Quebec must work with, not against, physicians

Quebec parliament in Quebec city

In a misguided bid to improve access to physicians, the Quebec government has
inadvertently triggered an exodus of doctors from its borders. Reports suggest over 300 physicians have applied for licences in other provinces just days after the passage of Bill 2 on October 25 – provincial legislation that sets unrealistic performance targets,
and threatens punitive fines for non-compliance and protest.

If Quebec has any chance of meaningfully improving patient care, it must reverse
course and regain the trust of those who ultimately deliver it.

To be clear, certain aspects of Bill 2 are not necessarily controversial. Until recently,
physicians in the province were mostly paid via a fee-for-service [FFS] model. Simply put, this means physicians were paid according to the specific care provided. Bill 2
switches things around by paying physicians according to capitation – i.e., a set fee per patient, with some adjustments for health risks.

This is not necessarily problematic.

While payment based on the type and complexity of care is the norm for hospitals in
high performing systems, international evidence suggests that things are a bit different for physicians. In fact, both methods are widely used by our international peers. Fraser
Institute research (conducted by the author of this column) found that a blended system was more common among primary care physicians, whereas FFS was more predominant for outpatient specialists (no clear trend was observed for inpatient specialists). In other words, while each method is used, they are employed to varying
degrees depending on physician type.

However, Bill 2 imposes capitation across the board, ignoring the fact that it may be more suitable for some types of physicians but not others. Bill 2 also earmarks about 10 percent of physician pay to certain indicators or performance. Again, pay for performance is widely used by our international peers, and
empirical evidence suggests that it may even result in improved quality of care.

The problem is that this is not being introduced as an add-on payment to incentivize performance, but rather as a claw back mechanism. Moreover, the province has tied these payments to admirable – but unrealistic targets – without any indication that the government will provide the necessary resources and staffing to help physicians have a reasonable shot of attaining them.

Consider one target requires 3 in 4 ER patients to be seen by a doctor within 90 minutes of being assigned a level of urgency (i.e. triaged). Given that the current average wait time in the waiting room is almost 4.5 hours, the government is effectively docking physicians 10 percent of their pay for a situation they have little control over. In
fact, a recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute found that almost half a million Quebeckers left the ER without being seen at all.

But perhaps the most egregious aspects of Bill 2 relate to severe financial penalties for protest.

Doctors who take “concerted action” to signify their displeasure with the recent changes can be fined up to $20,000 per day. And while some physicians can (and are) choosing to leave the province in protest, the government previously introduced legislation that
would impose fines of up to $200,000 a day for newer doctors who received their
training in Quebec but choose to leave within the first five years of their career. In other
words, newly graduated Quebec-trained doctors are effectively locked into the system without any viable alternatives.

Quebec’s health care system is clearly in shambles. Wait times in the province have
almost doubled since Premier Legault came into power – from just under 16 weeks in 2018 to around 29 weeks last year. During that period the government has imposed a series of
increasingly restrictive laws on physicians that has already led to a marked increase in doctors leaving the public system (for private alternatives), and is now resulting in physicians leaving the province entirely.

Quebec is already facing an estimated shortage of 2,000 family doctors, and the
government’s most recent salvo is only going to make matters worse. The Legault
government must work with physicians, not against them, in order to turn the tide and improve care for patients.

Bacchus Barua is the Research Director at 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.