More Costly Mistakes in ODSP Office
Friday, March 4, 2011
Add Comment
I just went through a 4 month nightmare to get glasses. I wear tri-focals and they work great for just about everything. However, they're useless to use in stores where price tags, sizes, and the other things I need to look at, are way above my head because I use a wheelchair. I can't tip my head back far enough to see out of the right tri-focal lens. This means, I need 2 pair of glasses; the second being bi-focals that have the mid-range and reading lens combined.
I knew I needed a letter to prove medical need, so the eye-doctor wrote it right away and I gave it to the ODSP office. I also offered to get a second letter from my Family Doctor to explain the extent of the neck problem.
ODSP said they didn't need the second letter but if it later turned out that they did, they said they would call me and ask for it. They didn't. Instead they rejected the application because I didn't prove there was a medical need.
I asked for an Internal Review, and I again offered them a letter from my Family Doctor. Again, they wouldn't take it, and again, they rejected the application to buy a 2nd pair of glasses.
I now had to go to the Social Benefits Tribunal if I wanted to get them, so I applied and then waited 3 months for the case to be heard. It was supposed to take longer, but because I agreed to take part in an early resolution conference, the time got boosted up by a few months.
In the early resolution conference, I read the letters from the eye doctor and family doctor. By this time, I had a hard copy of a letter from my Family Doctor because I figured it would eventually come in handy. If it didn't, I would throw it out.
They asked why I didn't give them those letters in the first place. I told them the office said they weren't needed; that the one from the eye-doctor was enough. The Tribunal told me to fax both letters to the Kingston Office. I did.
The Kingston Office then phoned to say they needed another copy of the prescription; one that was the exact prescription for the 2nd pair of glasses. I knew the original prescription prescribed 2 pair of glasses, but to humour them, I phoned the eye-doctor and asked them to send another prescription; this time for the 2nd pair of glasses only. They sent me a copy of the original prescription, the one that prescribed 2 pair of glasses.
Frustrated, I went down to the place where I would be filling the prescription and I asked them to explain to me how to read and interpret the prescription. My intention was to go to the ODSP office, figuratively take them by the hand, point out the relevant lingo for each pair of glasses, and then hope that they 'get it'. Thankfully a 2nd worker at the local ODSP office was brought in to help on the case, and she knew how to read the prescription. However, it's not over yet.
The Kingston office then called to say they needed the letters from my doctors to prove there was a medical need. I told them they had them; that I handed in the letter from the eye-doctor twice, and I'd faxed them a copy of the letter from my Family Doctor once. They said they didn't have them; that I would need to fax them in again. I couldn't believe it. I took up the a habit about a year ago of phoning them immediately after sending a fax so I could make sure the fax had been received and that it was legible enough to read it. I wanted to remove any doubt in my mind about whether they had received it or not. This time was no exception so I knew it was there. Besides, after receiving the fax with the medical letters, my worker had phoned me to ask questions about it.
Therefore, when I was asked to fax it yet again, I refused. I said it was too much hassle to put the wires back into my computer so I could connect the dial-up modem. (I have an external dial-up modem that's a lot easier to connect, but I wasn't going to tell them that). I told her to look for it on Marjorie's desk. Marjorie is my worker.
They phoned back a short while later and said that they found it. It was not on Marjorie's desk. It was in another folder. They then approved the glasses and offered to mail the approval forms to me. Finally, after all this, I have what I need. I can go down to fill the prescription as soon as I can book the Access Bus.
In the meantime, I have questions; lots and lots of questions.
To start with, for closure I got a final letter from the Social Benefits Tribunal that says,
I can handle the 800 rules for ODSP and, in fact, I am often educating them by printing the directive and taking it to them, but I can't handle being effectively blamed for the amount of incompetence that goes on at their end. A letter of apology, or one that at will admit that ODSP didn't take the letters and then later lost 2 copies, would at least restore my reputation and dignity. As it stands now, service providers and others blame me for being the master of my own demise because I supposedly didn't give ODSP what they needed.
NOW FOR A QUESTION:
How many others have to deal with the fall-out of mistakes like these?
Can anyone suggest how to get the ODSP offices investigated, or who to share the proof with, so they will clean up their act?
The rules are bad enough, but the bungling is worse.
When you think about it, it was very costly for the government to clean up this mess. For this case alone, they had to pay extra wages for 2 people in the Local Office, 1 person in the Regional Office, 3 people at the Tribunal and an Investigator. I was mailed a 20 page legal document that explained why the Kingston Office turned me down and then included the legal rationale, so I suspect a lawyer might have been involved as well. All these costs could have been saved, if the ODSP office just took the letters that I offered them and proved there was a medical need.
I want to know if this problem is widespread or unique to Kingston.
I will close by saying I am thankful for ODSP and, for the most part, I can survive on it. I just can't deal with the stress of these mistakes because when they happen too often, they come close to sending me into a depression again. I can't stand having to do extra work to fix up their mistakes, and I can't stand losing my reputation by being effectively blamed for the mistakes by ODSP with their diplomatically worded letters. It's time they stop the blame game, accept some responsibility, and fix the mistakes.
With any luck the new AODA (Accessibility For Ontarian's With Disabilities Act) Customer Service Law, that is now enforceable for the public sector, will one day catch the mistakes and put an end to it because this is not, what I call quality, or even fair and respectful, customer service.
Please read my other Blogs:
Transit: http://wheelchairdemon-transit.blogspot.com
Health: http://wheelchairdemon-health.blogspot.com
I knew I needed a letter to prove medical need, so the eye-doctor wrote it right away and I gave it to the ODSP office. I also offered to get a second letter from my Family Doctor to explain the extent of the neck problem.
ODSP said they didn't need the second letter but if it later turned out that they did, they said they would call me and ask for it. They didn't. Instead they rejected the application because I didn't prove there was a medical need.
I asked for an Internal Review, and I again offered them a letter from my Family Doctor. Again, they wouldn't take it, and again, they rejected the application to buy a 2nd pair of glasses.
I now had to go to the Social Benefits Tribunal if I wanted to get them, so I applied and then waited 3 months for the case to be heard. It was supposed to take longer, but because I agreed to take part in an early resolution conference, the time got boosted up by a few months.
In the early resolution conference, I read the letters from the eye doctor and family doctor. By this time, I had a hard copy of a letter from my Family Doctor because I figured it would eventually come in handy. If it didn't, I would throw it out.
They asked why I didn't give them those letters in the first place. I told them the office said they weren't needed; that the one from the eye-doctor was enough. The Tribunal told me to fax both letters to the Kingston Office. I did.
The Kingston Office then phoned to say they needed another copy of the prescription; one that was the exact prescription for the 2nd pair of glasses. I knew the original prescription prescribed 2 pair of glasses, but to humour them, I phoned the eye-doctor and asked them to send another prescription; this time for the 2nd pair of glasses only. They sent me a copy of the original prescription, the one that prescribed 2 pair of glasses.
Frustrated, I went down to the place where I would be filling the prescription and I asked them to explain to me how to read and interpret the prescription. My intention was to go to the ODSP office, figuratively take them by the hand, point out the relevant lingo for each pair of glasses, and then hope that they 'get it'. Thankfully a 2nd worker at the local ODSP office was brought in to help on the case, and she knew how to read the prescription. However, it's not over yet.
The Kingston office then called to say they needed the letters from my doctors to prove there was a medical need. I told them they had them; that I handed in the letter from the eye-doctor twice, and I'd faxed them a copy of the letter from my Family Doctor once. They said they didn't have them; that I would need to fax them in again. I couldn't believe it. I took up the a habit about a year ago of phoning them immediately after sending a fax so I could make sure the fax had been received and that it was legible enough to read it. I wanted to remove any doubt in my mind about whether they had received it or not. This time was no exception so I knew it was there. Besides, after receiving the fax with the medical letters, my worker had phoned me to ask questions about it.
Therefore, when I was asked to fax it yet again, I refused. I said it was too much hassle to put the wires back into my computer so I could connect the dial-up modem. (I have an external dial-up modem that's a lot easier to connect, but I wasn't going to tell them that). I told her to look for it on Marjorie's desk. Marjorie is my worker.
They phoned back a short while later and said that they found it. It was not on Marjorie's desk. It was in another folder. They then approved the glasses and offered to mail the approval forms to me. Finally, after all this, I have what I need. I can go down to fill the prescription as soon as I can book the Access Bus.
In the meantime, I have questions; lots and lots of questions.
To start with, for closure I got a final letter from the Social Benefits Tribunal that says,
The above-referenced appeal concerns a decision of the Director, Ontario Disability Support Program to deny the Appellant's request for a vision care benefit to cover the cost of a second pair of eyeglasses.This letter basically absolves them of all responsibility, makes it look like I failed to give them what they needed, and now people are back to blaming me for the mess. This happens all the time and I'm sick of it. Yet, despite my best efforts to get the local office investigated so these mistakes can be fixed once and for all, it appears that there is nothing I can do.
Following an Early Resolution Process teleconference the Appellant provided the Director with verification that the second pair of glasses were required for medical reasons. As a result of the information the decision has been reversed.
It is my respectful opinion that the issue in this appeal has been resolved.
I can handle the 800 rules for ODSP and, in fact, I am often educating them by printing the directive and taking it to them, but I can't handle being effectively blamed for the amount of incompetence that goes on at their end. A letter of apology, or one that at will admit that ODSP didn't take the letters and then later lost 2 copies, would at least restore my reputation and dignity. As it stands now, service providers and others blame me for being the master of my own demise because I supposedly didn't give ODSP what they needed.
NOW FOR A QUESTION:
How many others have to deal with the fall-out of mistakes like these?
Can anyone suggest how to get the ODSP offices investigated, or who to share the proof with, so they will clean up their act?
The rules are bad enough, but the bungling is worse.
When you think about it, it was very costly for the government to clean up this mess. For this case alone, they had to pay extra wages for 2 people in the Local Office, 1 person in the Regional Office, 3 people at the Tribunal and an Investigator. I was mailed a 20 page legal document that explained why the Kingston Office turned me down and then included the legal rationale, so I suspect a lawyer might have been involved as well. All these costs could have been saved, if the ODSP office just took the letters that I offered them and proved there was a medical need.
I want to know if this problem is widespread or unique to Kingston.
I will close by saying I am thankful for ODSP and, for the most part, I can survive on it. I just can't deal with the stress of these mistakes because when they happen too often, they come close to sending me into a depression again. I can't stand having to do extra work to fix up their mistakes, and I can't stand losing my reputation by being effectively blamed for the mistakes by ODSP with their diplomatically worded letters. It's time they stop the blame game, accept some responsibility, and fix the mistakes.
With any luck the new AODA (Accessibility For Ontarian's With Disabilities Act) Customer Service Law, that is now enforceable for the public sector, will one day catch the mistakes and put an end to it because this is not, what I call quality, or even fair and respectful, customer service.
Please read my other Blogs:
Transit: http://wheelchairdemon-transit.blogspot.com
Health: http://wheelchairdemon-health.blogspot.com
0 Response to "More Costly Mistakes in ODSP Office"
Post a Comment