Examine Travel Grants for Specialist Care

Summary#

Bill 117 tells the Minister of Health to study setting up a travel grant program to help Ontarians pay for trips to necessary medical specialists or procedures not available in their home community. It does not create the grant yet. The Minister must file a report to the Legislature with a plan and steps to ensure the program is fully funded on a set timeline. The goal appears to be reducing travel cost barriers to needed specialist care.

• The Minister must examine a grant program to offset travel-related costs for needed specialist care that is not available locally.
• The study must focus on people who are Ontario residents, are referred by a primary care clinician (for example, a family doctor or nurse practitioner), must travel at least 100 km one-way to the nearest appropriate service, apply within 12 months of treatment, confirm no overlap with other coverage (such as WSIB, the federal NIHB program, or private insurance) for the costs they are claiming, and provide original receipts.
• The Minister must submit a report to the Legislative Assembly within six months of the Act taking effect.
• The report must describe the steps the Minister will take so the grant program is fully funded within six months after the report is tabled.
• The bill does not define which “travel-related expenses” would be covered, set payment amounts, or create application rules.
• The Act takes effect on Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Patients who need specialist care not available locally

  • No immediate change. There is no new grant yet.
  • If a program is later created along these lines, you would likely need:
    • A referral from a primary care clinician.
    • To travel at least 100 km one-way to the nearest suitable specialist or provincially funded service.
    • To apply within 12 months after your treatment and submit original receipts.
    • To confirm that the specific costs you are claiming are not covered by another program or private insurance.
  • What counts as a covered “travel” cost (for example, mileage, transit, lodging, meals, parking, escort costs) is not stated.

• Caregivers or family who travel with a patient

  • It is unclear whether your costs would be eligible. The bill does not define which expenses qualify or for whom.

• Health care providers

  • You may be asked to provide referrals or documentation if a program is created. The bill does not set documentation rules.

• All residents

  • This bill mainly affects government planning and reporting now. Any direct benefit would come only if a grant program is later established and funded.

• Timing

  • Report due within six months of Royal Assent.
  • The report must outline steps to have the program fully funded within six months after the report is filed.

• What is unclear

  • Which expenses are covered, payment amounts, how “nearest” service is determined, who qualifies as a “primary care clinician,” and how applications would be processed are not specified.

Expenses#

The bill may increase administrative costs for the Ministry to conduct the examination and prepare the report, but no estimate is provided.

• If a grant program is later created and funded, there would be ongoing public costs to pay grants; amounts are not known.
• The bill itself does not allocate money or set a budget.
• No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to reduce out-of-pocket travel costs that can block access to needed specialist care.
• Setting eligibility focus (referral, distance, receipts) could target help to cases involving necessary, long-distance care.
• Requiring applicants to claim only costs not covered elsewhere could prevent double payment and coordinate with WSIB, federal NIHB, or private insurance.
• A firm reporting deadline and a funding timeline in the plan could improve accountability and keep the initiative moving.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill only requires an examination and a plan; it does not actually create or fund a grant, so patients may see no immediate help.
• The 100 km one-way threshold could exclude people who travel shorter distances but still face high costs.
• Requiring original receipts and a post-treatment application within 12 months could be a barrier for some patients.
• The bill does not define which “travel-related expenses” are eligible, so key details about what help people might receive are missing.
• It is unclear how “nearest” specialist service would be determined, which could lead to disputes or administrative complexity.