February 4, 2026

JUNO NEWS COLUMN: Alberta needs rapid health reform

SecondStreet.org Research Director Bacchus Barua writes in Juno News that, while health reforms in Alberta are a great step, they must come quickly.

Read the Column

The new year began with doctors calling for a “state of emergency” in Alberta’s emergency rooms. Intensive care unit capacity was at 97 percent, with the Alberta Medical Association reporting some hospital wards operating between 110-170 percent capacity. Media have reported on multiple stories about some patients dying while waiting for treatment, and many close calls.

The government has begun a “provincewide response”, including diverting less critical patients away from ERs, but the primary issue remains unaddressed: the system needs reform. The government has made some very good announcements about forthcoming changes, but they need to be expedited.

Albertans are not getting timely access to primary and scheduled care. As a result, many of them may end up in the ER for lack of better options – or simply because they waited so long that a previously elective condition becomes an emergency.

Consider data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information that shows almost 16 percent ER visits in Albert are for conditions that could be managed in primary care. The answer is not to simply turn these patients away to free up overloaded ERs, but to improve access to family doctors so they don’t end up there in the first place.

Another example comes from the Fraser Institute, which estimated a 38 week wait for scheduled care. While some can face these long waits without serious consequences, many may experience deterioration and end up in the ER. In fact, SecondStreet.org found that at least 240 patients died while waiting for scheduled treatment for various surgeries in the province the last time data was tracked (2022-23). Again, the solution here is to provide timely surgery to pre-empt spillover into overwhelmed ERs.

Unfortunately, hospitals also struggle with a significant load of patients who don’t need acute inpatient care, but cannot be safely discharged into more appropriate settings like long-term care homes. Alberta has reportedly reduced the number of so-called “bed blockers” by 20 percent, but the problem largely persists.

While the immediate provincial response must prioritize critical cases in ERs, there needs to be a parallel plan to avoid a ballooning backlog of less urgent patients who may overwhelm emergency rooms in the future.

How can this be done?

First, every non-critical patient whose treatment is postponed beyond clinical benchmarks should be offered treatment in private facilities – within Alberta’s borders, or beyond. This would bring Alberta in line with the European Union that offers patients the same choice. While the obvious long-term solution is to also build more capacity (doctors, nurses, beds, etc.) in Alberta, the government must use all clinical capacity regardless of ownership.

Next, the premier must fast-track her promise to shift hospitals to activity-based funding [aka ABF or patient-focused funding]. This is an excellent commitment, one that could significantly help patients, but it needs to be expedited. One of the reasons why some hospitals may not have enough resources to treat patients is because governments provide them with a cheque at the beginning of the year and hope for the best. Most other countries have shifted to funding hospitals based on the volume of patients they serve and complexity of their cases.

If Alberta had used this model, hospitals encountering a surge in patient demand would have receive additional funding to treat that patient. Conversely, a hospital serving fewer patients would see less funding. This approach would also help ensure health care funding is spent on services for patients – such as doctors and nurses’ salaries – rather than bureaucracy.

Premier Smith previously suggested such a shift was on the horizon, but it is yet to be implemented.

Finally, Alberta must enact legislation requiring patients to be immediately informed of their both their expected wait, as well as clinically acceptable wait times for their condition. This would ensure patients are aware of the realistic probability of receiving timely care, and empower them to plan alternative pathways. Similar legislation (known as Debbie’s Law) is being considered in Manitoba and British Columbia, and Alberta could take leadership in empowering patients with the information they need to make life-saving decisions.

While Smith has signalled a willingness to consider much needed reforms in Alberta (and indeed delivered some), she must act now with clarity and speed. Unfortunately, the Premier and her patients are simply running out of time.

Bacchus Barua is the Research Director at SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

This column was originally published in Juno News on February 4, 2026.

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!

Share this Story

Help spread the message and make real change by sharing this story with your network.

Facebook
X
Email

Related Stories

April 14, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research shows that thousands of Albertans are seeing a doctor 100 times or more in a single year.
April 13, 2026
SecondStreet.org is looking to expand our team with a new Communications and Marketing Director.
April 13, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research shows some Manitoba patients are seeing doctors hundreds of times in a year, while the phenomenon is far less common in Saskatchewan.

Join 20,000+ Canadians in our movement for a better Canada.

Name(Required)
Select Your Interests(Required)
Consent(Required)

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.