THE HUB COLUMN: Bureaucratic bloat in B.C.’s health care system

By Bacchus Barua, research director at SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

Ask any British Columbian if they want their tax dollars spent on hiring doctors or bureaucrats, and the answer is obvious (unless they’re a bureaucrat). And so, it’s encouraging that British Columbia’s minister of health, Josie Osborne, was tasked with reducing “the cost of administration of the health-care system to focus resources on the front line.”

While the systemic issues that plague B.C.’s health-care system will require more significant reform, this directive deserves applause for two reasons: It acknowledged health-care dollars were not flowing where needed most, and it resulted in action.

But how significant is administrative spending?

Some reports, based on data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information [CIHI], claim about $400 million (1.1 percent of total health spending by B.C.’s government) goes to health-care administration annually. However, this understates the true cost as CIHI’s accounting does not include administrative costs of operating hospitals, drug programs, and long-term care in this category.

A review of audited financial statements by analyst Mark Roseman, combined with Freedom of Information data, reveals the true cost is closer to $3.8 billion. This includes corporate spending by regional health authorities and expenditures on executive and support services by the Ministry of Health. This amounts to over 11 percent of total health-care spending by the B.C. government in 2024-25. While there are clear differences in what is being accounted for, these numbers are significantly higher than the CIHI estimates widely quoted by media.

Moreover, corporate and executive spending has increased 176 percent since 2017, when the current government was elected—faster than increases in provincial authority spending on acute care (98 percent) and population growth (78 percent).

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses [CFIB] also reports labour costs for management and union-exempt positions (typically senior managers and executives) in health care increased 52 percent between 2019 and 2023, adding $1.2 billion annually. And while the Community Health Bargaining Association and Managers saw the largest headcount increases, the number of ambulance paramedics and dispatchers actually decreased 7 percent during this period. More generally, B.C.’s health-care system has one manager for every four other employees.

Minister Osborne is on the right track, but this is a non-partisan issue. B.C. Conservative finance critic Peter Milobar noted B.C.’s health-care system has significantly more presidents and vice-presidents (70) than Alberta’s (fewer than 10), despite the latter having only a slightly smaller population.

It’s not simply about the amount of health-care dollars being spent, but about how they are spent.

While B.C.’s provincial government is responsible for overseeing a massive increase in administrative bloat since 2017, it should be commended for finally taking concrete steps to address the problem it created. However, subsequent reforms are needed to prevent such wasteful spending in the future. Taxpayers and patients simply cannot afford to pay for more bureaucratic bloat at the expense of frontline care.

This column was published as a part of The Hub’s Need to Know roundup on September 25, 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.