The federal government unveiled its new dental-care plan on Monday — a $13-billion insurance program that will start covering routine dentistry costs next year for people who meet a certain income threshold.
Ottawa will cover kids under 18 and some seniors first before expanding the program to all eligible low- and middle-income Canadians in 2025.
Applications for seniors aged 87 and over will open later this month. Other age groups will able to apply in the new year.
The staggered application process is designed to make the rollout as smooth as possible. The government says it expects millions of people to avail themselves of this new component of Canada’s social safety net.
Coverage will be phased in over time, but some eligible participants will start to receive benefits as early as May 2024. Costs incurred before the relevant start date will not be covered.
This insurance-based program replaces the interim program that has been sending cheques directly to families with kids under 12 for the last year.
To be eligible for the program, a person must have a household income below $90,000 and no access to an existing private insurance plan. The person must also have filed a tax return so the government can verify income.
The plan is most generous for families that have household incomes below $70,000. They face no co-pays to a participating dentist, hygienist or denturist, and Ottawa will pick up the tab for covered services like cleaning, polishing, examinations, X-rays, fillings, root canal treatments and complete and partial removable dentures.
Families with incomes between $70,000 and $79,999 will face a 40 per cent co-pay, and for those in the $80,000 to $89,999 income bracket, the co-pay jumps to 60 per cent. The federal plan will cover the rest of the costs incurred.
Services to be covered under the Canadian dental care plan:
Preventive services, including scaling (cleaning), polishing, sealants and fluoride
Diagnostic services, including examinations and x-rays
Restorative services, including fillings
Endodontic services, including root canal treatments
Prosthodontic services, including complete and partial removable dentures
Periodontal services, including deep scaling
Oral surgery services, including extractions.
Health Minister Mark Holland described the government’s plan as “transformative” because it will provide coverage to the nearly nine million Canadians who do not already have access to dental insurance.
“We know we can have the best health system in the world and today is a monumental step in that direction,” Holland said.
“It’s going to make life better for eligible Canadian residents who won’t have to choose between paying their bills and getting the help they absolutely need,” he said.
$13B dental plan to be ‘transformative,’ minister says
Federal Health Minister Mark Holland says a $13-billion dental-care plan will significantly improve access for millions of Canadians who don’t have access to care through workplace insurance plans.
Citizens’ Services Minister Terry Beech said Canadians do not need to do anything at this stage — the federal government will reach out to eligible people by mail to invite them to apply for the benefit when it’s their turn.
The first letters will go out to invite seniors 70 and up to apply for the plan — those seniors will apply over the phone.
Here’s when seniors can expect to receive those letters:
Seniors aged 87 and above starting in December 2023
Seniors aged 77 to 86 starting in January 2024
Seniors aged 72 to 76 starting in February 2024
Seniors aged 70 to 71 starting in March 2024
Then, in May 2024, the application process will switch from the telephone to online as people aged 65 and older become eligible to apply.
People with valid disability tax credit certificates and children under 18 will be able to apply starting in June 2024.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh claimed the government is only pressing ahead with this program now because his party “forced” Ottawa to enact it as a condition of the confidence-and-supply agreement that could keep the Liberals in power until 2025.
“People are living with pain, people are worried about the cost if they do have to go to the dentist. We’ve been fighting to make sure people get coverage while out-of-touch Liberals and cutting-back Conservatives don’t want to deliver help to people. We’ve forced this government to take action,” he said at a press conference in Toronto.
The Liberal Party’s 2021 election platform made no mention of a dental care program.
“We’ve used our power in this minority government to give people help,” Singh added. “(Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre, despite having taxpayer-funded dental care for most of his adult life, voted against kids getting dental care. Conservatives have made it clear what their priorities are — cutting and gutting.”
Filling gaps in system
In a background briefing with reporters, senior public servants responsible for the program stressed that this federal initiative is meant to “fill the gaps” in the system and not replace existing provincial and territorial programs that already cover some oral health services.
But the federal government has received no assurances from the premiers that they will keep their programs operational once the national program rolls out.
Holland said conversations are ongoing with other levels of government. “I think they understand this isn’t an opportunity to shove off costs,” he said.
There’s also a risk of some employers scrapping the dental plans they offer their workers and pushing people onto this new federal plan.
A decision to dismantle those plans would push up the price tag of the dental care plan — in its current form, it is slated to cost the federal treasury about $4.4 billion a year.
Dedicated call centre for queries
The program will be administered by insurance giant Sun Life and dentists, dental hygienists and denturists will directly submit claims to that company for reimbursement. If there’s a co-pay, insured people will pay that cost out of pocket to the provider.
While the program will be run by a third party, the government said people can still work with Service Canada agents to deal with any issues that arise, including eligibility or coverage disputes. There will be a dedicated call centre to deal with dental services.
The government is hopeful that oral health professionals will enrol in the program and accept the Canadian dental-care insurance plan as payment.
Officials said the government will launch an education campaign to brief dentists, dental hygienists and denturists and the organizations that represent them in the new year on how they can sign up to provide covered care.
There will be a set “fee schedule” for services — but the costs reimbursed by Ottawa will vary from province to province.
The government said the fees paid are “relatively generous compared to other public plans across the country,” which should provide an incentive for providers to participate.
Holland acknowledged the government “still has work to do” to guarantee the country’s dentists will provide services to publicly insured clients.
“The core success of this plan is making sure oral health professionals are signing up,” he said. “I’m extraordinarily optimistic there is going to be very strong uptake.”
Holland said he met recently with seniors in Nova Scotia and they didn’t seem hopeful that the proposed dental program would actually materialize.
They had been living with the same set of dentures for decades, he said.
Holland assured them the program was coming and seniors would be able to tap the insurance program to help cover dental costs.
“That was one of the most powerful moments for me politically, to see that look of optimism and joy and what that dignity means. The dignity of being able to get new dentures,” he said.
NDP MP Don Davies is the party’s health critic; he helped to design the framework of this dental care initiative. He praised the program’s rollout as “a truly historic moment.”
“We are building on the legacy of Tommy Douglas who laid the foundation for our country’s public health care system,” Davies said of the former NDP leader who called for “head to toe” health coverage.
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters have approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access up to fetal viability, typically after 21 weeks — a major win for advocates of the measure in the presidential battleground state who have been seeking to expand access beyond the current 15-week limit.
Arizona was one of nine states with abortion on the ballot. Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion-rights supporters prevailed in all seven abortion ballot questions in 2022 and 2023, including in conservative-leaning states.
Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the state campaign, gathered well over the 383,923 signatures required to put it on the ballot, and the secretary of state’s office verified that enough were valid. The coalition far outpaced the opposition campaign, It Goes Too Far, in fundraising. The opposing campaign argued the measure was too far-reaching and cited its own polling in saying a majority of Arizonans support the 15-week limit. The measure allows post-viability abortions if they are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.
Access to abortion has been a cloudy issue in Arizona. In April, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the enforcement of a long-dormant 1864 law banning nearly all abortions. The state Legislature swiftly repealed it.
Voters in Arizona are divided on abortion. Maddy Pennell, a junior at Arizona State University, said the possibility of a near-total abortion ban made her “depressed” and strengthened her desire to vote for the abortion ballot measure.
“I feel very strongly about having access to abortion,” she said.
Kyle Lee, an independent Arizona voter, does not support the abortion ballot measure.
“All abortion is pretty much, in my opinion, murder from beginning to end,” Lee said.
The Civil War-era ban also shaped the contours of tight legislative races. State Sen. Shawnna Bolick and state Rep. Matt Gress are among the handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents in competitive districts who crossed party lines to give the repeal vote the final push — a vote that will be tested as both parties vie for control of the narrowly GOP-held state Legislature.
Both of the Phoenix-area lawmakers were rebuked by some of their Republican colleagues for siding with Democrats. Gress made a motion on the House floor to initiate the repeal of the 1864 law. Bolick, explaining her repeal vote to her Senate colleagues, gave a 20-minute floor speech describing her three difficult pregnancies.
While Gress was first elected to his seat in 2022, Bolick is facing voters for the first time. She was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to fill a seat vacancy in 2023. She has not emphasized her role in the repeal vote as she has campaigned, instead playing up traditional conservative issues — one of her signs reads “Bolick Backs the Blue.”
Voters rejected a measure to eliminate retention elections for state Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
The measure was put on the ballot by Republican legislators hoping to protect two conservative justices up for a routine retention vote who favored allowing the Civil War-era ban to be enforced — Shawnna Bolick’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and Justice Kathryn Hackett King. Since the measure did not pass, both are still vulnerable to voter ouster, though those races hadn’t been decided by early Wednesday morning.
Under the existing system, voters decide every four to six years whether judges and justices should remain on the bench. The proposed measure would have allowed the judges and justices to stay on the bench without a popular vote unless one is triggered by felony convictions, crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, personal bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure.
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska voters supported a measure Tuesday that enshrines the state’s current ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy in the state constitution, and they rejected a competing measure that sought to expand abortion rights. Nebraska was the first state to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to decide for themselves. The dueling measures were among a record number of petition-initiated measures on Nebraska’s ballot Tuesday.
What were the competing abortion measures?
A majority of voters supported a measure enshrining the state’s current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the state constitution. The measure will also allow for further restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed the 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
Voters rejected the other abortion measure. If they had passed it by a larger number of “for” votes than the 12-week measure, it would have amended the constitution to guarantee the right to have an abortion until viability — the standard under Roe that is the point at which a fetus might survive outside the womb. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Abortion was on the ballot in several other states, as well. Coming into the election, voters in all seven states that had decided on abortion-related ballot measures since the reversal of Roe had favored abortion rights, including in some conservative states.
Who is behind the Nebraska abortion measures?
The 12-week ban measure was bankrolled by some of Nebraska’s wealthiest people, including Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who previously served as governor and donated more than $1.1 million. His mother, Marlene Ricketts, gave $4 million to the cause. Members of the Peed family, which owns publishing company Sandhills Global, also gave $1 million.
The effort was organized under the name Protect Women and Children and was heavily backed by religious organizations, including the Nebraska Catholic Conference, a lobbying group that has organized rallies, phone banks and community townhalls to drum up support for the measure.
The effort to enshrine viability as the standard was called Protect Our Rights Nebraska and had the backing of several medical, advocacy and social justice groups. Planned Parenthood donated nearly $1 million to the cause, with the American Civil Liberties Union, I Be Black Girl, Nebraska Appleseed and the Women’s Fund of Omaha also contributing significantly to the roughly $3.7 million raised by Protect Our Rights.
What other initiatives were on Nebraska’s ballot?
Nebraska voters approved two measures Tuesday that will create a system for the use and manufacture of medical marijuana, if the measures survive an ongoing legal challenge.
The measures legalize the possession and use of medical marijuana, and allow for the manufacture, distribution and delivery of the drug. One would let patients and caregivers possess up to 5 ounces (142 grams) of marijuana if recommended by a doctor. The other would create the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which would oversee the private groups that would manufacture and dispense the drug.
Those initiatives were challenged over allegations that the petition campaign that put them on the ballot broke election rules. Nebraska’s attorney general said supporters of the measures may have submitted several thousand invalid signatures, and one man has been charged in connection with 164 allegedly fraudulent signatures. That means a judge could still invalidate the measures.
Voters also opted Tuesday to repeal a new conservative-backed law that allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund private school tuition.
Finally, they approved a measure that will require all Nebraska employers to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to their employees.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.
Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.
The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states.
They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action.
In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame.
But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment.
“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement.
Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases.
Bans remain in place in three states after votes
Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.
The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure.
The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away.
“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.”
In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it.
Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights.
Other states guaranteed abortion rights
Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced.
In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it.
It’s a similar situation in Montana, where abortion is already legal until viability.
The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care.
A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure.
The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates
Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.
The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral.
Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans.
The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor.
The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found.
___
Associated Press reporters Hannah Fingerhut and Amanda Seitz contributed to this article.
___
This article has been corrected to reflect in the ‘other states’ section that Montana, not Missouri, currently allows abortion until viability.
