CALGARY HERALD COLUMN: Alberta Health takes wrong turn on waiting list deaths

In November, Alberta Health staff walked into a restaurant in Calgary and noticed a number of health violations — the dishwasher wasn’t properly sanitized, a can of tomato paste had mould growing on it and some cleaning cloths were laying on the floor, to name a few.

The inspection report for the visit, complete with the company’s name and address, was then posted online, where it will remain for all to see for the next three years. Disclosure of these reports is a common practice across Canada — some governments even require restaurants to post notices of health violations in their windows for customers to see on their way in.

Clearly, governments like to set the bar quite high for private businesses when it comes to health and safety violations. But what about when governments make a mistake?

Alberta Health just took the already low bar it set for itself and eliminated it altogether. Poof. Gone. Who needs accountability anyway?

The issue concerns Alberta Health’s decision to stop collecting data on patients dying while waiting for surgery and diagnostic scans. The government used to collect partial data. Now, it has decided to stop tracking the important metric altogether — unlike most other health bodies in Canada.

Since 2019, SecondStreet.org has been filing information requests with health bodies across Canada to track data on patients dying while waiting for treatment. It’s an important issue to research for many reasons, not the least of which is that a patient dying because the government took too long to provide treatment is the ultimate failure of a health-care system.

We began researching this problem because there have been many reported cases of such incidents in Canada. This includes Alberta patient Jerry Dunham, who died in 2020 while waiting for a pacemaker to be implanted. Jerry left behind two young daughters.

Alberta Health noted that the data previously collected was incomplete, as staff were never trained provincewide to carefully track the information. It just happened to be collected here and there through wait list management software. But at least it was something.

Last year in Alberta, the data showed 61 patients died while waiting for surgery. A further 179 died while waiting for a diagnostic scan. In the past, when a breakdown of the procedures was provided, the overwhelming majority were non-life-saving treatments such as cataract procedures and hip operations.

A patient is unlikely to die from not receiving their hip operation in time, but it certainly does affect someone’s quality of life in their final years. Waiting for a hip operation in and of itself may not kill you, but adapting a sedentary lifestyle while you wait for surgery just might — a lack of exercise can make health problems worse.

This year, when SecondStreet.org asked for the latest data, Alberta Health officials indicated that they “no longer have this information.” Alberta Health Services confirmed they don’t have the data either. Instead of improving the situation, the problem has gotten worse.

For leadership in this area, Health Minister Adriana LaGrange and Premier Danielle Smith should look to Nova Scotia.

The small Atlantic province responds to our information requests each year with a detailed spreadsheet that notes the surgery that each patient was waiting for when they died, when they were put on the waiting list, how long they waited, the procedure’s target surgical time and days past the target. If the procedure was previously cancelled, the reason for that is also provided.

The Nova Scotia government also provides additional context. Last year, it noted 532 patients died while waiting for surgery. Of those patients, the data shows 50 were waiting for procedures that could have potentially saved their life, 38 per cent of whom died after waiting longer than the maximum recommended wait time.

Tracking and releasing the data in the same manner that Nova Scotia does would be a step in the right direction. Proactively disclosing the data on the government’s website would be an even better step.

And if the Alberta government really wants to be a leader, it could start posting notices in hospital windows letting patients know if delays at that hospital have cost any patients their lives.

If governments want to set the bar high for others, then they should meet it, too.

Colin Craig is the president of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think-tank. 

This column was originally published in The Calgary Herald on January 4, 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.