W.W.T.D.?
(What Would Tommy Do?)
Last week, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein announced that his government will soon be initiating a "third-way" health care system. Under this series of health care reforms, Albertans will be able to buy private insurance for certain procedures, and doctors will be allowed to practice in both the public and private-health systems. Klein seemed to suggest that these and other non-specified reforms may contravene the Canada Health Act. This of course set off a whole slew of rapid-fire editorializing in the media. We Canadians have an extreme emotional attachment to our public health care.
While I consider myself a naturally leftward leaner, some of you may be surprised to find out that I absolutely support the introduction of a Canadian parallel private health care system- with certain caveats, of course. Look- it's clear that our current health care system is not working well. Waiting times for cancer treatments, diagnostics and joint replacements are beyond reasonable limits. Our population is aging and this situation is not going to get better by itself.
Why not amend the Canada Health Act to allow doctors to develop a private system, while at the same time create a quota of hours that doctors must commit to the public system? For example, all doctors would be required to limit private service to 5 0r 10% of total practice time. It's not like we don't already apply limits to doctors; in the province of Ontario there have been many instances of salary caps and even claw-backs for doctors. The people who can afford these services will not exactly be "jumping the queue", but entering another line entirely. Technically, once these spaces are vacated, everyone else gets bumped ahead.
What I'm proposing is not an end to private health care- rather an enhancement. It offers people the opportunity to purchase what may be a life-saving treatment. And I don't think that it's only the super-rich that would partake in the system; thousands of Canadians currently waiting for critical treatments would gladly choose to liquidate their assets rather than be forced to wait (and die) for free service. And yes- of course there are sick people with no assets to liquidate. For these people, there would still be a vibrant public system available.
You might argue that instead of abandoning the public system we should instead focus all our energies on fixing the current one. I agree that there is much that could be done to improve the public system; better federal funding, improved licensing for foreign-trained doctors, etc. These are potential solutions that could take years- even decades to put in place. In the meantime, how many Canadians have to die before we get it right?
"People have to have a sense of the need for change before it comes. I've never believed that social change is brought about by rational thinking on the part of people. They take the next step forward because they have to in order to survive. Man likes to tread the beaten path. Only a great social upheaval can force him to move into some great new uplands of human behaviour."
These wise words were spoken by none other than Tommy Douglas, the father of the Canadian public health care system. I think it's time to ask ourselves if our emotional attachment to public health care is also a rational one. For those Canadians who are currently dying while waiting for treatment, I think it's fair to say that a private health care system might very well be "the next step forward...in order to survive".
I wonder what Tommy would think?
(What Would Tommy Do?)
Last week, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein announced that his government will soon be initiating a "third-way" health care system. Under this series of health care reforms, Albertans will be able to buy private insurance for certain procedures, and doctors will be allowed to practice in both the public and private-health systems. Klein seemed to suggest that these and other non-specified reforms may contravene the Canada Health Act. This of course set off a whole slew of rapid-fire editorializing in the media. We Canadians have an extreme emotional attachment to our public health care.
While I consider myself a naturally leftward leaner, some of you may be surprised to find out that I absolutely support the introduction of a Canadian parallel private health care system- with certain caveats, of course. Look- it's clear that our current health care system is not working well. Waiting times for cancer treatments, diagnostics and joint replacements are beyond reasonable limits. Our population is aging and this situation is not going to get better by itself.
Why not amend the Canada Health Act to allow doctors to develop a private system, while at the same time create a quota of hours that doctors must commit to the public system? For example, all doctors would be required to limit private service to 5 0r 10% of total practice time. It's not like we don't already apply limits to doctors; in the province of Ontario there have been many instances of salary caps and even claw-backs for doctors. The people who can afford these services will not exactly be "jumping the queue", but entering another line entirely. Technically, once these spaces are vacated, everyone else gets bumped ahead.
What I'm proposing is not an end to private health care- rather an enhancement. It offers people the opportunity to purchase what may be a life-saving treatment. And I don't think that it's only the super-rich that would partake in the system; thousands of Canadians currently waiting for critical treatments would gladly choose to liquidate their assets rather than be forced to wait (and die) for free service. And yes- of course there are sick people with no assets to liquidate. For these people, there would still be a vibrant public system available.
You might argue that instead of abandoning the public system we should instead focus all our energies on fixing the current one. I agree that there is much that could be done to improve the public system; better federal funding, improved licensing for foreign-trained doctors, etc. These are potential solutions that could take years- even decades to put in place. In the meantime, how many Canadians have to die before we get it right?
"People have to have a sense of the need for change before it comes. I've never believed that social change is brought about by rational thinking on the part of people. They take the next step forward because they have to in order to survive. Man likes to tread the beaten path. Only a great social upheaval can force him to move into some great new uplands of human behaviour."
These wise words were spoken by none other than Tommy Douglas, the father of the Canadian public health care system. I think it's time to ask ourselves if our emotional attachment to public health care is also a rational one. For those Canadians who are currently dying while waiting for treatment, I think it's fair to say that a private health care system might very well be "the next step forward...in order to survive".
I wonder what Tommy would think?
posted by Emma Jo Aiken-Klar, PhD at 1:13 PM
1 Comments:
good idea in theory, however in practice this would not improve the access to care issue for 2 reasons. 1) canada simply has too few doctors to sustain our population. canada's endowment of physicians ranks 17 out of 20 in the oecd countries, which is the equivalent of 1.8 doctors per 1000 people. therefore, by allowing some doctors to practice in the private system the issue of access and wait times will not be illeviated. 2) the second problem with our system is access and avaiability of high-tech machinery. this issue has been noted as being a signficant with respect to wait times and the ability of the system to treat patients. canada ranks extremely low compared to other oecd countries with respect to MRIs, CT scanners etc. unfortunately access to diagnostic machinery will not be addressed by your recommendations.
Post a Comment
<< Home