true EELB does not exist the word extended is only for those who goes up to 65 - see in vac account.

have a good day

cosmo

just thought id post this as it is an interesting.



By Sean Bruyea


Veterans have every reason to be disillusioned with Ottawa once again. But this time, the disappointment could become the nail in Minister Fantino’s Veterans Affairs coffin.


The House Veterans Affairs Committee released its much anticipated report reviewing the New Veterans Charter (NVC). The legislation required a “comprehensive review” to begin last November in spite of Minister Fantino’s claim that he called for the review to be comprehensive. The Minister did however call committee to focus on the “most seriously injured, support for families and delivery of program by Veterans Affairs Canada [VAC]”.


The report’s 14 limited recommendations received unanimous and glowing accolades from all parties.


Let’s dig a little deeper. The most positive recommendation proposed a detailed procedure for injured leaving the military, transferring to VAC and receiving care in their communities. Ensuring that veterans in isolated and rural areas receive adequate care, a longstanding problem, was not addressed.


Most of the remaining thirteen recommendations range from poorly defined to bizarre.


The NVC results in serious inequities, providing less to reserve force veterans than those in the regular military. The report recommended that reserve force veterans “be entitled to the same benefits” as regular force veterans. However, the bureaucracy could easily respond that reservists are already “entitled to the same benefits”, just lesser amounts with greater barriers.


Poorly defined words populate eleven of the fourteen recommendations: “greater flexibility”, “better access”, “as required” and that VAC “consider”. These weasel words substantially suck good potential from the recommendations. They also allow bureaucracy to easily avoid making substantive positive changes.


The Toronto Star reported committee member and veteran Laurie Hawn “insisted the report eliminated ‘any wiggle room’” for Minsiter Fantino. Instead there is enough space for a dozen dancing elephants as well as the Minster to avoid doing the right thing for disabled veterans and their families.


Perhaps the most galling will be the recommendation on the lump sum benefit. Unprecedented unanimity of veteran, legal, and rehabilitation experts agree the maximum lump sum for pain and suffering associated with disabilities needs to be greater than the current $300,000. Payouts averaged under $40,000 last year. A growing consensus calls for a return to the lifelong monthly payment which the RCMP injured still enjoy as well as almost 94,000 other veterans as of September 2013.


The committee took seven months to study the problem. Veterans, academics and experts, including me since 2005, have been highlighting the lesser standard provided by the lump sum when compared to lifelong payments. In what sounds more like a self-justifying political treatise, the report speciously claims that “more seriously disabled veterans” would “probably” not want the lifelong recognition the monthly payments provide.


Perhaps it should come as no surprise, but surely a massive disappointment, that the committee completely avoided making a clear recommendation. Committee lazily suggests the bureaucracy carry out its own “comprehensive review” of the lump sum amount, with no set deadline.


Another delaying tactic is unnecessary to learn that Canadian courts pay out a maximum of $356,695 as of April 2014 or that the United Kingdom pays its veterans a maximum of £570,000 (just over a million dollars) for injuries. VAC internal audits indicate the lifelong payments provide substantially more to most veterans than the lump sum.


Families were also the “focus” of the comprehensive review and yet received just two recommendations. Increasingly, family members such as Jenny Migneault, have been calling for assistance to care for their permanently disabled veteran spouses. I tabled specific recommendations to provide financial assistance (and medical support) to the spouses who often forfeit their careers to do the caregiving work VAC should be doing. The committee recommended that financial support be limited to spouses of those veterans who are either within one year of being moved to a long term care facility or within one year of death. This will not help Jenny.


Otherwise, committee recommended family members be sloughed off to the Military Family Resource Centres. The centres do good work but they are not-for-profit organizations. They are not meaningfully accountable to government should they fail to provide services. They also do not have reliable sources of funding, a problem afflicting Veterans Affairs lately.


Perhaps some recommendations could improve the lives for a limited number of veterans and their families, only if bureaucrat policy writers are uncharacteristically generous. However, one particular ill-conceived recommendation will make life worse.


In addition to a limited pain and suffering lump sum, injured veterans if medically released from the forces or unable to work due to military injuries rely upon income loss payments. Currently payments are pegged to 75% of gross military salary. The ombudsman recommended that this be boosted to 90%. Rehabilitation experts, VAC advisory groups and eleven prominent veteran organizations called for 100% while adding in future lost potential for the most disabled. The Veterans Affairs committee called for 100% in their more comprehensive report four years ago.


Mysteriously, this same committee recommended that the benefit be made non-taxable and pegged at 85% of net salary, limiting the net salary to $70,000.


The disability plan serving MP’s and bureaucrats does not impose limits. Why would parliament push for a lesser standard for veterans?


I did further research with WorkSafeBC and an Ottawa-based accountant. Let’s take two veterans with two typical ranks, Corporal and Captain. They each have 10 years of service, four annual pay increases, a spouse, two kids and live in Ontario. They are unable to work again due to military injuries. The Corporal earned $60,000 in the Forces. Under the current income loss program, after tax income would be no less than $42,597. Under the committee proposed program, income loss payments would be no more than $37,758.


For the Captain earning $85,632, the current program would pay $54,885 and the proposed program would pay $51,130. WorkSafeBC would pay $41,112 for an equivalent salary to the corporal and $52,473 for a salary equivalent to the Captain.


Not one witness recommended this puzzling 85% let alone a maximum threshold, although WSIB Ontario uses 85% of net income and a similar threshold.


The report decries the current income loss program for being modelled on the military insurance plan. Instead, committee proposes to replace a military insurance program and imitate civilian workplace insurance programs.


Minister Fantino hyped this review only to have committee deliver a largely evasive list of bizarre or underwhelming recommendations. His response to the report was to promise a response by fall.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper called military service “the highest form of public service”. Minister Fantino’s escapades and inept management fall far short of respecting veterans and their families. Increasing neglect by government and certain organizations will encourage increasing desperation by veterans. Government had better start fighting for veterans soon or Canadians will stop fighting for government.


Sean Bruyea is advocacy advisor for Veterans Canada (.ca), is a retired Air Force intelligence officer and frequent commentator on government, military, and veterans’ issues. Sean is not a recipient of Earnings Loss Benefit.

now a few of this guys seems to be calling for an end to the buyout witch I think is great as well as this entire article . he mentioned their is a growing consensus to return to the monthly payment.

id just like to add among those that have been bought out from the many I have spoken to the consensus is not growing it was always their and immediate.

propat

Good read, Propat, thanks

There is nothing wrong with offering a lump sum, as an option, if one chooses to be compensated that way. Like my father, who at age 66, has just been given 2 separate awards. He is already retired with 2 pensions, so he doesn't really need to be paid a lifelong pension from VAC. But a lump sum award gives Veterans like him the opportunity to put some aside, maybe travel, pay off bills and such, allowing them to live comfortably on the existing pensions.

nothing wrong with that at all bigrex but as it is now with no choise starting just after we sent troops to war, well. there is a lot of young guys I know really not in good shape it seems a lot of people don't give a frack about or even want to listed to. so a choice is the best option but the monthly must be returned at all cost choice ore no choice.

propat

I was re-reading the report, and I just cannot figure out the wording on the ELB recommendation. To me the best case scenario is that they refer to "net income" as your full pre-release pay minus deductions from other sources, and not based on taxes that have been paid in the past. So if you pay on release was $5000, and you get a $1000/month CF pension, you net income would be $4000/month. then your ELB payment would be $3400 tax free. So hopefully the OVO gets some sort of clarification, or the wording is changed in the report before changes are made to the NVC, because if given the opportunity to minimize these payments in any way, I'm sure the bean counters in Ottawa and Charlottetown will take advantage of it.

Rex the OVO gave up trying to get an explanation. That's why he just outed the point in one of his blogs last month for an explanation.