Canada's Single-payer health care
a singular success
The MRG Steering Committee wrote the following response to Jerome
Arnett's attack on the Canadian health care system. The Wall Street
Journal refused to publish the reply.
In the August 8, 1993 Wall Street Journal, Dr. Jerome Arnett
presented a distorted picture of the Canadian health care system.
As physicians with a combined experience of over 45 years working
in family medicine, intensive care, and internal medicine in Canada,
we would like to set the record straight.
Dr. Arnett quoted Canadian physicians and hospital administrators
making remarks about how the Canadian health care system is in dire
trouble. Understanding these comments requires some knowledge of
their context. In the single-payer Canadian system, the government
holds the purse strings, and negotiates on behalf of society with
special interest groups, including physicians and hospital administrators.
In contrast to American negotiations between a myriad of individual
third-party payers and physician and hospital groups, the Canadian
deliberations are conducted in the public eye.
This very visible negotiation requires that physicians and hospitals
convince the public that they are entitled to a greater share of
increasingly constrained public expenditures. How do they do this?
They manufacture a sense of crisis. The required rhetorical flourishes
in this public theatre should not confuse the external observer.
Just because the boy is screaming wolf does not mean the wolf is
really at the door.
So how should American observers obtain an accurate picture of what
is happening in Canada? They should look at scientific surveys of
Canadian physicians and (more important) Canadian patients, and
compare them to what they find in similar surveys among Americans.
Despite the very real tensions created by attempts at cost control,
both graduate physicians and physicians-in-training in Canada are
extraordinarily satisfied with the system. For example, in one survey,
88% of Ontario physicians were either moderately satisfied or very
satisfied with their ability to meet the needs and demands of patients.
In another recent study, 79% of Canadian physicians were either
"satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the quality
of care they were able to provide, and 81% felt their patients had
adequate access to specialist care. Only 18% of Canadian physicians-in-training
think there is a serious problem with access to care in Canada,
whereas 75% of U.S. physicians-in-training believe that Americans
have a serious access problem.
Since cost containment pressures have put every country's health
care system under siege, you will not find an overjoyed group of
physicians anywhere. However, in contrast to what Dr. Arnett tells
us, Canadian physicians have done well in maintaining their income
and enjoy a mean net income of over $100,000. When you look at global
ratings of satisfaction, Canadian physicians are consistently as
or more satisfied than their American counterparts.
What's most important are the opinions, and the health, of Canadian
patients. Writers like Dr. Arnett spend a great deal of time trying
to convince Americans that Canadians have to put up with intolerable
waits for quality care. They have the wrong audience: Canadians
haven't heard yet. Ironically enough, more Americans than Canadians
report not receiving needed care not only because of financial,
but also non-financial barriers. In the most recent survey, 94%
of Canadians rated the quality of care they received as good to
excellent, and 85% said that they or their families had never had
to wait an uncomfortable length of time for care. It doesn't take
much insight to imagine what impoverished Americans would say if
they had to answer such questions.
Canadians' reports of adequate care don't fit with Dr. Arnett's
picture of endless waiting lists. That's because in reporting a
single study of waiting lists, he doesn't mention the low response
rates, distortions because of patients sitting on more than one
waiting list, patients who will never go to surgery sitting on waiting
lists, and he fails to distinguish urgent from elective procedures.
In fact, a survey by the American General Accounting Office showed
that there are no waiting lists at all for emergency procedures
in Canada. Our own experience is that Canadian patients receive
timely, high quality care, and have adequate access to high technology
tests and procedures. The quality of Canadian medical care is reflected
in Canadians' health. Canadians have a longer life expectancy and
a 30% lower infant mortality than do Americans.
There are other distortions in Dr. Arnett's article. He presents
the closure of Canadian hospital beds as a disaster, without mentioning
that Canada has almost 40% more hospital beds per capita than the
United States, and is moving to rationalize hospital care. He depicts
a flood of dissatisfied Canadian physicians to the United States.
We've already shown that rigorous surveys indicate that Canadian
doctors are less dissatisfied than their American counterparts.
In 1991, the last year for which we have data, more Americans physicians
moved to Canada than the reverse. Many Canadian doctors who do go
to the United States return to Canada, disgusted with the inequities
in American health care.
The final issue is costs. Dr. Arnett cites rapid escalation of health
costs in Canada. In fact, the single payer system has been extraordinarily
successful at cost containment. Canada spends approximately 9% of
its gross national product on health expenditure, while the United
States spends over 13%. The biggest difference is the administrative
savings in Canada, versus the administrative waste in the U.S..
What are the real differences between Canadian and American health
care? Canadians have equal access to high-quality health care, as
compared with the limited access to even basic primary care among
millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans. Canadians are
far more satisfied with their health care system than are Americans,
and they are healthier. Finally, the single-payer system allows
Canadians to have these benefits while controlling expenditures.
It's sad that Americans, repeatedly exposed to distorted presentations
such as Dr. Arnett's, may not realize the enormous benefits of a
universal-access, single-payer health care system.
Gordon Guyatt M.D., F.R.C.P.(C.)
Haresh Kirpalani, B.M., M.R.C.P.
Mimi Divinsky, M.D., C.C.F.P.
For the Medical Reform Group of Ontario
Subject Headings: Abortion
Rights – Community
Health – Community
Health Centres – Drug
Substitution – Epidemiology
Medicine – Health
Administration – Health
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
Clinics – Health
Determinants – Health
Economics – Health
Expenditures – Health
Issues – Health
Policy – Health
Service Organizations – Health/Social
Justice Issues – Health
Statistics – Health/Strategic
Planning – History
Medicine – Medical
Associations – Medical
Costs/Foreign – Medical
Education – Medical
Ethics – Medical
Human Resources – Medical
Personnel – Medical
Research Funding – Medicare
Use – Medication
Use/Seniors – NAFTA/Health
Health & Safety – Patients'
Rights – Pharmaceuticals
Compensation – Physician
Human Resources – Pro-Choice
Issues – Public
Health – Publications/Health
Policy – Women's
here to view our Sources Listing
News Release page - The
Sources Calendar -
Search Sources Listings
Parliamentary Names & Numbers
to Post Your Press Releases
Search the Sources directory to find
experts and spokespersons