February 9, 2026

WESTERN STANDARD COLUMN: Next steps for Premier Smith on healthcare reform

SecondStreet.org President Bacchus Barua writes on which steps Premier Danielle Smith needs to take next in fixing the health care system.

Read the Column

Premier Smith ended 2025 with a decisive — and divisive — decision to allow physicians to provide private care without sacrificing their public role. This reform brings doctors and nurses in-line with teachers who can work in the public system and work privately in their spare time.

The move also improves choice for patients and brings Alberta closer to European universal healthcare systems that perform better. But there’s more work to do.

The reality is immediate relief will come to those who both need and can afford it. This is not just the affluent, but for middle class patients like Tracy Skinner from Sylvan Lake who had to fly to Mexico for back surgery and Jackie Herrera from Gull Lake who had to fly to Germany for neck surgery. By making changes that will allow patients like Tracy and Jackie to pay for treatment in Alberta, instead of having to leave the province, the Smith government will help reduce the burden on the public system. But, with over half a million patients waiting for treatment, doing so will take time.

So, what else can Smith do to ensure a robust public healthcare system that is ready for reform?

First, the provincial government must clarify and communicate the specific guardrails it intends to put in place so we don’t see an exodus of staff from the government’s healthcare system to non-government clinics. Such protections are an important feature in many (albeit not every) other universal systems.

For example, analysts Krystle Wittevrongel and Conrad Eder examined universal healthcare in Germany, France, and the UK and found that they all require dual-practice physicians to prioritize public sector responsibilities. For example, dual-practice physicians in Germany must commit to working at least 25 hours for the public system before they can provide private care. In France, the requirement is five “half-days” and private activity is capped at 20% of physicians’ public activity.

While the Smith government has prudently entrusted the Minister of Health with the authority to employ similar guardrails, the specifics will be important to ensure Smith’s reforms will reinforce, rather than weaken, the public system.

Next, the Premier should make good on her promise to change the way all hospitals and clinics — public or private — are funded. Currently, Alberta and most other provinces fund hospitals by essentially giving them a large cheque at the beginning of the year and wishing them good luck. This “global budget” approach is opaque, outdated, and does not incentivize care. By contrast, most other universal healthcare countries (and even some Canadian provinces) have shifted to a more modern approach. Activity-based funding (ABF) provides hospitals with funding every time they help a patient. While the Premier signalled a shift towards this common-sense approach, it is yet to be implemented.

The switch to ABF may also need to be accompanied by a temporary increase in the amount of healthcare funding to accommodate the expected spike in surgical activity. A system-wide change of this magnitude might very well need an injection of funds to kick-start things in the right direction. The reality is empirical evidence suggests the introduction of ABF leads to lower cost per procedure, but potential higher overall costs — at least in the initial years — due to the increased volume of care delivered.

Finally, provincial health agencies must resume tracking the number of patients who die while waiting for care. Alberta is the only province in Canada that does not currently track or disclose any data of this nature, although SecondStreet.org was able to obtain at least incomplete data between 2019-23. Tracking this data is in the Premier’s own interests to gauge the performance of her proposed reforms. It also helps improve accountability in the system.

On the whole, Alberta’s government is moving in the right direction on healthcare. Time will tell how well the government implements the reforms it announced, but the status quo should not be an option.

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

This column was originally published in The Western Standard on February 9, 2025.

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

February 24, 2026
SecondStreet.org President Colin Craig writes in the Financial Post that governments need to inform patients if they won't get life-saving care on time.
February 19, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research examines transparency around waitlists for life-saving surgery.
February 19, 2026
New SecondStreet.org research shows that more transparency on waitlists for life-saving surgery could save lives.

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.