Column

Report

SUN COLUMN: Government-run Tim Hortons losses worse than expected

Screen Shot 2020-11-04 at 9.23.57 AM

New data obtained by SecondStreet.org shows a government-run Tim Hortons in Ontario has racked up $1.7 million in losses.

Yes, you read that right. A government hospital in Ontario is running a Tim Hortons and has lost a large sum of money running one of Canada’s most successful fast-food chains.

Fortunately, there’s a lesson to be learned right across the country from this debacle as many other hospitals have lost money through their cafeterias and restaurants.

Patients should care about this issue as hospital restaurant and cafeteria losses ultimately mean fewer dollars available for health services for patients. (Note: This column examines food that hospitals sell to the public, not food that is provided free of charge to patients.)

Back in 2012, Postmedia reported that the Windsor Regional Hospital (Ontario) had lost a whopping $265,000 running its own Tim Hortons franchise.

That news story served as inspiration for SecondStreet.org’s 2020 investigation into losses at hospital restaurants and cafeterias nation-wide. We identified more than $12 million in losses over a two-year period; including $74,775 at a government-run Tim Hortons at  Windsor’s Hospital.

After the report came out, David Musyj, the CEO of Windsor’s hospital, wrote to the Toronto Sun and criticized the research. In his mind, the fact that one of his Tim Hortons franchises lost money wasn’t important as the other one it operated – located 4 km away – turned a slightly larger profit.

But if you had two Tim Hortons franchises – a profitable one and one that lost money – wouldn’t you shut down the latter so that you ended up with higher overall profits? It’s probably safe to assume that most people would say “yes.”

Regardless, new data from the Windsor Regional Hospital shows the Tim Hortons at its “MET Campus” lost almost $1.7 million from 2010-11 to 2018-19. A second Tim Hortons, at the hospital’s “Ouellette Campus,” has earned a profit since it opened in 2015-16. But if we combine the financials from the two Tim Hortons, as Musyj argues you should, they’ve lost money over the last four years for which data was provided.

Oddly enough, the financials for the hospital’s two Tim Hortons do not even appear to include rent and utility costs. The hospital informed SecondStreet.org: “Windsor Regional Hospital does not assign these costs to departments in the Hospital.”

One reason for the red ink appears to be labour costs. In 2012, media reported that unionized staff that served coffee at the facility were paid about $26 per hour (including benefits). Minimum wage at the time was $10. Now, however, the hospital maintains wage information is confidential. Oddly enough, other health bodies have had no problem releasing similar information.

There are a couple takeaways for hospitals across Canada in all this.

First, just like the bill from a leaky faucet adds up over time, so too do losses at hospital cafeterias – whether we’re talking in Windsor or other parts of the country.

Second, a solution to this problem can actually be found in Musyj’s letter to the editor. He notes that his hospital was able to earn some revenue by renting out some other space to businesses that sell food. Hospitals could shut down their money-losing restaurant operations and rent the space out to those who have expertise in this area.

Alternatively, we can all revisit this problem again in the future. It’s probably safe to assume patients would prefer the former.

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org. You can follow him on Twitter (@colincraig1) or email him at colin@secondstreet.org

This column was published in Sun newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton) on September 26, 2021)

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.