Dr. Elaine Ma Case is Proof Ontario is Unfriendly to Physicians

Last week, the Ontario Health Sector Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) denied the appeal by Dr. Elaine Ma in her fight against the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). At the risk of upsetting Dr. Ma and many (? all) of my colleagues, that decision actually was legally appropriate. HSARB can’t actually look at whether a case is reasonable or not, their job is to go by what’s written in bulletins/updates. The real affront to physicians is that it should never ever have gotten here in the first place.

The Background

For non-physicians reading this, here is a condensed summary of what happened. It’s 2020. The Covid pandemic is raging. Ontario Premier Doug Ford appoints General Rick Hillier to oversee the Covid Vaccination program. He’s tasked with, as Ford calls it, “the largest vaccine rollout in a generation, a massive logistical undertaking, the likes of which this province has never seen.” Hillier’s stated goal? To get shots in everyone’s arms by August 2021.

Dr. Elaine Ma from Kingston realizes the need to act quickly to help her community. She organizes outdoor mass vaccination clinics. Over 35,000 shots were given and Kingston became the most vaccinated area of the province. Dr. Ma was given an Award of Excellence by the Ontario College of Family Physicians for her efforts.

Picture of an outdoor vaccination clinic found elsewhere on the web

The Dispute with OHIP

So what happened? For the Covid vaccine clinics, there were two sets of billing codes assigned. The first was a standard hourly rate. This was meant for physicians who attend a vaccine clinic and perform immunizations there. There were numerous such clinics set up by hospitals/public health/pharmacies and so on. Those agencies paid for the setup costs of those clinics. The physician just showed up and vaccinated.

The second set of codes is used by physicians who give vaccinations in clinics they set up. These codes pay somewhat more, but they’re meant to compensate physicians for the fact that they have to cover all the overhead in those clinics.

Dr. Ma would have had to make sure that things like electricians were hired to ensure that there was power and Internet access outdoors. She may have needed to arrange for commercial grade outdoor tents. Propane heaters to heat the tents and the propane might have been needed. Some staff were paid (others volunteered). All of this organizational work, and figuring out payments, needed to be done in advance. She did it.

She therefore billed OHIP the second code. This is entirely reasonable given the circumstances and the work she did.

So what happened?

The sudden increase in billings did not go unnoticed by OHIP and was flagged. This is absolutely appropriate. As taxpayers, we need to be sure that there is a mechanism to catch outlying bills. The anomaly was sent for review by the various bureaucrats at OHIP. Also appropriate.

So what went wrong?

Basically everything after that. The OHIP bureaucrats reviewed the situation. As pointed out by Perry Brodkin (OHIPs former lawyer, who was quoted extensively in the Kingstonist) – the information was sent “up the hierarchy” and would have reached the deputy health minister and minister.

The bureaucrats and health minister decided she didn’t qualify for the codes. The reasons given (see the Kingstonist articles for more details) change at a whim. First it was that the clinic was outdoors not inside (you mean at a time when we are all social distancing – we should have crammed unrelated people into a clinic to immunize them??). Then it was that medical students were used (despite the strong endorsement of using medical students by the then Dean of Queen’s University Medical School, Dr. Jane Philpott). Then it was that she paid people to work there.

Dr. Jane Philpott – former Dean of Queen’s University Medical School – and a strong supporter of the vaccination clinics set up by Dr. Ma

Then things got ugly

And finally, after repeated questioning by the Kingsonist, things got really ugly when Hannah Jensen, the communications director for the Minister of Health issues a statement alleging that Dr. Ma “pocketed” the funds. This basically amounted to an allegation of theft by Dr. Ma and was widely viewed as a disgusting, immoral and reprehensible comment in the medical community. Even the Kingstonist was alarmed by this and called the statement “rife with allegations.”

Hannah Jensen, Communications Director for Minister of Health Sylvia Jones (photo from LinkedIn Profile page)

Why this offends doctors so much.

Let’s be clear about this. There is zero tolerance in the broader medical community for misappropriation of funds/intentional fraudulent OHIP billing. Zilch. Nada. But there is a recognition that the imperfect OHIP billing schedule needs to be interpreted with reason, especially when times are unreasonable (and what could possibly be a more unreasonable time than a once in a lifetime pandemic?).

Dr. Ma did all the work to meet the billing criteria (even the OHIP bureaucrats were forced to admit that yes, over 35,000 shots were given and yes she had planned and organized the whole thing). The fact that she did it outside and had medical students help when some 20 year old pre pandemic memos said not to is an unwarranted use of a technicality.

For many physicians, this brings back memories of when another set of bureaucrats persecuted physicians. They even told one paediatric respirologist that in order to bill a code, he had to perform rectal and pelvic exams on children!

What does this mean for Ontario Health care?

First, as Dr. Ma herself pointed out, it is now illegal for physicians to bill any procedures that they delegated to medical students. This means that medical teaching will effectively grind to a halt. Why would any doctor teach a medical student to say, suture a wound, when that doctor would now be financially penalized?

Second, this story has made the national press. It has also been reported in Canadian Journals that cater to physicians and other health care workers. The message to them is clear. Do NOT think of relocating/starting up a practice in Ontario. You will be treated grossly unfairly by the bureaucrats and health minister and there will be no reasonable interpretation of the rules.

What can be done?

According to Brodkin, Health Minister Sylvia Jones and Premier Doug Ford can direct OHIP to disregard the HSARB ruling. They need to do so immediately. However, because politicians only think of re-election, and not what is right, Dr. Ramsey Hijazi, the founder of the Ontario Union of Family Physicians wants to up the pressure on them.

Dr. Ramsey Hijazi, founder of the Ontario Union of Family Physicians – pictured inset.

His group has set up a petition that clearly demands that justice be done in this case. It demands that the Minister and Premier disregard the HSARB ruling. We need to support our health care heroes not penalize them on technicalities in outdated bulletins.

I urge all of my followers to sign the petition. If this case is allowed to go on, trust me on this, there will be negative consequences for health care in Ontario, and we don’t need any more of those.

Click here to sign the petition.

Bureaucratic Vertigo in Ontario’s Home Care System

Bureaucratic vertigo in Ontario’s home care system, exacerbated by ineffective reforms and rebranding, has led to chaos and service stagnation, necessitating genuine engagement with frontline providers for meaningful transformation.

Dr. Merritt Cade (not their real name) is a concerned and experienced Ontario physician familiar with the current crisis in home care. Dr. Cade is worried about potential blowback from this blog that will affect their patients and so this blog is posted under a pseudonym.

Vertigo is a sensation where one perceives movement that isn’t happening. In the realm of healthcare administration, a similar phenomenon occurs—bureaucratic vertigo—an organizational dizziness that mimics change but leaves structures and systems untouched. Nowhere is this more glaring than in Ontario’s home care sector, a pivotal yet neglected component of our healthcare system.

In 2023, amid promises of reform, the Ontario government introduced Bill 135, the “Convenient Care at Home Act,” envisioning a streamlined home care service managed by Ontario Health atHome (OHAH). OHAH itself was to now be brought under the umbrella of Ontario Health, the implementation arm of the Ministry of Health. Hopes were pinned on this transformation bringing ease and efficiency. However, the reality has been a déjà vu of previous cycles of centralization and decentralization of health care structures, with patients and families shouldering the consequences.

Nowhere is the bureaucratic vertigo more evident than in the successive re-branding of home care over the last 8 years from “Community Care Access Centres (CCAC)” to “Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs)” in 2017 to “Home and Community Care Support Services (HCCSS)” in 2021, to the latest iteration, “Ontario Health atHome (OHAH)” in 2024. Meanwhile, regardless of the name used, the services provided by the home care system remained untouched.

Ontario Health and OHAH’s first substantive move—renegotiating contracts for medical supplies—illustrates how bureaucratic vertigo can lead to harmful consequences. Instead of solving issues, the new contract process disconnected decision-makers from frontline realities. The result? A severe shortage of medical suppliesmedication delays, and a burden placed on already overwhelmed caregivers and families. Despite clear warnings from supply companies, these decisions disregarded frontline input, leaving healthcare providers to navigate chaos without support.

OHAH’s own front-line staff, the beleaguered Care Coordinators, were also caught completely off guard as rules regarding medications and catalogues of supplies changed overnight. Care Coordinators are the quarterbacks of the home care system, matching services to patients’ needs. What OHAH and Ontario Health did was akin to completely changing the playbook on their quarterbacks and teams, with sadly predictable results.

Despite all this, however, home care holds immense potential to address systemic challenges, from reducing ER congestion and the alternate level of care logjam to facilitating dignified end-of-life care at home instead of in hospitals. What is required is not another bureaucratic shuffle, but genuine engagement with those who understand home care’s nuances best: frontline providers. It is they who hold the practical knowledge necessary for meaningful reform.

The path forward demands that decision-making authority be shared with these healthcare professionals. Their experiences can inform policies that work in reality, not just on paper. This means abandoning the “bureaucrat knows best” mentality and embracing trust and collaboration. It means abandoning committees struck merely to check a box that says that frontline professionals were consulted when, in fact, their concerns do not meaningfully contribute to decisions made.

Furthermore, the status quo must not define future transformations. Further substantial changes to home care delivery, this time relating to the supply of equipment such as hospital beds, wheelchairs, walkers and other essential aids, was planned for rollout in October but has been delayed until January. Without a change in approach, we should expect similar upheaval when this takes place. Past failures demonstrate that superficial organizational changes do not equate to operational improvements. Genuine progress relies on a foundational renewal of leadership and strategy, prioritizing empathy, accountability, and proactive stakeholder engagement.

If we are to lift Ontario’s home care from its current crisis, change must be substantive, rooted in the insights of those who deliver care day-in, day-out. We must move beyond the spectre of bureaucratic vertigo and commit to sensible, informed solutions that truly benefit patients and families across the province. By trusting, listening to and involving the frontline, we can stop the spin and start the real work of reform.