MRG Brief to the Senate Standing
Committee on Social Affairs, Science, & Technology
The Medical Reform Group of Ontario (MRG) believes that access to
high quality health care is a universal right, that the determinants
of health are political and social in nature, and that the structure
of the health care system must be changed and democratized. The
MRG believes that the major direction for the health care system
should be the elimination of the current inequalities in the system.
These inequalities are manifest in the premium system of health
insurance coverage, opting-out and extra-billing that continue despite
the Canada Health Act, the lack of development of alternate models
to fee-for-service in primary health care delivery, the inadequacy
of physician-government bargaining procedures, the negligible control
by consumers and non-physician health care workers over the health
care system, and the continued disparity in health status between
people of different incomes. The MRG views with particular alarm
organized medicine's promotion of privatization of the health care
system as a mechanism for funding health care, and provincial governments'
response to the Canada Health Act.
The MRG recognizes the inability of traditional medicine to combat
the social and economic forces which produce disease. We realize
that any improvement in the health care system will be limited by
the inequalities in society at large and that changes in the health
care system will never be successful unless these inequalities are
reduced or eliminated.
With the above in mind the MRG recommends that:
o alternate systems to fee-for-service be developed with community
health centres and preventive medicine being major areas of resource
o unless provincial governments change their approach and comply
with both the spirit and letter of the Canada Health Act, further
action be taken by the federal government to ensure access to insured
services regardless of payment of premiums, and to end opting-out,
extra-billing, and user fees.
o the drug benefit programs be extended to the entire population,
with no dispensing fee for the patient.
o free-standing (non-hospital) abortion clinics be established for
women seeking first trimester abortions.
o Canadian governments recognize that the attainment of the highest
possible level of health for all Canadians requires the action of
many other social and economic sectors in addition to the health
sector. Government should look beyond the health care system for
solutions to health problems.
The Medical Reform Group of Ontario (MRG), constituted in October,
1979, is committed to the following principles: that patients' access
to high quality health care without deterrents is a universal right;
that health being political and social in nature demands the direct
involvement of health care workers including physicians in the eradication
of social, economic, Occupational and environmental causes of disease;
that the health care system should be structured in a manner in
which the equally valuable contribution of all health care workers
is recognized; and that the public and health care workers should
have a direct say in resource allocation and the setting in which
health care services are provided.
The MRG believes that the medical profession and government have
too often ignored the economic and social conditions which cause
disease and have promoted the faulty notion that diagnosis and cure
alone can contend with disease processes. The health care system
- its means of providing services, its methods of physician remuneration,
its over reliance on high-priced technology and high-priced physicians
- does not operate as a system unto itself. It is inextricably bound
up with the economic and political system.
The current economic crisis with continued high levels Of unemployment,
shortages of affordable housing, cutbacks on social assistance -
in short, increasing poverty - directly affects the health care
system and its consumers.
The association of poverty with disease has been documented for
centuries. Yet the medical profession, in a folie a deux with government,
persists in deluding itself that medicine holds the answers to disease.
The MRG believes that the health status Of all citizens is determined
by the political and economic forces in society (as shown by the
1980 Black Report on the National Health Services in the United
Kingdom) and that medicine alone has little to offer in combatting
those forces that produce disease.
The hierarchy of the health care system mirrors those forces which
produce inequities and promote disease. Resource allocation favours
high-priced physicians and high-priced technology which preclude
the growth of other worthy but less powerful health care sectors
such as nurse practitioners.
Current System - Gains and Failures
The failures in the Canadian health care system have regrettably
compromised the gains. The premium system of coverage in three provinces,
the continued opting-out of physicians, the lack of growth of alternatives
to fee-for-service for health care provision and the institutionalized
hostility in government-medical association fee negotiations all
attest to the problems of the current system.
That the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta use
premiums to finance a portion of the health care budget constitutes.
a major failure of the current system. Premiums are a regressive
form of taxation whereby lower income residents pay a higher proportion
of their incomes than their more fortunate and wealthier fellow
citizens. Premiums continue to act as a deterrent for those citizens
who do not qualify for premium assistance yet cannot afford premiums.
The Ontario Select Committee on Health Care Financing and Care and
Costs (1978) found that about one-third of those eligible for full
premium assistance and almost none of those eligible for partial
assistance were receiving premium assistance benefits. A 1981 survey
of two Ontario communities found that 210 - 25 per cent of patients
using community health centres were not covered by OHIP. As more
citizens have joined the ranks of the unemployed they have lost
the OHIP benefits granted them as employees. Clearly, the best solution
to the problem is abolition of health insurance premiums and payment
of health costs out of general taxation. Short of abolishing premiums,
provincial governments must comply with the Canada Health Act to
provide access to insured services for all citizens regardless of
premium payment. If they do not, the present disparity in access
to health services will continue.
Extra-billing and other forms of user fees (such as charges for
use of hospital services) are another major failure of the current
system. Extra-billing decreases access for lower income patients,
increases total health care expenditures, distributes health care
costs unequally according to local rates of opting-out and, of course,
solidifies the traditional disparity between the health care received
by the poor and that received by the rich--the two-tiered system
of health care. It should also be noted that the burden of user
fees and extra-billing falls more heavily on the poor not only because
of their lower income, but because there are higher levels of illness
and need for services among the poor.
Some of these problems have been addressed by the Canada Health
Act, which includes provisions for penalizing provinces which continue
to allow user fees, and for making access to insured health care
services no longer contingent on payment of premiums. However, the
Canada Health Act will be effective in ameliorating the problems
of inequality in access to high quality health services only if
the provincial governments respond appropriately. At the time of
writing, Ontario has failed to act to decrease opting-out or other
user fees, and no move has been made to provide access to insured
services for those who have not paid their premiums. With the exception
of Nova Scotia, in which extra billing has been banned, and Quebec,
in which regulations have eliminated extra billing for a number
of years, the situation is similar in most other provinces. If provinces
react to the Canada Health Act by simply paying the financial penalties
for user fees, the disadvantaged will continue to suffer. In effect,
the taxpayers will be subsidizing opting out, because the provinces
will be foregoing tax revenue in order to protect opted out physicians.
The role of organized medicine has been just. as disturbing as the
provincial governments, reaction to the Canada Health Act. The Canadian
Medical Association (CMA) and the Ontario Medical Association (OMA)
have fought the Act at every turn. Further, the OMA aligned itself
with the National Citizens Coalition which made highly publicized
misleading, frightening, and false statements about the effect of
the Canada Health Act.
Organized medicine has consistently refused to accept the principles
of one-hundred per cent first dollar coverage and unimpeded access
to insured services. In a time of relative economic hardship the
medical profession of the 1980's has the opportunity to behave in
the tradition of compassion and responsibility associated with the
practice of medicine. Instead, organized medicine has taken a self-interested
approach, apparently disregarding the needs of Canadian citizens,
especially the disadvantaged.
The position of the CMA is typified by then CMA President Dr. Marc
Baltzan's remarks in a November S, 1982 address to the Saskatchewan
Medical Association. Dr. Baltzan admitted that user fees, extra-billing
and premiums "do deter these people (those on limited income)
from getting the medical care they require". His Solution?
Coded identity cards, poor people's cards, charity medical care,
humiliation, protection from "catastrophic health care costs"
(whatever that means). Baltzan and the CMA want medicare to become
a throwback to the pre-insurance days when physicians, conducting
office means tests, determined who could pay and who could not.
The CMA wants "middle and upper income Canadians" to pay
for the "physician of their choice ... without loss of insurance
benefits". It seems that those on "limited incomes"
would not have the choice of physicians, the right to that "very
real and important doctor - patient relationship". The MRG
finds the CMA position disturbing and offensive - all citizens must
have the right. to the physician of their choice.
Representatives of organized medicine have made a number of arguments
defending their rejection of the principle of access to high quality
care as a right. They contend that the poor will not suffer as a
result of extra-billing. Well conducted studies in Canada and the
United States have documented the decreased utilization of health
care that follows the introduction of user fees. The CMA contend
that the relationship between doctor and patient benefits in some
mysterious way from direct payment, but fail to provide evidence
to support their claim. The CMA has rejected calls that doctors
who do bill directly inform their patients prior to providing service,
suggesting that direct payment is not an attractive subject for
discussion between doctor and patient. They contend the health care
system is underfunded, and that private capital (in the form of
user fees) is needed to correct the problem. It has not been established
that the system is underfunded, or rather whether resource allocation
is the major problem. Even more important, the source of funding
(taxes, extra-billing, user fees) is an independent issue from the
question of whether the system is overfunded or underfunded. If
rigorously conducted research demonstrated underfunding, the solution
to the problem would not be to shift the burden of payment. on to
the shoulders of the ill. The inefficiencies, inequities, and inability
of government to control costs in the American health system attest
to how inadequate a strategy of privatization is as a solution to
our health care problems.
The disturbing attitudes and actions of organized medicine extend,
in Ontario, to the supposedly independent College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario. During Ontario's physicians' fee dispute
of April, 1981, Dr. Michael Dixon, the College's Registrar (and
former Director of Medical Services for the OMA), acknowledged that
several of the College's Council members took part in the OMA's
wildcat walkouts. The College is mandated to monitor the effect
on patient care of such actions. Subsequently, without consulting
the general membership the Ontario College made a statement supporting
user fees. This is despite the evidence that user fees decrease
health care utilization among the groups that need it most, the
poor and elderly, and despite the College's mandate to safeguard
provision of health services to Ontario citizens.
In contrast to this bleak picture of organized medicine in Canada,
there have been, aside from the Canada Health Act, other advances
in the evolution of the health care system which warrant comment.
The MRG views the increased consumer consciousness of the past five
years as a definite gain and a positive direction for health care
in the 1980's. In accordance with its principle of democratization
of the health care system the MRG welcomes the increasing number
of consumer groups demanding improvements in the system.
We laud the efforts of the Ontario and Canadian Health Coalitions
and note that their membership includes groups representing immigrants,
senior citizens, native Canadian Indians and nurses - those sectors
who hold little power and those who are most economically disadvantaged.
We note with hope the emergence of ex-psychiatric patient groups,
patient rights groups, and the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics.
For it is through consumer demands that the health care system will
ultimately meet the particular and pressing needs of different sectors
However, in addition to the problems of opting out and health insurance
premiums, the health care system has other major difficulties. The
MRG questions whether accessibility to insured services means accessibility
to an adequate quality of services. The College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario 1981 program of peer assessment revealed that
"The level of care was judged satisfactory in 75 per cent of
the 117 general and family practices assessed" (all randomly
selected office practices). Should we be content with one-quarter
of primary care physicians being judged unsatisfactory by their
The negotiation process between the Medical associations and the
Health ministries is a failure of the current system. It has increasingly
become a process laden with acrimony and a process that has intimidated
the bewildered consumer. The MRG believe that a suitable bargaining
procedure that conforms to generally accepted labour practices (including
the possibility of binding arbitration) must be established in a
manner acceptable to both doctors and the public. The MRG holds
that should an impasse be reached that all health care workers including
physicians have the right to withdraw all but essential services
- "essential services" must be defined through the negotiating
process and the definition adhered to in future bargaining. Furthermore,
the MRG believes that the medical associations must be bound to
any agreement made
with the government, meanings that there must be no separate medical
association fee schedule or opting-out once an agreement has been
The current system has failed in its lack of development of _alternate
methods to"the fee-for-service funding of health care delivery.
The MRG is not alone in its pursuit of alternatives to fee-for-service.
Consumer groups, governments, and medical associations have all
recognized the limitations and inappropriate application of the
fee-.for-service system Of physician remuneration.
The MRG considers consumer/worker controlled community health centres
to be a major method by which primary health care should be delivered.
The MRG believes that such centres should be financed in accordance
with the demographic characteristics of the particular community
and funded with incentives to eliminate high volume practice and
to provide educational and home services.
Another area in which economic barriers to high quality care are
still a major problem is drug therapy. If patients are not covered
by a drug benefit scheme (provincial or otherwise), they are required
to pay the full cost of the medication and the dispensing fee. For
many patients, especially those with chronic diseases requiring
long term therapy, this expense constitutes an onerous burden. The
situation is made worse by the policy of the drug houses, which
aggressively advertise brand name products which generally sell
at substantially greater cost than the pharmacologically equivalent
generic products. Prescribing medication is the one area of. health
care in which the Canadian physician must still take the patient's
financial situation into account when deciding on diagnostic or
therapeutic measures. We know that non-compliance with prescribed
medication is a major problem in effectively treating many illnesses.
Although formal research into the contribution of drug costs to
non-compliance has not, to our knowledge, been undertaken, cost
of medication may be a major contributor to non-compliance among
the poor. At any rate, the principle of access to high quality care
without financial burdens is violated by individual patients having
to pay the cost of their medications.
Our discussion up to now has centred largely called the traditional
system of health delivery. However, this system is only one contributor
to the health of Canadians, and probably a relatively minor one.
There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that organized medicine
has played a minor role in the vast improvements in morbidity among
Canadians in the last century. Improvement in sanitation, diet,
overcrowding, and living conditions in general are largely responsible
for the gains in health. Similarly, occupational, environmental,
social and economic factors remain major causes of ill health.
Within the last few years, several studies. have demonstrated that
a. large gradient in life expectancy and overall health status has
persisted between the rich and poor in Canada, despite our medicare
system. Very little research has been done to identify the factors
that have created these differences, and to determine which of these
factors can be modified. Challenging though such an undertaking
may be, it is essential if we are to provide Canadians with equal
opportunities to lead healthy lives, rather than simply equal access
to care when they are sick. So far, the Canadian health care system
has not been committed to the goal of providing equality Of access
to health for all. A firm policy decision in this direction is essential.
Providing the opportunity to lead a healthy life requires a genuinely
multi-sectoral approach to the delivery of health care "services".
The welfare system, worker compensation, unemployment. insurance,
day care, pension benefits, housing and transportation policy, and
many other sectors of the economy have a direct impact on human
health, and have a role to play in preventing disease and minimizing
disability. Yet these sectors do not share common goals and philosophies
which relate to the achievement of optimum health status for all.
With the economy in crisis there is a tendency to try and "hold
the line" on social spending, without adequate consideration
given to the possibility that many programs (such as subsidized
day care and pension benefits) may be investments in a healthier
There are many other, less radical options open to federal and provincial
governments, initiatives which would improve Canadians health to
a greater extent, and with far more certainty, than would maneuvers
within the health system itself. The experience of other countries
tells us that many lives could be saved if cigarette advertising
was banned, or if speed limits on our highways were lowered, and
the lower limits enforced. Occupational disease remains a major
cause of morbidity in Canada, and is probably responsible for a
substantial proportion of the nation's cancer deaths. The problem
of disposal of toxic industrial waste teaches us a lesson about
how the problems of chemical exposures in the workplace can be spread
to threaten the community as a whole. A comprehensive plan to control
exposures to toxic substances at the workplace and in the general
environment must be developed and enforced.
Desired Direction for Health and Health Care: Specific Proposals
The MRG has specific proposals for action but recognizes that any
action, no matter how progressive it appears within the health care
system, will only succeed in the context of a general reduction
of social inequalities.
o The MRG recommends that, unless provincial governments change
their approach and comply with both the spirit and letter of the
Canada Health Act, that further action be taken by the federal government
to ensure access to insured services regardless of payment of premiums,
and to end opting-out, extra-billing, and user fees.
o The MRG recommends that governments develop and encourage alternate
systems of payment to fee-for-service for physician services.
o The MRG recommends that community health centres be a major method
of primary health care delivery.
o The MRG recommends that more money be allocated to areas of preventive
medicine and community-based services with demonstrated utility,
and that research be undertaken to establish other services that
would improve health. Money for these projects must not come from
cutting other essential services such as education and social services.
o The MRG recommends a suitable bargaining procedure between the
health ministries and the medical profession be established, and
that this procedure conform to accepted labour practices.
o The MRG recommends that all health care workers including physicians
have the right to withdraw their services except for essential services;
"essential services" roust be defined.
o The MRG recommends that free-standing (i.e. non-hospital) abortion
clinics be established in which women can obtain first trimester
abortions quickly, safely and in a sympathetic environment. The
inadequacy of current abortion services is an example of an unmet
and particular need.
o The MRG recommends that the drug benefit programs be considered
for additional patient groups, including children, students, low
income groups, and those with chronic disease.
o The MRG recommends that the Canadian government commit itself
to the principle of equality of access to health for all, and formulate
future health policy based on this principle.
These recommendations cannot be effected in isolation from ore another.
For example, if increased government support for community health
centres is accompanied by a premium system of insurance coverage,
continued extra-billing and user fees, then community health centres
will become community poor people's clinics. Support for community
health centres without elimination of all deterrents (premiums,
extra-billing and user fees) will serve only to expand and dramatize
a two-tiered system of health care.
The attitudes of the provincial governments and of organized medicine
suggest that the dismantling of our national health care system
is still a threat. Should this happen, it will preclude any advances
in health care and
make discussion of prevention and other issues irrelevant.
In summary, the MRG's goals for health care recognition and commitment
to the principle that sufficient quality and quantity of care/service
be rich and poor - and that differing levels of care health care
delivery policy. Control over the shared amongst all health care
workers and the social and economic roots of ill health addressed.
demand the government's provision of equal and available to all
citizens - not be considered as part of health care system must
be consumers in Canada. The must be acknowledged, and the problems
Subject Headings: Abortion
Health Centres Drug
Care Budgets Health
Care Cost Containment Health
Care Costs Health
Care Delivery Health
Care Finance & Fund-Raising Health
Care in Canada Health
Care in Ontario Health
Care in the U.K. Health
Care in the U.S. Health
Care Myths Health
Care Reform Health
Care Resources Health
Care Services Health
Care Workers Health
Service Organizations Health/Social
Justice Issues Health
Human Resources Medical
Research Funding Medicare
Health & Safety Patients'
Human Resources Pro-Choice
812A Bloor Street West, Suite 201 email@example.com
Toronto, Ontario, M6G 1L9, Canada Tel: 416–964–5735
Copyright © Sources, All rights reserved.