Column

Report: Died On A Waiting List

  • SecondStreet.org asked 50 hospitals and health regions across Canada – how many patients died while waiting for surgery in 2018-19? Their data showed 1,480 deaths

Public policy think tank SecondStreet.org released ground-breaking research today that shows there were 1,480 surgeries that were cancelled in 2018-19 as the patient had passed away. SecondStreet.org obtained the data by filed freedom of information requests with 50 large hospitals and health regions in Canada.

The health bodies that responded serve less than half of Canada’s population. If their results are extrapolated across the country, the total number of deaths would be approximately 3,841. Most health bodies indicated they don’t track data on patients who die while waiting for care.  

“Governments require businesses to report even minor workplace accidents, such as cases where an employee is bruised at work,” said SecondStreet.org President Colin Craig. “Yet, we found nearly 1,500 cases of patients dying while waiting for care and governments don’t even report the more egregious cases publicly.”

Highlights from the report include:

  • Evidence of 1,480 patients who died while waiting for surgery in Canada during 2018-19. This figure is incomplete as it is from health facilities which cover less than half the country.
  • Patient deaths occurred after waiting anywhere from less than a month to more than eight years for surgery.
  • Patients passed away while waiting for procedures which could be linked with their cause of death (eg. cardiac surgery), as well as procedures which could have increased their quality of life during their remaining years (eg. cataract surgery, knee surgery, etc.).

Public opinion shows Canadians overwhelmingly believe governments should disclose more details on patients dying while waiting for care. A March, 2020 Leger poll (commissioned by SecondStreet.org) found 81% of Canadians strongly or somewhat agree with “governments publicly disclosing each year the number of patients that die while on a waiting list.”

“One thing governments could start to do is release anonymous waiting list incident reports that summarize each time a patient suffers while on a government waiting list,” added Craig. “Such reports could help Canadians learn more about patient suffering in the health care system.”

Responses by hospital / health region

Province / health body

Number of patients who died on a waiting list

Data quality

BC – Fraser Health

277

FAIR

BC – Interior Health

175

FAIR

AB – Alberta Health

39

FAIR

SK – SK Ministry of Health

242

FAIR

MB – Interlake-Eastern

0

GOOD

MB – Prairie Mountain Health

27

POOR

ON – Guelph General Hospital

8

FAIR

ON – Hamilton Health Sciences

78

GOOD

ON – London Health Sciences

9

FAIR

ON – Mackenzie Health (Richmond Hill)

12

FAIR

ON – The Queensway Carleton (Ottawa)

6

POOR

ON – Scarborough Health

12

POOR

ON – SickKids

7

POOR

ON – Sinai Health

5

POOR

ON – Southlake Regional Health Centre

60

FAIR

ON – The Ottawa Hospital

26

POOR

ON – Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences

49

FAIR

ON – Trillium Health Partners

33

FAIR

QC – CISSS de Laval

1

GOOD

PEI – Health PEI

16

POOR

NS – Nova Scotia Health Authority

398

GOOD

TOTAL

1,480

 

To view the Died on a waiting list policy brief – click here

To view responses from individual health regions or hospitals, click on the health body’s name in the table above.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.