FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Japan — land of no health-care wait times

“A year!” exclaimed Dr. Yoshifumi Ikeda, medical director of a university hospital in Tokyo after we described the surgical wait times Canadian patients often face. The doctor was so shocked he switched from Japanese to English.

Our think tank was in Japan to produce a documentary on how that country’s universal health system has virtually no wait times. Yes, the country that voted instant noodles the best invention of the 20th century also has (almost) instant health care.

Need a hip operation? Pull out your calendar … how does next Friday sound? What about the week after? No one is dying in Japan after waiting months for heart surgery and no one has to wait years for joint surgery.

In 2020, the OECD studied wait times across eight categories — from diagnostic scans and elective surgery to more serious procedures such as cancer treatment and heart surgery. Canada had problems in all eight areas. Japan? No problems in any.

The Tokyo hospital we visited confirmed as much when we asked about wait times. Patients can typically get in right away if it’s serious. Maybe a month if it’s not urgent. Two max.

In Osaka, Japan’s second largest city, the director of a private hospital told us the same thing: If it’s an emergency, he can get you in today. If it’s not urgent, within the month. After we described the long waits for surgery in Canada and what was happening in our country, he sat back in his chair, crossed his arms and said, “I understand why you came here.”

The first health care lesson from Japan is to make it easy to grow the supply of health care. If you want to open up, say, a new hip-and-knee surgical clinic, you can (provided you have qualified staff). The Japanese government publishes what it will pay for different services and then non-profit, for-profit and government providers can all enter the market and receive the set payment each time they help a patient.

Japan’s approach is the complete opposite of Canada’s, where governments actively restrict the supply of health care. In this country, you can’t simply open a surgical clinic and begin helping patients in the public system. Even if you have qualified staff, government health systems are not set up to welcome and work with whoever wants to enter the market. Striking such partnerships is very political and the process is subject to intervention, including fearmongering, by special interests.

Governments in Canada also make it very difficult for patients to pay for health services at non-government clinics if they don’t want to use the public system. Outside Quebec, the law often prevents patients from paying locally — which is why they often have to travel to other provinces for care or even leave the country.

It’s important to understand that Japan’s health care system is effectively universal. When a patient receives cares, the bulk of the bill is paid by the government using tax dollars, though Japanese patients do pay a small portion directly.

Dr. Ryozo Matsuda from Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto estimated a patient would typically pay about 3,000 yen ($28) for an appointment with a family doctor. For more complex procedures, like a heart operation, there are expenditure caps. A patient earning the equivalent of About a third would pay no more than $840 for an otherwise costly procedure like a heart operation. There are exceptions for the poor and for children, as well.

The second major difference between Canada and Japan is that the Japanese typically live healthier lives than Canadians so require less health care in the first place. About a third of Canadians are obese, compared to less than five per cent of Japanese. The consequences for type two diabetes, premature heart disease and some joint replacements are significant.

Japan takes prevention quite seriously. From banning junk food in schools to requiring employees to have their waistlines measured yearly the government pushes citizens towards healthy living. Would Canadians want their waistlines measured at work? Obviously not. But prevention policies that were reasonable and didn’t intrude in peoples’ lives wouldn’t hurt.

Needless to say, it was culture shock to hear firsthand again and again about Japan’s non-existent wait times. If Canada made it easier to expand the supply of health care and took prevention more seriously, we too could get timely health care.

Colin Craig is president of the think tank SecondStreet.org.

This column was originally published in The Financial Post on August 28, 2025.

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.