NATIONAL POST COLUMN: Almost two Canadians in three support medicare choice

Canada Healthcare SecondStreet.org

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre both believe Canada needs health reform. But neither has said what they think should be done. As they ponder this pressing issue, they should consider the results of a recent Leger poll commissioned by Secondstreet.org. Conducted in November, it found that 62 per cent of Canadians support the idea of keeping our public healthcare system but allowing patients to use their own money at private clinics if they wish to.

Currently in Canada, we have a disjointed and hard to-justify system of bans on private health care whose effect is to reduce access. Removing such barriers could shorten wait times and ease pressure on the public system.

At the moment, Quebecers can visit private clinics in their province and pay for medically necessary surgery — hip and knee operations, for example. But private clinics in the rest of the country aren’t allowed to sell surgical services to local patients. Quebecers have this right because of the 2005 Supreme Court decision Chaoulli v Quebec, which found that bans on private care violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Although Canadians in the rest of the country aren’t allowed to pay for surgery locally, they can travel to other provinces and pay for it. For example, Vancouverites often travel to Calgary for private surgery and vice versa. This inconvenience is good for Canada’s airlines but makes no sense otherwise.

One reason for these barriers is that in the past Ottawa has threatened provincial governments with funding cuts if they allowed private clinics to sell medically necessary services to local patients. In some cases, provincial governments have piled on with their own legislative bans. Dr. Brian Day, founder of the Cambie Surgery Centre in Vancouver, will soon challenge B.C.’S provincial restrictions on private care at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ultimately, government bans on private health care limit the supply of services and contribute to the abysmal results we’re seeing. Fraser Institute research dating back three decades shows waiting lists have never been longer. Government data obtained by Secondstreet. org shows 13,581 patients died last year while waiting for hip operations, heart operations, MRI scans and other health services. Overall, government data shows approximately one in ten Canadians is on a waiting list right now.

It’s important to understand that our nation’s health-care woes were a growing problem long before COVID arrived. All the pandemic did was make a bad situation worse. And, despite what some special interest groups claim about “healthcare cuts,” since 1991 per capita government spending on health care has risen at nearly double the rate of inflation (from $1,557 to $5,234 — inflation only gets it to $4,677). More and more money hasn’t solved the problem.

So, if bans on private health care were removed, what would happen?

First, note that countries with universal health-care systems and better health indicators than Canada have both public and private health-care options. Private clinics take pressure off the public system as some patients opt to pay for private care. Imagine you are 1,000th in line for hip surgery and 100 people ahead of you decide to go private instead, you receive your surgery more quickly. It’s a winwin situation.

Some argue private clinics would lure staff away from the public system. In the short term, this concern could be addressed by imposing temporary restrictions that are similar to what other nations have done. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the government imposes limits on how much time staff in the public system can work at private clinics.

Over the long term, if Canada doesn’t have enough health-care staff to meet demand, then post-secondary institutions could increase the number of training spaces available. At the same time, they could spend less money subsidizing post-secondary studies for which there is little or no demand in the workplace. For instance, a 2017 Statistics Canada report notes that 28.5 per cent of 25-to-34-yearolds who had graduated with arts and humanities bachelor’s degrees were working in jobs for which only high school was necessary, compared to 11.4 per cent for STEM graduates and 17.4 per cent for bachelor’s graduates overall.

Removing restrictions on private health care would not solve all our system’s woes. Many other changes are needed, too. But removing these barriers would help improve access to health care for patients. And isn’t that the point?

Colin Craig is president of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

This column was published in The National Post on December 22, 2022.

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.