Windsor Hospital Tim Horton’s Losses Continue to Pile Up

Tim Horton's Mug

In 2012, the Tim Horton’s at the Windsor Regional Hospital made national headlines for losing around $265,000 that year. This contributed to SecondStreet.org’s decision to look into hospital cafeteria (and restaurant) losses nation-wide in 2020.

In 2020, we published a report counting up losses from hospital-run cafeterias across the country. It showed that the Windsor hospital’s ‘Met Campus’ Tim Hortons had continued to lose money: in the 2018/19 fiscal year, it was a loss of $27,069.

In 2021, we released data showing that between 2010-11 and 2018-19, the Windsor Regional Hospital’s Tim Hortons at its Met campus had lost $1.7 million. What’s more startling is that these losses didn’t factor in the cost of rent or utilities between. Thus, if you used standard accounting practices, the losses would be even higher.

New data obtained by SecondStreet.org shows the government-run Tim Hortons has continued to lose money, bringing losses since 2010-11 to just under $2 million.

Readers should note the hospital runs a second Tim Hortons – at its “Oulette Campus.” Since it opened in 2015, it has managed to generate a total profit of about $200,000.

At one point, the hospital’s CEO, David Musyj, argued that if you combined the Met campus’s Tim Horton’s losses with a small profit made by the hospital’s other Tim Hortons at its Ouellette Campus, there was a slight profit overall. It doesn’t make much business sense to keep open a money-losing franchise, but even if you use Musyj’s approach, the math no longer makes sense. Since the Ouellette Campus’s Tim Hortons opened in 2015, the pair of government-run franchises have lost close to half a million dollars combined. 

Since 2010, the Windsor Regional Hospital has lost a combined $1.8 million through its two Tim Hortons franchises.

That’s a drop in the bucket for the entire hospital’s budget, but think of all the ways that money could have helped patients. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the average knee replacement in Ontario costs the government approximately $11,500 to provide. That means the wasted money from the Met Campus Tim Horton’s could have paid for nearly 200 knee replacements. 

What should be more important to patients? Running a money-losing coffee shop or using the funds to provide vital surgeries to patients?

The choice is obvious.

Dom Lucyk is the Communications Director with SecondStreet.org.

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.