Section 7(1)(c) - Health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement

[rockscan]

Section 7(1)(c) - Health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement

My partners eyes are horrible and sadly his youngest has the same issue. I also wear glasses but prescription has never changed. While both of us would love to wear both glasses and contacts its not financially feasible. When he was married it was the same thing. They covered what they could after benefits. Now that theyre divorced the eye care costs have increased. I am only going by what he said the last time the bill came in. This time he knows he was wrong to cover the stuff that wasnt technically s7 (lens cleaners etc). He isnt being mean, hes putting an end to the "dad will pay for it whether he likes it or not" argument. Plus as he put it, if kid isnt mature enough to handle cleaning the contacts properly so there are no infections then perhaps they should not wear contacts so much.

He'll cross the bridge when he comes to it.

ETA as an example, lens solution at the drugstore or grocery store is about $10+ cheaper per bottle than the eye doctor. Eye doc supplied all the lens cleaner last time to the tune of $250. If you can get the same thing elsewhere, why not do that? He told me when they were married it was purchased with groceries for cheaper. He did groceries. Its convenient to get the cleaner with the glasses/contacts at the docs office. (His ex is not frugal)

[Maggie82]

To be fair, regardless of hue you calculate it, as long as the parties stick to that one method, that's what matters. Unfortunately this becomes somewhat difficult when one party always wants to use whichever method gets him/her the most $ reimbursement at the time. That is why Dad is balking. Up till now, the method of adding up expenses and only sharing expenses when the $100 "no-share" limit had been reached. But now the the current expense reached the $100 limit, Mom wants to switch to the other interpretation/method where any expense $100 or higher is to be shared regardless of whether the &200 limit has been reached. It's the flip flopping to try to get the most money that Dad is fighting against. If that makes sense.

[HammerDad]

To be fair, regardless of hue you calculate it, as long as the parties stick to that one method, that's what matters. Unfortunately this becomes somewhat difficult when one party always wants to use whichever method gets him/her the most $ reimbursement at the time. That is why Dad is balking. Up till now, the method of adding up expenses and only sharing expenses when the $100 "no-share" limit had been reached. But now the the current expense reached the $100 limit, Mom wants to switch to the other interpretation/method where any expense $100 or higher is to be shared regardless of whether the &200 limit has been reached. It's the flip flopping to try to get the most money that Dad is fighting against. If that makes sense.

Then the argument you make to the other side is that in past instances you calculated the amounts X way (provide examples). That this has been found to be fair to all parties. That you don't understand why there is a need to change the method now. However, if they are instant, that he agrees that this instance, and all future instances, will be calculated in the same fashion. It puts it out there that ex is flip-flopping, and that you won't accommodate future flip-flops, while also acting reasonable and in a co-operative fashion

[Maggie82]

Then the argument you make to the other side is that in past instances you calculated the amounts X way (provide examples). That this has been found to be fair to all parties. That you don't understand why there is a need to change the method now. However, if they are instant, that he agrees that this instance, and all future instances, will be calculated in the same fashion. It puts it out there that ex is flip-flopping, and that you won't accommodate future flip-flops, while also acting reasonable and in a co-operative fashion

That's the plan. Just trying to see what methods others are using so that this can be worded properly and isn't too far outside "the norm."

[Berner_Faith]

Here is another question regarding health care from a coworker.

Agreement states any medical coverage that is not covered by the benefits shall be divided proportionately between the parties in accordance with subsection 7(2) of the child support guidelines.

Mom wants to take the kids on a trip, they require a vaccine. The vaccine is not covered under either parents benefits. Do the parents split the cost as per section 7 or does mom pay for the whole cost as she wants to take them on the trip?

My fiance and I are taking our kids on a trip and never thought of asking mom to cover a portion, so I don't really know the answer.

[dad2bandm]

...
Scenario: Mom orders glasses for Child totalling $500 without Dad's consent to the expense...

How much do kids' eye glasses cost, these days? Is that what they cost? Or is that for some fancy, top-of-the-line designer glasses? Man, I hope my kids don't need glasses anytime soon.

[standing on the sidelines]

to me if mom wants to take the kids on the trip then the cost of the vaccination is part of the cost of the trip. If they were not going they wouldn't be needing the shot.

[Berner_Faith]

to me if mom wants to take the kids on the trip then the cost of the vaccination is part of the cost of the trip. If they were not going they wouldn't be needing the shot.

I agree...but here is another question... if Dad is planning a trip for the kids as well next year, the same shot would be required, but the kids wouldn't require it again because they were already vaccinated. So Mom has the expense for her trip and Dad wouldn't have that expense.

[standing on the sidelines]

I agree...but here is another question... if Dad is planning a trip for the kids as well next year, the same shot would be required, but the kids wouldn't require it again because they were already vaccinated. So Mom has the expense for her trip and Dad wouldn't have that expense.

now in that case I would expect the dad to pay his share for the initial shot then. He is getting a benefit out of the shot also then.

[rockscan]

How much do kids' eye glasses cost, these days? Is that what they cost? Or is that for some fancy, top-of-the-line designer glasses? Man, I hope my kids don't need glasses anytime soon.

Last pair of glasses for kid were $300 and that was lenses only as she just used the old frames. Then she also paid for $200 in contact lenses and a $150 pair of prescription swim goggles. Tack on the $150 in lens solution and you understand why I say WTF?? I wore the same glasses for 14 years because we were on social assistance as a child.

[maxwellsmart]

Section 7(1)(c) - Health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement

The Federal Department of Justice
guides state the following in their discussion of special or extraordinary :

" your child’s health-care needs that exceed $100 per year if the cost is not covered by insurance (for example, orthodontics, counselling, medication or eye care)"

In my view , although I'm not a lawyer,

The first 100 of uninsured medical expenses per annum is not to be shared unless the order has language that deviates from the guidelines in this regard.


Also don't forget that if the parent has claimed or is entitled to claim the medical tax credit on their tax return the NCP should only share in the net of tax cost.

[Maggie82]

Just got off the phone with our lawyer who has just returned from vacation. He clarified this guideline for us. Turns out that BOTH Mom and Dad were correct.

Hope this helps:



With regards to section 7.(1).(c) of the Child Support Guidelines, which states: “health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses,” the law intends the costs to be shared as described below:

• Any health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 (therefore, a cost of $100 or above) shall be shared proportionately;
  
• Any health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by less than $100 (therefore, a cost of $99.99 or less) shall accumulate until their total exceeds $100 annually, at which time, any future health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement shall be shared proportionately until the year’s end.

Therefore, if the cost of the expense is $100 or more, it is automatically shared regardless of whether there were any expenses prior to that particular $100+ expense. Any expenses that are under $100, their totals add up until they exceed $100, at which point any future expenses, regardless of the cost, will be shared proportionately.

Hope this helps clarify things for some of you!

[arabian]

so you contact your lawyer on a Sunday evening about this?

[Maggie82]

so you contact your lawyer on a Sunday evening about this?

No... he contacted us on a Sunday evening. 😉

[maxwellsmart]

Maggie that's very clear. Good work!