Media ResourcesInclude yourself in SOURCES
Membership Form Be an Affiliate Sources Shop Powerful Tools Tell your story Media Directory
Subscriptions Services Overview
MRG critical of proposed delisting
The Medical Reform Group was established in 1979 out of a commitment,
by its founders, to the principle of health care as a right, and
a recognition of the basis of health as social and political in
nature. We agree that the Ministry of Health should consider deletion
of services for which there is no proven benefit and applaud their
responsiveness to public participation in these discussions and
decisions. But it is clear from the `qualifications' of the JMC
list that almost every considered procedure has `medical' indications,
if by that we mean that we understand health to have a broad definition
which includes emotional well-being and quality of life, not just
its prolongation. We are alarmed that the 'bureaucratization' of
these distinctions will have several effects:
2. Delisting encourages direct charges to patients. Third-party
billing has essentially delisted the annual health examination (Item
12), which in the absence of any `diagnosis' is most often done
at the request of an insurance company, school, summer camp, etc.
Many of us in general practice know that `sick note' charges are
rarely passed on to the employer, but are `out-of-pocket' expenses
for the patient. We are also aware of excessive charges to patients
for services such as the transferring of records (e.g. a patient
was charged $30 for photocopying of an obstetrical ultrasound report:
personal communication, Dr. Rosana Pellizzari). Mr. Bill Mindell,
of the City of York Health Unit reported that children were prevented
from attending school because parents could not afford to pay a
$40 physician fee to complete a Tuberculosis Control form required
by public health officials. These are clearly the equivalent of
3. Physicians will use their "OHIP-allotted" billings to provide other insured services, challenging the argument that health care costs will, by this approach, be lowered in any significant way. In a fee-for-service system physicians have every opportunity to maintain their incomes.
4. The other possibility is that physicians will be tempted to
provide more delisted services, for two reasons -- they are more
lucrative and they promise an easier 'physician lifestyle'. To quote
a Chief of Surgery: "If doctors can set their own fees for
these (delisted) services and in a sense work outside the system,
why would they continue to treat trauma patients? This way they
make good money and don't have to get up at 2 am." (Dr. Girotti,
Ontario Medicine, 20/9/93).
5. The notion of patient responsibility lives on the borderland
of victim-blaming for illness. If we consider travel malaria prophylaxis
to be an expense to the traveller (Item 14) what do we do if the
prophylaxis 'fails' and our patient returns to Canada with malaria?
What about suspected displastic nevi - they are benign but potentially
malignant - will they be 'covered'? (Item 9). We are very concerned
that we will see a repetition of the 'therapeutic' abortion committees
which presumed to judge the 'medical necessity' of a woman's choice.
What seems to be a benign plan on the first glance is not. It may be tempting to 'cut and slash' what appear to be the offending agents of our health care system, but our precious energy needs to be re-directed to substantial reform of a primary care system that has revealed its weaknesses. The Medical Reform Group has repeatedly called on provincial governments to reform the delivery of primary health care. We have strongly supported alternative methods of physician remuneration and have called for the recognition of other health care workers in the system. We advocate that the fee schedule apply only to specialists, laboratories, and diagnostic imaging services and that primary care be based on a salary or capitation system which includes monitoring and accountability. We ask the NDP government to abandon this misguided and hazardous project to `delist' services, and renew its commitment to the principles of the Canada Health Act - that it be universal, accessible, and comprehensive.
Dr. Rosana Pellizzari and Dr. Mimi Divinsky for the Steering
Committee of the Medical Reform Group of Ontario.
Subject Headings: Abortion Rights Community Health Community Health Centres Drug Substitution Epidemiology Epidemiology/Community 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 Policy/Seniors Health Service Organizations Health/Social Justice Issues Health Statistics Health/Strategic Planning History Hospitals Labour Medicine Medical Associations Medical Costs/Foreign Medical Education Medical Ethics Medical Human Resources Medical Personnel Medical Research Funding Medicare Medication Use Medication Use/Seniors NAFTA/Health Occupational Health & Safety Patients' Rights Pharmaceuticals Physician Compensation Physician Human Resources Pro-Choice Issues Public Health Publications/Health Social Policy Women's Health