justanoldcountrydoctor

Springing Forward Into Stupidity: How British Columbia Traded Science for Convenience

There’s a particular kind of modern arrogance required to look a room full of experts squarely in the eye and say: “Yes, yes, very interesting, but have you considered that people find it inconvenient?“

The Government of British Columbia has that arrogance. In a bold act of democratic self-determination, BC has moved to lock in permanent Daylight Saving Time (DST), essentially agreeing, as a society, to spend half the year pretending the sun rises an hour later than it actually does. No more fussing with clocks twice a year! No more groggy Monday mornings in November! Progress, at last!

In fairness, that decision is partially based on some good evidence that there is no need to change clocks twice a year. It does not reduce energy consumption as previously thought. It’s overall harmful to people’s health. BUT, in a trend that has been growing ever since the Covid Pandemic, there appears to be more and more ignoring of the actual science, in the name of convenience.

The scientific consensus on this is about as settled as it gets outside of climate change and vaccine safety. Study after study links permanent DST (as opposed to permanent Standard Time) to increased rates of depression, cardiovascular events, metabolic disruption, and a general dimming of the human spirit that no amount of “extra evening light” can compensate for. The medical community has been remarkably consistent: Standard Time is the one that actually aligns with human biology.

But BC picked the wrong one because the evenings feel nicer.

The 10,000 Lux Future We’re Sleepwalking Into

Here’s a prediction: within a decade, the market for bright light therapy lamps that blast 10,000 lux of artificial sunlight directly into your face, will quietly explode across British Columbia. Families will gather around them at breakfast, bathing in simulated dawn while the actual sun crawls reluctantly above the horizon sometime around 9 AM in December. It will become as mundane as having a coffee maker on the counter. A morning ritual for a society that engineered itself into needing one.

The irony is exquisite. They rejected a scientifically sound way of avoiding clock changes in the name of convenience. Now the next generation will be purchasing expensive medical devices to compensate for what their own circadian rhythms are desperately trying to tell them. The body, it turns out, doesn’t care what the clock says. It cares about the sun. When you spend six months of the year eating breakfast in the dark because a legislature decided that post work golden hours were more politically palatable than morning light, well your body will not be happy. Fatigue, depression, and the nagging sense that something is profoundly off will follow.

Where Were the Adults in the Room?

This, of course, raises the obvious question. Why didn’t anyone listen to the science? The honest answer is that our political culture has largely burned through its reserves of thoughtful, deliberate governance. This was exemplified by the Covid pandemic, when large swaths of people decided to reject the consensus that Covid was airborne , because they just didn’t like wearing masks. Political prices for following evidence that the general public didn’t like were paid. Politicians noticed.

Governments now seemingly use a cocktail of impulsiveness and ideology to make decisions. The boring, unglamorous work of actually reading the evidence, consulting experts, and acting accordingly is rejected. Into this vacuum has rushed something far less useful, the politics of framing. Instead of a straightforward public health question, “which system produces better health outcomes?”, we now have debate on what sells well with the general public. “But I like to golf at night!” “I want to sit on my patio till late!”

In that environment, experts might as well be speaking ancient Incan.

Governance today often seems to attract people operating at an almost feverish pitch. Rather than slow deliberate study of an issue, we have reactive, ideologically committed decisions allergic to nuance. Political culture now treats careful consideration as weakness and impulsiveness as authenticity. In that environment, it’s not surprising that a decision with clear scientific guidance instead got made on the basis of “vibes.”

How Did We Get Here?

That’s perhaps the most unsettling question of all. This is happening in all fields, not just public health. Urban planning, the aforementioned climate change, immigration policy, you name it. Experiences and facts say one thing. Politics, convenience, or ideology says another. Convenience wins. Our society absorbs the consequences.

This has been particularly fuelled by the rise of social media. At its worst, social media is well known to promote a culture of instant gratification. Which has profoundly impacted decision making. “Oh, I may get Covid tomorrow, but I don’t feel like wearing a mask today”. “Maybe I’ll be depressed in six months, but I want to golf tonight.” Etc.

The sad thing is that I think that deep down, most of us know this. We know that good governance requires scientific literacy, patience, and a willingness to accept inconvenient truths. We know that political culture has drifted away from those qualities. We know that we are, collectively, making ourselves worse off.

But we allow governments to do it again anyway.

The Clocks Are Wrong, and So Are We

There’s something almost poetic about using time itself as the canvas for this particular failure. Time is the one thing nobody can argue doesn’t affect them. Every person in British Columbia will experience the consequences of this decision in their own health, every dark winter morning, without exception. The evidence on that is pretty clear.

So go ahead and enjoy your long summer evenings. The light really is lovely. In November, when the alarm goes off and the sky outside is pitch black and your body is quietly staging a protest you can’t quite articulate, you might find yourself idly browsing light therapy lamps from online stores.

They work pretty well, actually. The science on that is solid.

Not that it’ll stop us from ignoring the experts next time.

Open Letter To Dr. Cathy Faulds and Ms. Kim Moran: Why Should Members Bother Voting?

To: Dr. Cathy Faulds, Board Chair, and Ms. Kimberly Moran, CEO, Ontario Medical Association

Dear Dr. Faulds and Ms. Moran,

I’m writing to express my extreme displeasure about how the OMA has handled the elections process. The past couple of years have seen more and more that the OMA, as an organization, has sought to limit the ability of front line members to choose their representatives. This has had the effect of further disenfranchising the hard working physicians whom you are supposed to serve.

In the past couple of years, the OMA as an organization has put in extremely restrictive rules on candidates, particularly for Board Director. Candidates were not allowed to “campaign”. Candidates for Board and President can only offer up a brief statement that answers certain questions, and not much else. Town Halls were controlled with Orwellian like micromanagement. All candidates could only submit a pre-approved list of skills. No one is allowed to let their personality show through.

Even asking candidates a question, like I did last year, is verboten. The penalty for daring to ask candidates to answer a difficult question was to have your career and livelihood threatened by a code of conduct complaint.

This year, the elections process is markedly worse. Instead of letting members choose who they wish, you shortlisted candidates. (NB – please spare me the nonsense about hiring an “independent” third party to review the candidates – we all know that “independent” consultants get guidance from the organization they are hired by. They just do the dirty work of the hiring organization).

I will NEVER criticize a candidate for running (I may criticize their position or views – but not for choosing to run). It takes a lot of guts to stand up and bear the slings and arrows that inevitably come your way. BUT, the blunt reality is that your “shortlisting” process is by default going to create an entirely bland, non-confrontational and non-outspoken Board. It will create a Board that will not provide appropriate oversight to the OMA.

For example, one of your approved Board candidates was asked on Social Media if elected they would commit to change the direction of the OMA so that it would stop speaking out against expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists and others. (The questioner has been very vocal that allied health care providers can do much more). Your approved candidate replied with a response (I’m paraphrasing):

“I will always be on TeamPatient. We need to follow the evidence where it leads.”

The questioner was quite happy and obviously didn’t realize that the exact same response could be given if someone had asked the candidate: “Will you get the OMA to be MORE forceful in preventing expansion of scope of practice to allied health care professionals.” It’s the type of bland, non-specific, non-controversial response that is often taught in various “Leadership” courses and “Director” courses. You know, the type that is designed first and foremost to not offend anyone, while making everyone on both sides think you agree with them in the hopes that this will somehow make you able to enact change.

(I’m not naming the candidate because truth be told, overall I actually like the person and if it wasn’t for the shenanigans that the OMA has been doing, would likely have voted for them – It was just too good an example to illustrate my point to pass up).

What’s worse is how you have treated the current list of candidates for President Elect. While I absolutely would agree with doing a social media search (along with other reasonable background searches for a position of such importance) – the decision should simply have been one of if a candidate is appropriate or not. And if not – they should not be allowed to run, and the OMA should deal with the consequences.

Instead, the OMA, under your leadership, has chosen to promote a document that characterizes one of the P/E candidates in a negative manner. (Yes this was the third party view – but you already know what I think of third party views). This negative characterization can, and should, open you up to legal action (whose defence will be paid for by my dues – which I find even more objectionable). Attaching subjective comments to the profiles of eligible candidates is outside of established governance norms.

ALL of these actions smack of the OMA as an organization self selecting candidates that the OMA finds suitable (not the members). It reeks of the organization wanting a complacent Board, a Board that simply rubber stamps what “experts” bring in front of it, rather than a Board that provides true oversight. True oversight demands that the Board ask hard, uncompromising and uncomfortable questions of the staff when appropriate. I can’t see a thing in your Board vetting process that would suggest you let candidates with these skills through.

You are undoubtedly aware that as a result of the actions of your current leadership, both Dr. Paul Hacker and Dr. Paul Conte have publicly resigned as Board Directors. Historically, the last Board Director that resigned under similar tumult was Dr. Shawn Whatley in 2016 . That was the same time as the disastrous tPSA fiasco. He was one of 25 (ish) physicians, or 4% of the physician Board Directors. You’ve lost two of 8 physicians – or 25%. That’s a critical blow. (Dr. Alam resigned a month early as well – but that was with much less fanfare).

What’s worse is the calibre of Directors that resigned. Dr. Hacker co-chaired the Governance Transformation committee of the OMA. Dr. Conte not only chaired the Governance and Nominating Committee, but was Board Chair. Having worked with them, I can tell you that both members have extremely high levels of integrity and both are extremely well versed in governance. They are absolute titans of good governance principles. They KNOW when governance is going off the rails, and for them to take this steps speaks volumes about your leadership.

In summary then, it appears the OMA, as an organization, has taken well meaning attempts to reform it, and make it more member responsive, and instead turned it into a way to only allow certain, pre approved members to be in charge. Outspoken, critical voices are not allowed. Strong opinions (however well stated) are unwelcome. Independent thought must give way to complacent behaviour.

All of which is my long way of asking, given that you have undemocratically preselected candidates, and impugned those you find wanting, why should any member bother to vote?

Yours truly,

A very very annoyed Old Country Doctor.

Which Pharmacy Should You Use?

My patients are increasingly expressing unhappiness with their pharmacy. I’m not surprised. A recent study by JD Power showed a 10-point drop in customer satisfaction with brick and mortar pharmacies in 2024 alone. This is attributed to problems with systemic pressures, health human resources challenges, burnout amongst pharmacists, increasing drug shortages, and competition from online pharmacies. (N.B. I know this was a US survey but I believe the results would be similar in Canada as many of the pressures are the same).

In the past, I would tell patients to choose whichever pharmacy they want. The College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) has some pretty strict rules around who/what I can recommend to patients. They are particularly stringent if there is even a perception of a conflict of interest. This would be why I never insist patients use the pharmacy in the medical centre I work at. Most doctors are very reluctant to run afoul of their licensing body (and I’m no exception).

However, the actual CPSO rules around prescribing drugs states:

“Respecting Patient Choice When Choosing a Pharmacy

13) Physicians must respect the patient’s choice of pharmacy.

14) Physicians must not attempt to influence the patient’s choice of pharmacy unless doing so is in the patient’s best interest and does not create a conflict of interest for the physician“

It seems like I can give some advice to patients. The short version: Stay away from “Big Box” pharmacies.

To understand why I give this advice, it’s important to know what I think of the role of pharmacists. This will surprise those who have been critical of my position on expansion of pharmacists scope of practice, but I actually truly believe that pharmacists are an essential part of a patients health care team. In my area, the smaller, independent pharmacists and their staff all know the patients well. They feel very comfortable messaging me with issues. I often get updates from them about changes to medications a specialist has made (often before I hear from the specialist!). And I’ve always gotten great advice on what alternatives are out there for medications that aren’t unavailable (an increasing problem these days).

The smaller pharmacies always flag drug interactions well (for me and the patient), know which patients react to which medications (even the over the counter ones), have provided great individualized advice on how to take medications. If for some reason, I’m doing something “off label” – they have been very supportive of that.

I (and more importantly, my patients) get that level of support, because the small pharmacies have consistent staff, who have, over time, built up great professional relationships with our mutual patients.

In contrast, dealing with some of the big box pharmacies is getting worse all the time. Some issues are just plain annoying. For example, I generally give a one year supply of medications for patients of mine who have stable medical conditions (three months for diabetic patients). I cannot tell you how many times I’ll get a message from one of the big box pharmacies (the red ones in our area are particularly bad) asking for a renewal three months later, even though we clearly have an electronic record that shows those pharmacies got, and downloaded, a one year prescription. Essentially, the pharmacy refuses to give needed medications to my patients, because of their error inputting my prescription.

It’s gotten so bad that my replies to the pharmacies have, over the past couple of years, gone from informing them of their error, to asking them to fix their internal process, to being rude. I haven’t quite hit unprofessional yet – though the pharmacists may beg to differ.

The big problem with big box pharmacies is that their staff are under pressure to first and foremost, generate profits for their chain. Patient care is actually secondary.

Shot of a mature pharmacist expressing stress while working in a pharmacy

It’s been reported (by pharmacists and staff) that corporate pressure from Shoppers Drug Mart (SDM) head offices led to their pharmacists doing unnecessary MedCheck reviews (and billing the taxpayer $75 per review). Shoppers head office of course denied the accusation and stated all MedChecks were necessary. Yet just one month later the CBC wrote “Shoppers Drug Mart says it doesn’t have medication review targets, but records show it does.“

The Toronto Star had an excellent report in November 2024 outlining just how much pressure corporate pharmacy staff were under. The report showed that:

pharmacists were asked to rush through minor assessments for their new expanded scope of practice in under 5 minutes (Kathleen Leach, a Hamilton pharmacist recognized that this would degrade care)
85% of pharmacists felt compelled to meet service quotas
there was strong concern about how the big chains had stripped back support staff from pharmacists, affecting care
It also outlined how patients were encouraged to have health assessments, even when not necessary, to try and increase revenue

This appears to be a Canada wide problem. The Ontario College of Pharmacists is exploring legal options to address allegations of corporate pressure. The BC College of Pharmacist 2024 report on Workplace Practice clearly showed that pharmacists in corporate and franchise settings experience more time pressure than independent pharmacists. The Toronto Start article above also indicated the Saskatchewan Pharmacy College recognized that focusing on business targets leads to errors and increased patient risks. In New Brunswick a pilot program for expanding pharmacy care fell apart, in large part because a virtual care company that SDM had heavily invested in (Maple), overwhelmed pharmacies with referrals.

Kristen Watt, who’s the current Vice-Chair of the Ontario Association of Pharmacists, wrote a blog in the Medical Post strongly supporting expanded scope of practice for pharmacists. While I have, and will continue to, fundamentally disagree on that, I was struck by her comment in that blog:

“Granted, the government roll-out video, shot in a noticeable big box pharmacy, didn’t help us. There are lots of cries of foul about billings going to shareholders of large corporations.”

It’s the kind of statement that clearly suggests some awareness of issues, without getting oneself into hot water. And certainly left me wanting to know more.

As I mentioned previously, a good pharmacist, and their staff, are integral parts of your health care team. They need to know you as a patient. They need to know some of your medical history. Over time they need to develop a professional relationship with you to provide you with the best advice. At the Big Box pharmacies, you are often getting different pharmacists and different staff every time you visit. Due to some of the corporate pressures above, there is a lot of turnover in those pharmacies.

At a small local pharmacy, you’ll get someone who knows you and says “Dr. Gandhi always gives a one year supply of medications, so I’m sure you’ve got refills.” Whereas at a big box, you’ll get some new staff who mindlessly will tell you “Ok, I’ll message him, you’ll have to come back in 48 hours” because the previous person didn’t enter data properly. Or you’ll get advice from different people at different times, which is NOT the same as having a consistent relationship with one pharmacist.

So my advice, to you dear reader. Find yourself a nice small pharmacy. Make sure they are independently owned. Ensure they have a consistent staff. Build a professional relationship with them. Your overall health deserves it.

Bonus: Red Flags When Searching for a Pharmacy:

Pharmacies that sell groceries.
Pharmacies in department stores or grocery stores.
Don’t fall for “points” schemes – not worth sacrificing good health advice for
They have different pharmacy staff every time you go

Artificial Intelligence is Naturally Stupid

Over the past two years, there has been an explosion in the amount of artificial intelligence (AI) software available, not just to healthcare professionals like myself, but to the general public. In many ways, AI has been quite helpful. I myself have been using AI scribe software in my office for close to a year now. The software listens to the conversation I have with my patient, and automatically generates a clinical note.

The AI scribe has been an enormous benefit to me. My medical notes are much better (also somewhat more detailed). I also save one hour of admin time a day (!) As an aside, this is actually a reason why the government should fund AI scribes for physicians. Under the new FHO+ model, we are paid an hourly rate for administrative work. Surely, saving five hours of physicians time a week is worth the government purchasing a scribe for physicians.

There are also some significant benefits for patient care. Another piece of AI software I use (that’s restricted to health care professionals) helps me with challenging cases. I am able to put the symptoms and test results into the software and it generates a list of potential diagnoses, and suggestions for next steps. It can also recommend treatments for rare conditions.

The general public can also benefit from AI. I recently had a little bit of trouble with my trusty 13-year-old SUV. I put the make and model of the SUV into a commercially available AI, put the symptoms in, and it generated a list of potential causes based on known issues about my SUV.

To be abundantly clear, I would never attempt to fix a car myself. Just as, with all due respect, patients should never, ever attempt to implement a treatment plan for themselves. What AI did do is give me the ability to have an intelligent conversation with the auto mechanic about the situation. And, dare I say it, allowed me to ensure that the mechanic was not trying to pull the wool over my eyes. (My vehicle is now fixed and running very smoothly.)

But along with the many benefits of AI software, there is, of course, potential for harm. This can range from ludicrous to dangerous.

The phenomenon of AI scribe hallucination is well known to physicians like myself. I have seen it in my own software, and it is the reason why I always read the note before I paste it into the patient’s chart. Admittedly, some of that is laughable :

Hopefully this is an AI hallucination of my skills, as opposed to the software’s judgement!

Additionally, the reality is that AI scribes can’t often put a patient’s lived experience (which is so important to building a relationship with a patient) into a note. My colleague Keith Thompson had a superb post on LinkedIn talking about how the AI scribe failed to recognize his personal interactions with an Indigenous patient, particularly with respect to understanding generational trauma.

Sadly, there have been cases where actual harm has been caused by AI. Grok is currently being investigated for generating sexualized images without consent, including those of minors. This causes severe emotional distress and real harm to the victims. There have also been concerns that AI chatbots are helping or suggesting people harm themselves. No one wants any of this stuff to happen, including the people who write AI software. But it has happened.

All of which reminds me of something that my computer science teacher in high school was fond of saying. (Note to my younger readers, and particularly my sons if they ever read my blog: Yes, there actually were computers when I was a teenager. I am not that prehistoric!)

How I’m viewed by my younger colleagues and my children!

The redoubtable Mr. Williams always implored:

“Do not forget, computers and software are actually very very stupid. They can do some things very fast, but they can only do what they are told.”

It’s a piece of wisdom that still holds true today.

With processing speeds almost infinitely faster than when I took computer science, computers can do multiple calculations very very fast. My desktop computer, which is a few generations old, can run 11 trillion operations a second. Heck my phone, which itself is 4 years old, could probably run a fleet of 1980s Space Shuttles. Speed is not the problem now.

The problem is that these computers and software still don’t actually have the ability to “think” outside of their parameters. They only do what they are programmed to do. If for example, they are programmed to answer questions asked by a user, but they are not given specific rules to avoid illegal answers, well, they will answer the questions directly. If the programming contains an inadvertent error (someone entered a “0” in the code, instead of a “1”), well, then the software will NOT be able to realize that was a mistake, and will carry out calculations based on the wrong code.

It is true that software is increasingly being taught to “look” for errors. But again, the software can only see the errors it is programmed to look for. It can’t find inadvertent errors and it can’t “think outside of the box.” They are, for lack of better wording, too stupid to do so.

All of which is my fancy and longish way of saying that while these new tools are great, at the end of the day they simply cannot replace the human experience. Just as the software couldn’t recognize the generational trauma of an Indigenous patient, there is a lack of “gut instinct” present. That feeling you have when you are missing something, and you know a patient is sicker than they may seem. It’s a trait that seen in our best clinicians, and one that no programming can replace.

Using an AI tool is just fine. But for my part, I’m going to agree with Mr. Spock:

About Dr. Elaine Ma: We’ve Been Here Before, and Didn’t Fix It…

My thanks to Dr. Mike Goodwin (pictured inset) for guest blogging for me today. Dr. Goodwin is a retired family physician who held numerous roles in medical politics including (but not limited to) being a member of the Coalition of Family Physicians, a member of the Section of General and Family Practice Executive and an OMA Board Director. He brings a historical perspective regarding medical audits to this blog, and I am grateful for his contribution.

I admire our courageous young colleague Dr. Elaine Ma, she of the seemingly never-ending OHIP billing/auditing dispute with a media savvy beyond her years. Dr. Ma’s impeccable sense of public health propriety during COVID has earned her a growing band of supporters. It has hopefully gained her financial support from both the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and the Canadian Medical Protective Association.

But what Dr. Ma and younger colleagues may not appreciate is that OHIP’s abuse of doctors, utilizing its antiquated billing payment and auditing processes, has been ongoing for a long time. Between the years 2000 through 2005, a hundred odd doctors every year in Ontario were being subjected to the same sort of unfair retroactive audit, which Dr. Ma is currently experiencing.

Back then, just like now, we had a Schedule of Benefits (SOB) badly in need of an update, a pettifogging bureaucracy unwilling to interpret said schedule with any modicum of common sense… vague auditing rules which conferred the burden of proof upon the accused rather than the province, and the same one-sided authority to claw back payments or garnish future accounts receivable. OHIP even had computers back then, almost certainly the same ancient models they still use today (which they claim can’t possibly be configured to pay doctors in a timely manner after the award of binding arbitrated pay increases).

Administrative abuse of the profession in the very early aughts was rampant. OHIP had enlisted the help of the CPSO, because the College had administrative and regulatory authority, beyond criminal law, over all physicians pertaining to the practice of medicine. Actual auditing and enforcement of decisions was done by an entity of the College called the Medical Review Committee (MRC). It apparently escaped everyone’s notice at the time, and still today, that medical billing to OHIP was and is based upon definitions contained within an official MOH document called the OHIP SOB. The OHIP SOB is, at least in theory, derived from agreements negotiated between the province and the OMA, not the College! One might argue, logically, that any dispute concerning rules and definitions documented within the SOB should always be addressed in the first instance between the Ministry and the OMA.

At any rate, anger and despair over the medical billing and auditing system in that far away time came to a head when a gentle Welland paediatrician, Dr. Tony Hsu, committed suicide. I suspect that Tony felt he had lost face by going public with his own particular auditing horror story. The concept of “face” is important in the Chinese diaspora, and Tony, who worked a one in three (sometimes one in two) on call rota at the Welland County General Hospital (without any on-call stipends in those days), in addition to maintaining a community practice, was forced to repay $96,000. He had to take that out of his retirement savings.

Public and political outrage at Tony’s death, particularly in the Niagara region, was immediate and intense. Then Health Minister George Smitherman was pressed to call for a “public inquiry” into medical billing and auditing. By happy accident, retired Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory was available and appointed to the task. Those of us acquainted with Mr. Cory’s reputation silently cheered.

Former Health Minister George Smitherman

And when Cory’s very comprehensive report was published, nine months later in April 2005, the indecent OHIP billing auditing system finally came to an end.

Or so we thought!

In his report “Study, Conclusions, and Recommendations Into Medical Audit Practice in Ontario,” Mr. Cory did not mince words. “The medical audit system in Ontario has had a debilitating, and in some cases, devastating effect on physicians and their families,” he said. “It has had a negative effect on the delivery of services, and has undermined Ontario’s attractiveness as a place to practice.”

Also, and very pointedly, the honourable Cory recommended the appointment of a new independent audit board, while declining to take up an offer from the College to continue auditing medical billings as they had been doing prior to his inquiry. In all, Justice Cory made 118 separate recommendations, and I reproduce only the first four, below, since they were (possibly) the most important:

Jurisdiction and structure: the responsibility for conducting the audits of physicians fee claims should be conferred on a new and independent board. See recommendations (1) to (4).
Purpose of the audit process: The audit process must be employed only for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of physician fee claims. The audit system itself must be accountable. A biennial stakeholders forum should be established to receive reports on the operation of the new audit process and to receive and consider proposals for its improvement. See recommendations (5) to (7).
A new emphasis on assisting physicians to comply with billing requirements: The primary goals of the new audit system should be (1) education to facilitate compliance with billing requirements, and (2) identification and elimination of false, fraudulent, and egregiously erroneous billing in a fair and effective manner. See recommendations (8) to (9).
Schedule of benefits: The schedule of benefits must be revised and adapted. It must also be interpreted flexibly so that a physician is not deprived of payment for a service that is medically appropriate and that complies substantially with the requirements of the fee code. See recommendations (10) to (14).

(NB – as the report cannot be found online, Dr. Goodwin used his own personal copy of the report as a reference – Old Country Doctor)

In the wake of the Cory report, Minister Smitherman ceased audits immediately and promised changes. But no one at the MOH or College lost a job. And ministries or bureaucracies (like the CPSO) are resistant to any change from age-old ways of doing things. That’s particularly true when change might reduce influence, or even more important, authority and funding.

So when I joined the OMA board in 2005 as a newbie director, the ministry was already flooding the zone, as they did, with multiple new issues demanding our attention. Promises made didn’t materialize, and almost none of Mr. Cory’s recommendations, especially the most important, to “confer responsibility for conducting billing audits on a new and independent board,” were implemented. Months became years, and “the Cory report” gradually disappeared from sight, consigned to death by inattention. You can’t find it anywhere today, even with a Google search. Not even on the OMA website: for shame!

I’m convinced that if a significant part of Mr. Cory’s report had been adopted in 2005, much of the shoddy bureaucratic shenanigans from OHIP would have been fixed (including, maybe even their ancient computers). Dr. Elaine Ma would not be undergoing her current marathon persecution. Nor would we be seeing those cases where OHIP seems to let grifters get away with corrupt billing over multiple years before it (OHIP) picks up on the scam. How does that work, by the way?

It’s not every day you get support from a retired Supreme Court justice at your back… particularly such clear, sensible, workable recommendations from arguably the most influential liberal justice of the post-constitutional era in Canada. Peter Cory was famous for his kindness, and for his defence of human dignity at every opportunity…though he definitely had an iron fist in a velvet glove when the need arose. For anyone (like me) who ever had the good fortune to meet him, he was just an unforgettably decent man.

Memo to the OMA:

If you really want to fix this auditing problem, something which I and my colleagues failed to do, Peter Cory’s report from 2005 would still be a great place to start. Dr. Elaine Ma has provided you a good crisis: let’s not waste it.

What’s Behind OHIPs Persecution of Dr. Elaine Ma?

In over 3 decades of medical practice, I’ve seen so much stupidity from government bureaucrats that I really shouldn’t be surprised by the dumb things they do anymore. And yet, every once in a while, they do something so colossally, mind numbingly and egregiously idiotic, that I’m still left stunned. Such is the situation with the ongoing persecution of Dr. Elaine Ma. Last week, the general manager of OHIP recommended, and the Minister of Health agreed, to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court that gave Dr. Ma a partial victory in her seemingly endless dispute with OHIP.

Picture of Dr. Elaine Ma, family physician from Kingston, Ontario — Dr. Elaine Ma

I’ve written about this before, but a brief summary follows. Links are provided for people who want more detail. My three loyal readers can just skip the next paragraph.

Dr. Ma organized, set up and paid for dozens of Covid Vaccination clinics in 2021. She billed the codes for organizing the clinics to OHIP (since she paid for all the overhead). A couple of years later OHIP told her that she should have billed an hourly rate and demanded over $600,000 in fees back. Their reasons for saying she inappropriately billed varied seemingly from week to week. The clinic was outside, not inside! She used Medical Students! Different people injected! etc.

The case eventually made its way to Divisional Court. I never thought I’d see a more laughably ludicrous comment from bureaucrats than when the Ministry of Health’s negotiations team announced there was no concern about a lack of comprehensive care family doctors. But, as Einstein once said, stupidity is infinite and these OHIP bureaucrats outdid the MoH crew by suggesting that there were “no extenuating circumstances” warranting the setting up of these Covid Vaccinations clinics. The whole country was in the midst of a pandemic, there was the largest public health crisis in my lifetime, the country was locked down, travel had ceased and so on. But these were not extenuating circumstances in these eyes of these rigid, automaton bureaucrats.

However, it was also at the Divisional Court hearings that I personally feel that we may finally have seen why OHIP is so intent on tormenting Dr. Ma. The court did scold the bureaucrats for the absurd suggestion that extenuating circumstances didn’t exist. But, as I mentioned in my last blog, the court also found:

“…that the wording of section 17.5 does not limit relief to unpaid claims; it only requires the presence of extenuating circumstances. Since OHIP typically pays claims first and reviews them later, a restriction on unpaid claims would effectively nullify the provision. The court called this interpretation unreasonable.”

Section 17.5 of the legislation that governs OHIP (which in it’s current form is found buried in Bill 138) states:

“The General Manager shall refuse to pay for an insured service if the claim for payment for the service is not prepared in the required form, does not meet the prescribed requirements or is not submitted to the General Manager within the prescribed time. However, the General Manager may pay for the service if, in the General Manager’s opinion, there are extenuating circumstances.“

I mentioned last time that OMA lawyers really need to take a deep look at this ruling as it likely had implications for other billing disputes. And, indeed, the court’s interpretation of Section 17.5 appears to be main basis for OHIPs appeal.

According to a report by Michelle Dorey Forestell (who has done an excellent job reporting on this issue over the years), the General Manager of OHIP is appealing because:

“section 17.5 contemplates discretionary payment decisions only before funds are issued, noting that other provisions of the act expressly address recovery and reimbursement of payments already made……the court’s broader reading will make physician payment disputes more complex and uncertain.”

AND

“the case raises issues of public importance, given the potential impact on how physician billing disputes are assessed and adjudicated and on the administration of OHIP.”

This, in my personal opinion, is the real reason that OHIP is fighting Dr. Ma tooth and nail now, despite having (deservedly) lost at Divisional Court. It may have started out as bureaucratic ineptitude. But it’s no longer about recouping the money. Heck bureaucrats have wasted far more on various schemes.

No, the clear sense I’m getting is that OHIP bureaucrats, having botched their attempt to bully and harass Dr. Ma, they now find themselves in a position where they may be forced to make changes to their review process. If the Divisional Court ruling holds, it means that OHIP would have to modernize how they review payments (gasp!). Who knows, they might even need to buy some new billing computers that can more efficiently review physicians claims (double gasp!). But worst of all, it means OHIP bureaucrats will actually have to do real work (triple gasp!) to develop new processes.

Dr. Ma deserves better. By acting so quickly during the pandemic she ensured Kingston was one of the most highly vaccinated areas in Ontario. She not only saved lives, she prevented many hospitalizations. She undoubtedly saved the health care system far more than $600,000 by her actions.

Unfortunately for her, rigid thinking bureaucrats were unable to use some basic common sense and recognize how urgent things were in 2021. She has been egregiously wronged as a result.

But the sliver of hope is that she may actually have the last laugh. If the appeal is denied, or she wins at a higher court again, the bureaucrats will be forced to confront their own incompetence. They will need to develop a fair, modern and rational review process. If they don’t many other physicians will use her case as precedent by saying OHIPs review of their billing comes from an unreasonable process.

By not yielding to common sense, the OHIP bureaucrats may have wound up giving themselves much more headaches. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s entirely well deserved.

The Appalling Treatment of Dr. Elaine Ma Is Hurting Health Care in Ontario

I’ve written about the horrific treatment that Dr. Elaine Ma has been subjected to by the bureaucrats at Ontario Health before. The situation is so ridiculous that it could be a story presented at the Theatre of the Absurd.

What happened?

Dr. Ma is a family physician from the Kingston area. During the Covid pandemic she realizes the need to immunize as many people as possible to protect the community. She organizes a number of outdoor mass vaccination clinics, which resulted in Kingston being one of the most heavily vaccinated areas of the province. For her efforts, she wins the very well deserved the praise of many, and an award from the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

There are two billing codes for providing Covid vaccinations. One for physicians who work in a vaccination clinic that someone else set up (e.g. public health). Another for those who set up the clinics themselves, and paid for staff/heating for outdoors/tents/internet etc. Since she paid for all of that, Dr. Ma bills the second code.

Fast forward a couple of years and the callous and unthinking bureaucrats at OHIP decide that she has billed the wrong code and demand she pay back $600,000. I won’t restate all the steps she went through to fight this. I will state that the reasons for them wanting the money paid back varied between the clinic being outdoors instead of indoors, medical students being involved and so on. But eventually the case winds up at Divisional Court.

On Dec 16, the court handed down a ruling supporting Dr. Ma. What I had failed to realize before is that the Ontario Health bureaucrats main argument appears to be that there were no extenuating circumstances during the time of the Vaccine Clinics that Dr. Ma set up. Yes, you read that correctly. The whole country was in the midst of a (hopefully) once in a lifetime pandemic. Canada was effectively shut down for business. People were not allowed to visit loved ones in hospital or nursing homes. Travel had ground to a halt. But, in the minds of the soulless and spiteful bureaucrats, none of this constituted “extenuating circumstances”.

Thankfully, Divisional Court Justices Matheson, Varpio and O’Brien were having none of this nonsense. They clearly stated the decision by bureaucrats that there were no extenuating circumstances was “unreasonable.” (I would have, and will, call that decision much worse things). The Justices pointed out the obvious. There was clearly a public health crisis at the time, and that many leaders, including politicians were calling on physicians to get the vaccinations done.

More importantly they stated something the OMA’s legal team really needs to take a deep dive into:

…”that the wording of section 17.5 does not limit relief to unpaid claims; it only requires the presence of extenuating circumstances. Since OHIP typically pays claims first and reviews them later, a restriction on unpaid claims would effectively nullify the provision. The court called this interpretation unreasonable.”

Currently OHIP pays physicians whenever they bill. Later, OHIP decides if it was reasonable or not, and if OHIP feels the situation is unreasonable, they demand the money back. The justices seem to be saying this process is not fair. Which has implications far beyond this one case. Obviously, this would not apply to clear cut cases of fraud. It is a much much needed kick to the slow, incompetent, and spiteful OHIP review process. I can’t possibly understand the potential future implications for this – but I suspect there will be many.

Finally, the justices let their displeasure be known by ordering OHIP to pay Dr. Ma $10,000 in court costs. This strongly suggests to me that they were peeved at the OHIP bureaucrats for taking it this far, and really didn’t think it should have gone there.

How is this hurting health care now?

Ontario is currently seeing an unprecedented surge in flu cases. Flu season has come early. The current variant appears to be extremely strong. It is circulating at “sky high” levels among young people. Three children (at least) have died. Hospitals have declared outbreaks and wards are closed. Visitation has stopped.

Sign on the door to the Medical Ward of my Hospital

You know what would really help? If only some people would come up with some innovative ways of getting their communities vaccinated against the flu. Yes this year’s flu shot is a bit of mismatch for the current strain, but it still provides some protection and keeps you from getting really ill.

Or how about an innovative idea for where to safely look after patients like was done during the Covid crisis. My friend Dr. Bryan Recoskie set up a unique 18 bed ward in our local Legion, to look after non-covid patients while the hospital wards were shut with covid positive patients.

And yet, I don’t see any of that happening right now. Don’t get me wrong, doctors continue to go to work. We continue to care for the sick and continue to comfort those in need. We continue to do our best in these trying circumstances.

But I can’t find any evidence (please correct me if I’m wrong) – of where people are doing unique out of the box things to try and mitigate the currently unfolding nightmare. Given the potential exists that IF you try something unique, you may wind up undergoing two years of pure hell by bitter, ruthless and depraved bureaucrats – can you blame people for not trying?

To quote a good friend of mine, “The damage has been done. Nobody is going to stick their necks out now.”

What should happen (but won’t):

First, under no circumstances should OHIP appeal the decision from Divisional Court. The mercilessly inhumane bureaucrats need back down. Second, Health Minister Sylvia Jones needs to do what she should have done a year ago – and direct the bureaucrats not to seek any recovery at all from Dr. Ma. It’s just the right and decent thing to do.

Finally, it would really help if Minister Jones issued a formal apology to Dr. Ma for how she has been treated by the bureaucrats. It’s not just the OHIP bureaucrats. Jones’ own communications director, Hannah Jensen claimed Dr. Ma had “pocketed the funds“, a statement that clearly suggested malfeasance.

Do that, and maybe, just maybe, physicians would once again feel comfortable coming up with out of the box solutions for crises that are occurring.

Maybe.

More on the OMA Elections

I don’t often reply to critiques of previous blogs. My opinions are my own, and disagreements are part of life. However, there were a couple of consistent themes in critiques to my last blog, OMA Manipulates Board Elections and Weakens Members Voices. I think it is worthwhile to address those.

Is “Relational Advocacy” a Concern?

The first theme was that it was distracting to express concern that people who work at the OMA would be inclined towards what’s been called relational advocacy. This would be to suggest that they may not be as aggressive as needed on some issues, due to concerns about implications for potential future career prospects with government. More than one person told me off about this.

In order to know for sure whether this is something to be aware of, or whether it’s just the rantings of a miserable grumpy old bugger, one would have to do an exhaustive search of people who went to work for government after working at the OMA. It would require extensive resources to search things like LinkedIn profiles, available public employment data bases, and the like.

It being 2025, I therefore had ChatGPT do the search. My initial ask was to see how many employees left the OMA to work for the Ontario government from 2000-2025. This turned up 12 verified people (I won’t print their names). Even I would admit that doesn’t seem like much of a concern.

I then realized I had done the search wrong. I should have asked how many OMA employees went on to work for the government OR any government funded agencies. Agencies like hospitals, Ontario Health at Home, Family Health Teams, Public Health etc etc .

The results of this much more comprehensive search? Up to 80 people. The software had to do a fair approximation due to not everyone having searchable info. (The OMA has about 300 employees).

Should we hold it against those people for seeking other employment? No. People should be able to make decisions in the best interests of their careers (you would too in their shoes). Should we suspect they are not working diligently on behalf of physicians while at the OMA. No, no, no, a thousand times no. The vast majority of employees there really are passionate about advocating for physicians and I’ve seen that firsthand. Should we question their integrity? Again, no, no, no, a million times no.

BUT – should the OMA Board at least be aware of the fact that up to a quarter of the employees may one day work for government (in some way or another)? Should the Board keep it in the back of their minds when reviewing strategy presented to them? Especially if it comes at a time when relationship with government is adversarial? Human nature is human nature….

To be fair, ChatGPT also helpfully suggested (without prompting) that up 220 physician leaders had roles in some capacity with the OMA and then moved on to government/government agencies during the same time period. So it’s not like we don’t need to re-think how we as physicians choose our own leaders either. Which brings me to the next point.

How Independent is Promeus?

The other main critique was that my assertion that the OMA staff would vet candidates for Board was off base. After all, the OMA has hired an “independent third party firm” called Promeus to screen candidates. Promeus would decide who was most suitable for Board positions, not the OMA staff.

Let’s get real here. The consultants will be told what the criteria are. Those of you who work in a hospital can relate to this. Do you know how when the CEO of your hospital is facing, say, a budget deficit or a revolt around some program? The CEO knows that he/she has to lay off nurses or cut a program or change leadership. But not wanting to be “the bad guy”, they hire a consulting firm. The consulting firm then “reviews the information”, helpfully provided by the CEO. The firm then recommends that a bunch of nurses get fired, or programs get cut. The CEO then says “based on the recommendation of the expert consultants we are going to….” (The CEO doesn’t say they would have done that anyway, but are glad to have someone else scape goat the decision for them).

Similarly, the criteria for what is “needed” will be provided by the OMA to Promeus. I don’t doubt for a minute that Promeus will do a good job of reviewing candidates and has experience doing this. But they will choose candidates based on the OMA criteria.

This kind of tactic is common in all organizations, both public and private. Those interested can look up Robin Hanson’s theory of young consultants or if you want a denser read, go look at Killing Strategy.

As an aside, a few people have contacted me saying they’ve been approached to run for Board. They are all strong leaders, and I respect them. But they are also people who have roles in government funded organizations.

The counter argument will be that 39 candidates was “too many”. I think the fact that 39 candidates ran for Board shows that members have strong interest in making the OMA better. Are some candidates better than others? Sure – let the members decide. Let the candidates campaign (currently not allowed) to explain their positions. Is it messy? Sure, but heck democracy is messy. As Winston Churchill said:

In short, I would once again state that the changes the OMA Board has allowed to happen will not serve members well. We are going to get a weakened, Board that is very good in speaking politically and saying, well not much. The strong passionate member voices will be sidelined in favour of the milquetoast and bland. And physicians will not get the representation they deserve.

Only 25% of members said fees are worth it in 2022. The CFPC hasn’t asked since

My thanks once again to Dr. Greg Dubord (pictured inset) agreeing to post this on my site, (and doing most of the writing). Dr. Dubord is the founder of CBT Canada (www.cbt.ca) and a leading advocate of medical CBT. He completed his training under CBT’s Founder Dr. Aaron T. Beck and was the first Canadian Fellow of the Beck Institute. He has provided medical CBT workshops at many Family Medicine Forums. This blog originally appeared in the Medical Post.

Only 25% of CFPC members believe their fees are worth it.

That devastating verdict emerged from the College of Family Physicians of Canada’s own 2022 member satisfaction survey—unfortunately the last one they’ve published.

When three-quarters of your captive membership says they’re not getting value for money, you’d expect urgent reform and rigorous tracking of improvement. Instead, the CFPC did something remarkable: they stopped asking.

The survey, published by the CFPC’s own CEO Dr. Francine Lemire and executive director Eric Mang in Canadian Family Physician, contained another brutal statistic: Only 39% felt the CFPC was “listening to the opinions and needs of members.” More than 3,000 respondents delivered this indictment of their own professional organization—then watched the CFPC go silent on member satisfaction for three straight years.

Twenty-five percent is not a satisfaction score—it’s a vote of no confidence. In any other context, that number would trigger not just immediate crisis response, but deep organizational commitment to demonstrable change. A product with 25% customer satisfaction gets pulled from shelves. A restaurant with 25% customer approval likely ends up closing. A professional association with 25% approval hemorrhages members unless, of course, membership is mandatory.

When three-quarters of your customers—especially mandatory, captive customers who can’t leave—believe they’re not getting value for money, that’s not a minor problem requiring tweaks. That’s an existential crisis for the CFPC demanding comprehensive reform and continuous monitoring to track whether changes are working. Management guru Peter Drucker put it bluntly: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.”

The CFPC instead chose this two-part treatment:

stop measuring whether members think fees are worth it; and
ask for more money. No survey in 2023—but a 7% dues increase proposal that 83.86% rejected. No survey in 2024. No survey in 2025—but another fee increase attempt, also rejected.

Imagine asking your boss for a raise while refusing to do your performance review. That’s essentially what the CFPC keeps doing.

This pattern becomes more revealing when you consider the CFPC’s demonstrated survey capabilities. During 2020 to 2022, the College conducted and published multiple iterations of COVID-19 impact surveys—2020, 2021 and June 2022—each with detailed, comprehensive reports and full datasets publicly available. These surveys served important functions, documenting physician challenges and supporting advocacy with government and policymakers.

The CFPC clearly has the infrastructure and expertise for longitudinal research. Yet member satisfaction—the metric showing only 25% believe fees are worth it—gets measured once, summarized briefly, then abandoned. When surveys document external challenges, members receive full transparency and accountability.

Although the CFPC’s 25% rating was horrible, it’s almost certainly a lot worse now. That survey was conducted before the PGY-3 controversy, and before the governance crisis that prompted our ten reform motions.

This brings us to one of our ten governance reforms for the 2026 AGM: Member satisfaction survey transparency. This motion would require annual CFPC member satisfaction surveys with published methodology, response rates and complete results (not curated summaries).

Healthy organizations that genuinely serve their members practice what the Japanese call kaizen—continuous improvement through regular measurement. When Toyota faced acceleration problems, they didn’t just stonewall—they analyzed data, implemented fixes, and reported progress transparently to regulators.

The CFPC has a rather unique accountability problem: membership is mandatory for most, and the dissatisfied can’t leave. Captive dues payers are left to brux in high frustration while wondering if anything will change. Economists call this “moral hazard.” When an organization is insulated from the consequences of poor performance, accountability diminishes. This structural accountability gap—and potential solutions—will be explored in detail in upcoming articles in this series.

Our transparency motion is straightforward: the CFPC will be required to measure member satisfaction annually, publish complete results and let members judge whether their mandatory fees produce acceptable value. If the CFPC is delivering excellence, the data will prove it, and they will have every right to feel proud of it. However, if they’re failing, members deserve to know—with implications for the legitimacy of dues.

Our earnest hope is that this upcoming year we’ll see a highly member-responsive CFPC make genuine changes that demonstrably impact member satisfaction, and they’ll proudly make that public.

OMA Manipulates Board Elections and Weakens Members Voices

On November 20, Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Past President Dr. Dominik Nowak sent all members an email encouraging them to run for positions in the upcoming OMA Elections cycle. As Past President, his role is to oversee the elections for over 100 positions. He needs to ensure they are fairly run so the voice of all Ontario physicians can be heard.

Current Past President of the OMA, Dr. Dominik Nowak

Unfortunately, the current Board has sabotaged this process and rather than listen to the members, will only present pre-approved candidates for Board Director, the most important role. They have the responsibility of ensuring the OMA speaks for, you know, the members. Buried in his email were the following statements:

A streamlined shortlisting process for board candidates, with two to four candidates, whose skills and experience align with the board’s needs, being presented on the ballot for each open position
Stronger screening and evaluation for consistency and fairness of candidates
More transparency about how the board performs and what gaps are in the skills-based matrix

There is no explanation of what exactly this “streamlined” process is. But it’s clear that there will be now be increased vetting of candidates and some candidates will be found wanting and not allowed to run. Now, there always was some vetting of Board Candidates. Candidates had to be in good standing with College of Physicians and Surgeons, the OMA, pass background police checks etc. Some basic stuff.

But now, undoubtedly based on the fact that something like 38 people ran for Board last year, the OMA Board has determined to vet candidates even more and reject qualified people if they don’t meet these nebulous criteria. Importantly, the criteria will be to pick candidates who align with the BOARD‘s needs, not the MEMBERS. This is of course, all in the name of “fairness” and “transparency” and to make decisions “easier” for physicians.

But here’s the thing, the Board will NOT do the vetting. Board’s don’t actually do any operational work. Their job is to set policy, and then let the staff of the OMA implement it. So it will be up to the staff of the OMA to vet the Board candidates, and then approve whoever is acceptable……..to the staff.

Colleagues, we have a big problem.

The OMA staff are generally good people who work quite hard on behalf of physicians. They get a lot of unwarranted criticism for decisions that are actually made by physician leaders. Our elected leaders that should bare the blame.

But, at the end of the day, the OMA staff are only human, and prone to human tendencies and failures. My friend Dr. Greg Dubord, who I was honoured to pen a blog with, introduced me to Robert Michel‘s “Iron Law of Oligarchy“. It would seem to apply just not to the CFPC, but to what is going on at the OMA. From Wikipedia:

“… all organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, or political strategists for the organization. Far from being servants of the masses…. this leadership class, rather than the organization’s membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization’s power structures.^[3]“

Robert Michels, a sociologist who described the political behavior of intellectual elites in the early 1900s

And that is exactly what is going to happen with these new changes. The OMA staff (not physician leaders, but employees of the OMA) will review the candidates for Board. THEY will decide who meets certain criteria. THEY will determine how many candidates run for each Board position, hiding behind a policy the Board has set.

Will they do their best to pick some good people? Sure. But their definition of “good” may not be what the members want. For example, someone like Shawn Whatley was openly critical of the OMA prior to being elected as President. Would he have passed these criteria? How about Nadia Alam? Prior to getting involved in medical political activism she was a relative unknown with little leadership experience (even though she is arguably the most well respected President of the past 25 years).

pictures of Dr. Shawn Whatley and Dr. Nadia Alam, both of whom are past presidents of the Ontario Medical Association — Dr. Shawn Whatley

Nope. My guess is they would have been found wanting. A total guess on my part would have been Dr. Whatley would be deemed “too disruptive” (he famously resigned from the OMA Board prior to being elected President). Dr. Alam would like be viewed as “too inexperienced.”

Worse, the blunt reality is that the staff will likely decide who is “best qualified” based on how well they can work with them (that’s just human nature). Not necessarily those who can, you know, push them and challenge them to do better.

The staff, generally being very nice people, always had a tendency to try to work co-operatively with the various government bureaucrats on bilateral committees. This is despite the over 30 years of evidence that always trying to be nice and reasonable just isn’t working. Cynics have suggested that its in part because they realize if they want to advance their careers – one of the places they can go after working in the OMA is the government, and it doesn’t help to burn bridges there. So why would they approve a candidate who had a reputation for being less than reasonable?

Want proof? Just look at how badly the OMA as an organization handled last year’s elections. I asked potential Board Directors to commit to filing a Freedom of Information Act request, to determine just how many patients Nurse Practitioners saw in a day and how much they cost the health care system per patient (easy to do with billing numbers). The goal was to get proof that they were more expensive overall (by a lot) than family physicians and slow down scope creep.

Not only did the OMA put a stop to that, they threatened the careers of people who signed that with a Code of Conduct violation. Can’t have people on the OMA Board who will be too aggressive can we? (Psst – hey Kim Moran, CEO of the OMA – how is sending strongly worded letters to the government asking them to stop scope expansion working out? Oh, right.)

Do you really think with that history, the current staff will allow someone even remotely controversial to run?

The OMA Board has shamefully allowed this to happen. As a result there will not be a diverse Board with many viewpoints that focus on members. Rather a bland, non-controversial Board that will be limiting to speaking in political jargon speaking points in response to all issues.

Physicians will truly be hurt by this short sighted decision.