Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Canada Health Act needs bite

Barbara Sibbald and Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ November 01, 2016 188 (16) 1133; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.161128
Barbara Sibbald
News and Humanities Editor (Sibbald), Deputy Editor (Stanbrook),
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew B. Stanbrook
News and Humanities Editor (Sibbald), Deputy Editor (Stanbrook),
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We could wait six weeks for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) here in Ottawa, or we could cross the river to Gatineau, Quebec, shell out $745 and get one tomorrow. But we’d be crossing more than a river. We’d be traversing one of the tenets of the Canada Health Act: accessibility. Some can afford to pay $745; others cannot. And that is the point.

Canadians have agreed that publicly funded health care is in our collective best interest. In exchange for a federal health transfer expected to total $37.1 billion in 2017/18, the provinces must adhere to the five tenets of the Canada Health Act: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. This includes a ban on private insurance for medically necessary services, extra billing and user fees.

But what happens when governments allow the public system to deteriorate such that it violates human rights? This was the argument behind the successful 2005 Chaoulli v. Quebec challenge.1 The court ruled that a one-year wait for a hip replacement violated provincial human rights law, and that Quebec would have to either shorten wait times or allow the procedure to be done privately. It chose the latter.

Potential human rights violations are also being debated in the Cambie Surgeries Corporation case now before the British Columbia Supreme Court. The court will decide whether the ban on private insurance violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That decision could have far-reaching consequences on the Canada Health Act and for Canadians who cannot pay or do not have private insurance. But being unable to get the medical treatments Canadians need in the publicly delivered system also has consequences.

We now have a proliferation of private clinics. There’s no recent national tally, but in 2008, the Ontario Health Coalition estimated that 90 private clinics were openly violating the prohibition on double billing.2 The Canada Health Act stipulates that the amount overbilled will be deducted from federal contributions for health. In 2014/15, British Columbia was docked $241 6373 — about half the amount extra billed by the Cambie Surgery Centre in one month, according to a 2012 audit.3 BC is the only province trying to enforce the Act, but there are violations in Ontario and elsewhere. Saskatchewan recently began offering MRIs for a fee because of long wait times.3

The problem is that the Canada Health Act has no bite. It will come as no surprise that those doing the extra billing don’t report their violations. And provinces only voluntarily report violations to Health Canada. No one has to do anything, so most do nothing.

Health care delivery is not automatically bad because it is private and good because it is public. It is good when it ensures universality and equity of access to quality care, and bad when it fails to deliver. Some proponents of expanding private health care in Canada may cite this principle, but the burden of proof falls on them to show that private health care would be better than the status quo. A 2010 synthesis of international evidence from western Europe (including the United Kingdom), North America and Australasia, found that private health insurance had no impact on public wait times.4 Further, the private clinics were associated with lower quality and higher costs.4

The courts have a role in ensuring that the Charter is upheld in how our health care system is legislated to run, but that’s not the same as letting the courts decide whether we have private health care. If legislation is struck down under the Charter, it’s up to governments to enact new, Charter-compliant legislation. Having government fix the public system is a far more obvious solution than throwing it away for two-tiered health care that has dubious prospects for protecting the right of all Canadians to access health care. The new Canada Heath Accord between our federal and provincial governments must ensure that the universality and equity of our present system are upheld.

The idea of allowing a parallel private health care system to emerge alongside our present system raises grave concerns, but that doesn’t mean we’re happy with the status quo. Wait lists must be slashed. We need to spend smarter and be innovative, which must also be part of the Canada Health Accord deliberations. Universality should be at the top of the list. But it’s also the time for Federal Minister of Health Dr. Jane Philpott to strengthen the Canada Health Act and punish violations by levying fines equitably and thoroughly to safeguard our health care system. Reportedly, she conveyed just that message to Quebec recently,5 which may have prompted that province’s decision to abolish extra billing. That’s a step in the right direction.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: See www.cmaj.ca/site/misc/cmaj_staff.xhtml

References

  1. ↵
    Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) 2005 1 SCR 791, 2005 SCC 35. Available: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2237/index.do (accessed 2016 Sept. 21).
  2. ↵
    1. Glauser W
    . Private clinics continue explosive growth. CMAJ 2011;183:E437–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Meili R
    . It’s time Ottawa enforces the Canada Health Act. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy; 2016. Available: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/04/04/its-time-ottawa-enforces-the-canada-health-act/ (accessed 2016 Sept. 21).
  4. ↵
    1. Kreindler SA
    . Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence. Br Med Bull 2010;95:7–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    The murky waters of Quebec extra-billing. Globe and Mail 2016:A10.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (16)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 16
1 Nov 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Canada Health Act needs bite
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Canada Health Act needs bite
Barbara Sibbald, Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ Nov 2016, 188 (16) 1133; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.161128

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Canada Health Act needs bite
Barbara Sibbald, Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ Nov 2016, 188 (16) 1133; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.161128
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Canada Health Act has bite
  • Canada Health Act: defend or reform
  • Ideology versus reality
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Ideology versus reality
  • Canada Health Act: defend or reform
  • Canada Health Act has bite
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Extending the impact of CMAJ
  • La vaccination contre le SRAS-CoV-2 devrait être obligatoire pour exercer la médecine au Canada
  • Reconstruire de façon plus équitable
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Health care coverage
    • Human rights

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire