BUSINESS IN VANCOUVER COLUMN – We need to apply new thinking to keeping doctors and nurses in B.C.

Imagine you were hit by a car tomorrow and were rushed to the emergency room. You fade in and out of consciousness, finally awakening to find the janitor is helping out with your operation. While you lay there confused, he winks, smiles and says two words.

“Doctor shortage.”

Canada’s health care system isn’t quite there, but we routinely hear about shortages of staff across the country. Over six million Canadians don’t have a family doctor. From coast-to-coast we hear about shortages of nurses. Ultimately, these shortages hurt patients. 

This is a problem widely acknowledged across the political spectrum. While governments, including Premier Eby’s, often focus on recruiting more doctors and nurses from abroad, there is another place to look for health care staff: within B.C.’s borders. 

new study from SecondStreet.org examines the number of Canadian doctors and nurses who have an active licence to practice in states along the U.S. border – Washington State, Idaho, etc. 

Across the country, there were nearly 10,000 such cases. Border states had issued licenses to 901 doctors and nurses with B.C. mailing addresses. 

There are a couple of important points to note. For one, it’s uncertain how many of these workers are commuting across the border, how many have moved to the U.S., and how many are planning to move in the future. However, it’s not a simple process to become accredited to work in the U.S. The paperwork is one thing, but there’s also a $450 US fee for accreditation on top of general licensing fees (which vary by state) for nurses. Thus, these workers are unlikely to be casually playing the field.

It’s also important to note the true total is likely much higher. This report focuses only on states along the border. The top state to issue licences to B.C. nurses was, surprisingly, not Washington (354) – it was actually New York (427). If one were to seek out the data for other far-away states, such as California, Florida, Arizona, etc., one would likely find hundreds more workers who have left.

So, what can be learned from this?

For one, governments could listen to health care workers to learn more about what would convince them to stay in the province. 

While SecondStreet.org was unable to survey health workers in B.C. who have licences in the U.S., insight into this matter can be gleaned from our survey of Ontario nurses who work in Michigan.

Intuitively, one might think that compensation is the main reason nurses are leaving to work in the United States, but that’s not what the data shows. The top reason Ontario nurses indicated they chose to work in Michigan was actually availability of work. Many noted they were offered part-time shifts in Canada, but chose the U.S. as they could secure full-time positions with more predictable schedules. 

Compensation was the second most common response, but right on its heels was “working conditions.” A common complaint was that there was more modern equipment and higher standards of care south of the border. Perhaps B.C. could reduce the province’s health care bureaucracy and use the savings to modernize hospitals, further helping to attract doctors and nurses to stay in the province. Does the province really need 64 vice-presidents across the province’s six health authorities (each making generous six-figure salaries)?

Another option would be for B.C.’s government to work with the nurses’ union to loosen seniority rules in scheduling, allowing more new health care workers to access consistent, reliable hours. Another option would be to simply reduce the number of part-time roles and create more full-time positions.

As you can see, two of the top three reasons why Ontario nurses chose to work in Michigan didn’t even involve compensation.

A second way Canada could retain more health care workers is through private clinics. 

Private clinics have less bureaucracy and aren’t unionized, so they have the potential to be more flexible and responsive to what workers’ are seeking – whether it be predictable hours, better compensation or other workplace matters. Most importantly, private clinics give workers more choice in terms of where to work.

To be sure, convincing B.C. health workers to remain in the province is not a be-all and end-all solution, but it could help address the province’s shortage of health care workers.

Dom Lucyk is the Communications Director for SecondStreet.org, a Canadian public policy think tank.

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.