Canada – Page 2 – justanoldcountrydoctor

A Message for Medical Students Who Didn’t Match on CaRMS Day

The following blog was written by Dr. Darren Cargill (pictured inset) and originally appeared in the Medical Post in a modified form and it’s full form on his substack. It’s a great message for medical students who didn’t match on CaRMS day, and is being re-printed here with Dr. Cargill’s permission (and my thanks) so that it is more widely available in an un-gated site.

J.J. McCarthy and the UnMatchable

“Those Who Stay Will Be Champions”

On November 14, 2020, Michigan was blown out by Big Ten rival Wisconsin by a score of 49-11, dropping the Wolverines to 1-3 in a pandemic-shortened season. Questions were swirling about if former Michigan quarterback Jim Harbaugh’s would remain as head coach at his alma mater. The Wolverines would finish a the season a disappointing 2-4.

On November 15, J.J. McCarthy sent out this tweet:

What does this have to do with health care in Canada?

I have previously written about my own failures and setbacks. From dropping out of University in 1994 (and 1995, just to be sure), to going unmatched through CaRMs in 2003.

Match Day 2024 is March 19th. I could have simply reposted my Substack from last year and moved on.

But Michigan’s 2023/24 run to the National Championship was calling me.

Anyone who knows Michigan football understands how it works. They run the ball down your throat. They tell you what they are going to do and then challenge you to stop them. Four yards and a cloud of dust. Big Ten Football.

Former Michigan QB Tom Brady played with a chip on his shoulder his entire career. After winning a national championship at Michigan in 1997, Brady was drafted 199th in the 2000 NFL draft. He was not expected to be the GOAT, experts weren’t even sure he would make the team. Yet 10 Super Bowls later (and 7 rings), he is the undisputed greatest Quarterback of all-time (talk to me about Patrick Mahomes in 20 years).

After Michigan’s loss to TCU in the College Playoff last year, McCarthy stood on the field and watched TCU celebrate.

As detailed by Sports Illustrated: “There’s perhaps no greater insight into an athlete’s psyche than seeing how they act following a crushing loss. Michigan quarterback J.J. McCarthy gave fans a small glimpse into his mindset after the Wolverines’ devastating 51–45 defeat in Saturday’s Fiesta Bowl.

Playing in the College Football Playoff for the second straight year, Michigan (13-1) was unable to overcome a handful of missed opportunities and came up just short in the national semifinal against the Horned Frogs.”

I see a lot of Brady in McCarthy. Quiet confidence. A leader of men. Resolve in defeat.

Today, J.J. is QB1 for the 2024 College Football National Champion 15-0 Michigan Wolverines.

J.J. enters the 2024 NFL draft this spring. A lot of people (usually Buckeyes) question his ability. They call him a “game manager.” They doubt his arm strength.

Going unmatched in 2003 gave me some serious doubts about my abilities. My skills.

Was it a mistake to go into medicine? Could I be happy in another field? Did I leave the stove on?

Today, I am the only physician in North America with Fellowship in the College of Family Physicians before Canada, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the American Association of Hospice Palliative Medicine.

The NFL draft is much like the CaRMs match. It distills years of hard work and sacrifice into one binary answer: matched/unmatched.

To my fellow UnMatchable: Take 3 deep breaths…and have faith.

“Destiny is calling. Open up your eager eyes.”

#GoBluE

PS I rushed the field at Michigan Stadium for the first time this year when the Wolverines beat THE Ohio State Buckeyes (again). Destiny calls.

I then watched the Championship game with my friend Mark, who recruited me to Windsor. Destiny calls.

Dr. Alex Duong: The Challenges Facing an Early-Mid Career Family Physician

Dr. Alex Duong, a family physician from the Vanier district of Ottawa (which amazingly enough is one of the more underserviced areas of Ontario).

Recently, Maria DiDanieli, the clinical lead for system navigation at the Burlington Family Health Team, published an opinion piece in Healthy Debate that was critical of the decision of Drs. Alam/Mathew and yours truly to recommend that family practice residents bide their time instead of starting up a comprehensive care practice in Ontario. Dr. Duong replies and has kindly allowed me to reproduce his reply here.

I am a full-time community family physician, and I read this article with great disappointment.

I am at the face of our health care system. When patients cannot get a timely breast biopsy or a knee replacement, they come to ask me. I address their frustrations, alleviate their pain, and manage expectations.

I am the backstop when issues are missed during transitions in care and issues that require follow up.

I am the navigator that helps patients, and their families orient themselves to housing resources, mental health and financial resources.

I am the advocate for my patient’s health when they deal with their employer or insurance companies.

I do all these things and more, alongside everything from newborn care to palliative medicine.

I, like the great majority of family physicians, take pride in our work, and in what we contribute to our patients and the community at large. But Banks do not grant loans for a new clinic based on my contributions to Ontario’s healthcare system. My rent payments do not decrease because of the positive impact I make on my patients’ lives. The salaries of our exceptional staff are not funded by the sound of clanging pots and pans.

Today, to outfit a new clinic with the minimum number of physicians for a FHO requires high 6 figures to 1 million dollars, loaned at 6.95% interest. We guarantee our own lease – we are on the hook for ensuring it gets paid for the entire term. We are responsible for hiring and ensuring our staff are paid a living wage. We invest our own time in making sure the clinic runs. For many community family physicians like me, there is no assistance for any of this from any level of government. No money for staff, no incentives for starting up, no support for logistics. We are in a precarious, failing business model with ever growing administrative burdens patching the system equal to a part-time job. We have been trying to expound on this, and frankly have been completely unsuccessful in this.

You realize that “… there does not seem to be much political will to improve this situation at this time.” Yet, you ask family physicians to work harder expecting a different result from the government.

You state that “With these current barriers and shifts, any new practice can feel fragile or vulnerable to imminent obsolescence.” Yet, you expect new graduates to take on a massive financial risk: long term lease, EMR contracts, and double their already tremendous debt in start-up costs.

You lament that “Instead of acting as beacons of wisdom, encouragement and level-headed advice, we see a growing shift toward inciting everyone to walk out!”. Do you apply this standard to the teachers in Quebec who recently concluded a strike? Are they less dedicated to their students? Do you apply this standard to all groups who organize to make their voices heard?

The authors, Drs. Alam, Gandhi and Mathew made it clear that there are many options available to new family doctors. They warn of the current state of specifically locking into comprehensive family medicine, to ensure that new grads do not put themselves in a position where they will be burnt out early in their career. To me, leadership requires honest conversations, not empty promises, or exploiting the ideals of new family doctors. I find it unethical to sell a romantic vision of what it is like to start and maintain a Family Medicine practice in the current environment. It is a recipe for moral injury when those ideals run flat into the economic realities, as I have experienced.

And frankly, to say to those of us, like myself, still practicing longitudinal family medicine we should be working harder, or we are just doing family practice wrong is demoralizing. It is grossly offensive to my early-mid career family medicine colleagues who have burnt out through great moral struggle and guilt. Disillusioned family physicians who leave longitudinal family practice will not return. The greater harm to the public and to patients is not the Star article that speaks truth to the issue, but the issue itself: that family physicians, whose concerns are being gaslit, continue to leave longitudinal practices.

Dr. Soni Reflects on the Delays in Emergency Rooms

Dr. Deepa Soni, and Emergency Room physician for over twenty years, reflects on the case of a young woman with appendicitis, and the delays in getting her care.

NB: Recently, Julia Malott spoke out on X (formerly known as Twitter) about how terrified she was about Canada’s health care crisis. She wrote how her daughter had not eaten in 18 hours as she continued to wait for surgery for appendicitis. She expressed concern about the lack of the beds and wondered if her daughter would get surgery before the appendix ruptured.

My friend Dr. Soni, who has worked in an Emergency Department for over 20 years, had, as usual, a very thoughtful and well spoken X thread of her own. (Dr. Soni was NOT involved in the care of this young woman). I thank her for allowing me to reproduce her thoughts here.

The only way these stories (about long delays in Emergency rooms) will stop being the norm, is when patients start sharing their experience like this mother did. Only voters can make federal and provincial governments change because votes are the only currency that matter. Doctors and nurses have been raising alarm bells for years without success.

Canada has one of the lowest number of hospital beds of all the OECD countries, around 2.3/1000 people. In comparison countries like Japan, Korea and Germany are around 13/1000.

Graph showing how Canada fourth from the bottom (!) in hospital beds per capita.

Why does this matter? Having low hospital bed numbers means that words like “flu surge“, and “winter surge” — which have been used for decades to explain away long wait times and hallway medicine, are actually not “surges.” Rather, they are the expected backlog in a system that lacks adequate beds and resources.

The population of Canada is increasing and aging. We are about to enter a silver tsunami where a large cohort of our population will be over the age of 65 and many over the age of 85. This will place unprecedented pressures on our health care system.

What happens when the hospital bed capacity is outstripped by the numbers of patients needing care? It means that the elderly patient who needs admission to a hospital bed to recover from a heart attack has no bed to go to and spends days “admitted” in the emergency department. Bureaucrats call these “unconventional spaces.” What they really are, are stretchers.

Photo of admitted patients lying in stretchers in a hallway as no beds available (found on X)

When the vast majority of the emergency department beds are being used to take care of hospital patients, that means that patients that are waiting in the emergency department waiting room, will wait for hours for care, much like this story is describing.

Media needs to scratch beyond the surface and hold government to account. Real solutions are going to require thinking beyond the four-year election cycle. What will our system look like in 20 years? How do you plan for that?

It’s going to require recognizing the backbone of our healthcare system is primary care. Family doctors are overwhelmed by administrative burden, trying to run their offices and taking care of large practises in the community without adequate resources.

Build community infrastructure with resources like palliative care so that people can remain in their homes comfortably in their last days; and sufficient homecare services so that patients can receive antibiotics and other intravenous treatments at home to ease the pressure on hospitals. These services are vastly underfunded and do not have enough staff to properly provide care for everyone that needs it in the community.

It’s going to require building more nursing homes, retirement homes, seniors services and dementia care programs, as our elderly population will be the largest it’s ever been in this country.

Incentivize and properly pay hospital nurses so that we can recruit and retain them to be able to run departments and programs properly. Currently, agency nurses make at least two times as much as a hospital nurse, and this has created instability in the workforce. Governments need to show that they value nurses and the important work that they do.

Creative solutions like interprovincial licensing of doctors and nurses and a National Pharmacare program will help. While the idea of recruiting from other countries sounds like an easy quick fix, it will not solve anything if those newly obtained doctors and nurses find themselves overworked and burning out soon after arriving to Canada. The system problems are going to impact them just as they have impacted those who are already working in the system. This type of strain is what contributes to moral distress and burn out.

The backlog in the emergency department is a reflection of multiple failing areas that create an overall system that is strained beyond capacity. With each passing year, Canada’s healthcare system has become more and more stretched, trying to provide more care to more people, with fewer resources. Throwing Band-Aids at it is like trying to mop up the floor under an overflowing sink instead of trying to figure out how to turn off the tap.

Stories like this one are happening every day in Ontario and all of Canada. Most patients and families are too busy dealing with the acute health problem to take the time to write to their MP/MPP or to go to the media. But when people take the time to bring these stories to light, a critical tipping point will eventually occur where they can no longer be ignored by government. Because votes matter.

No one who went into healthcare wants to work in a system that makes patients feel like this story illuminated. But we need more voices bringing their stories out in the open. It will improve the system for the people working in it, and for the people receiving care within it. And that is better for everyone.

What Would I Do if I Got Sick? I Would go to Turkiye.

NB. I am a consultant for Medicte, a medical tourism firm that connects people with the Acibadem Health Group in Turkiye. I appreciate my two loyal fans may read this to be an “advertorial” – but it does represent how I feel.

Yours truly at an Acibadem Hospital in Turkiye with their team and representatives from Medicte

Recently, Leger released the findings of a survey that polled Canadians on their thoughts about the health care system. 70% of Canadians worried about not being able to get high quality health care. Surprisingly, only 37% thought the health care system was poor – did 63% not need medical care recently? But the number that should demoralize all of us is that only 17% feel the system will improve.

Like everyone else of a certain age, I’m coming to the realization that the one fight I won’t win, is the battle against time. More of my friends and colleagues are developing health issues. While I’m blessed to be in good health, like 83% of Canadians, I realize that the current health care system (which doctors call horrific and inhumane ), will not provide the access and care we should expect as standard in this country. I can only see things getting worse in the near future.

It does not help that I live in the health system every day. I’ve watched patients I really care about suffer in ways that I would not have imagined possible. Young people with cancer not getting treatment for three months. People with joint pain waiting a year for surgery. Patients developing complication after complication while on wait lists to access necessary treatments.

Most heartbreakingly, I see the toll that the burnout of working in such a hellishly damnable health care system is taking on doctors, nurses and other allied health care professionals on a daily basis.

That’s why I recently made the decision that if I, or someone in my family needed health care, I would seek care outside of Canada. I am not alone in this. The data is hard to get at, but going back as far as 2014, between 52,000 to 217,000 Canadians were seeking health care outside of Canada annually.

There are a variety of reasons to seek care outside of Canada, and specifically Türkiye:

Getting immediate care. I could get hip surgery next week, not next year. Cancer patients get all the tests they need done within a week, not three months like I’ve seen.
Getting treatments that are not available in Canada. Canada offers a host of great medical treatments, but many are not covered by government plans. Lap Band surgery is one. New, emerging radiation therapies for pancreatic cancer is another. There are more. All of these are available in Türkiye.
Getting better allied health care support. Canada has GREAT nurses and other allied health care workers. But the system does not let them care for patients the best. Last time I was on call at my hospital, I overheard the nurses talking about how they each had 7 patients to look after for the shift. The safe number for an acute care hospital ward is 5 patients per nurse. We have excellent nurses but if you are constantly working at 40% over capacity, things are not going to go well. At the Acibadem hospitals in Türkiye, they have 4 nurses for 15 patients (3.75 patients per nurse).
More cost effective care. I’m fortunate I can afford to pay out of pocket for care if needed. Worst comes to worst I’ll put off retirement for a couple of years to pay for things if necessary. But even I would have trouble with $200,000 (U.S.!) that B. C. resident Allison Ducluzeau spent on her cancer care. Costs in Türkiye for most procedures I looked at are generally less than half of what it costs in the U.S.
First World Standards for Health Care Treatments. All of the Acibadem hospitals are JCI Accredited (the global leader in health care accreditation agencies). This puts them on par (and in some cases better) than top European hospitals.
Türkiye is a well sought after Medical Tourism destination. Medical Travel Market recently highlighted 12 reasons why Türkiye was so well sought after including cost, world class facilities and cutting edge treatments. 1.2 million people went to Türkiye for medical tourism in 2022, mostly from Europe.

As part of my consulting work, I went on a fact finding tour to Türkiye and visited the Acibadem hospitals. To say my jaw dropped would be an understatement.

The team and I reviewing the process for orthopaedic care with their top spine surgeon.

The hospitals (there are 21 in the Acibadem group) look like hotels. Each room is private. The wards are immaculate. All of the staff were incredibly attentive (and yes, spoke English).

I asked to see the MRI, and the staff wanted to know which one (!). Their approximately 170 bed hospital had THREE MRIs, specialized for different conditions. This is on top of the CT scans, gamma knives (cancer treatment), PET scans etc etc. All of the equipment was brand new. I especially liked the MRI that projected a movie onto the equipment, to help children stay calm during the procedure.

This MRI projects a movie onto the surface to help children (and some adults) stay calm during a claustrophobic procedure

I also ran into a couple of top ranked Turkish footballers (soccer players) while there. The Turks are as crazy about football as we are about hockey. Their top athletes go to the Acibadem group.

But what’s more impressive than the top ranked doctors, nurses and equipment is their philosophy of how to provide health care. If you were to sadly, get cancer, you would see all the specialists you need to see (surgeon, medical oncologist, radiation oncologists etc) on the same day. Any tests you need would be organized sequentially and rapidly over the next couple of days (if not the same day). You would have a full treatment plan within a few days.

Contrast this with Canada where you have to have an appointment with one doctor, then wait x number of weeks to see another then x to see another like my patients currently do. All while the cancer continues to grow.

Also, for the record, I did wind up getting care myself at Acibadem. Bad teeth run in my family, and so I went for a dental check up. The dentist examined me, put in two fillings, got the oral surgeon to come by and took out two teeth that were beyond hope, all during the same visit. This would have taken multiple visits in Canada. You could say I put my money where my mouth is. And yes, the care was excellent.

I appreciate this sounds like an advertorial. But the reality is that more and more Canadians are getting frustrated with the long waits for health care and seeking care outside of Canada. It may have started off with people seeking lower cost cosmetic surgery, but now things like orthopaedic surgery, cancer treatments, organ transplants, dental implants and even cutting edge infertility treatments can be had for those willing to travel.

There is never a guarantee of a successful result with medical treatments anywhere (including Canada). If considering leaving the country for care, people should do their due diligence. Make sure you deal with a reputable firm and first rate hospital.

I’ve made my decision, and I know where I’ll go.

If you or anyone else would like to explore options for out of country health care, contact Medicte for a free consultation.

DFCM at Temerty Faculty of Medicine’s Stunt is DANGEROUS for Physicians AND Patients

I’ve been involved in medical politics for some time and in health care for much longer. I’ve seen a lot of foolish things. And yet, I confess, I’m still dumbfounded when some really smart people come up with a really stupid ideas. I guess I’m just a slow learner.

The most recent of these ideas comes from the Department of Family and Community Medicine (DFCM) at Temerty Faculty of Medicine. (Temerty is the name for the University of Toronto Medical School – and no, I have no idea when or why they changed their name to Temerty). In an attempt to address the crisis in Family Medicine, Drs. Pinto/Kiran and Martin would like the governments to declare a state of emergency in access to primary care.

Do I understand wanting to draw more attention to the crisis in Family Medicine? Of course I do. Family Doctors are planning to leave the field in droves. Compensation for family medicine has failed to keep up with inflation much less given them a raise. The admin burden makes one feel like Sisyphus (In Greek mythology Sisyphus was dammed by the gods to roll a boulder to the top of a hill only to have it roll suddenly back down to the bottom when it got close to the top and thus be forced to roll it up again. A more apt description of the family medicine paperwork burden I have never seen).

Heck across the country our whole health care system is in crisis, not just family medicine. Patients are not getting timely specialist care (some even choosing euthanasia as a result) as well as family practice care, resulting in worsening health care outcomes for all Canadians. We should be screaming about this.

But I honestly don’t think Drs. Pinto/Kiran/Martin (who combined have more letters after their name than the entire alphabet) could possibly have thought this recommendation through. Frankly, I’m genuinely left wondering if they even know what the government declaring “a state of emergency” means. The only way to enact this, is to invoke the Canada Emergency Act.

This Act clearly lays out what governments can do to solve a crisis in any particular area. And it’s not pretty. It includes:

giving the government the “ability to make orders or regulations that are believed, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary…”
Directing specified persons to render essential services…
Regulating the use of specified property, including goods…
The imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravening on any of the measures declared..

In short, having the government declare a state of emergency gives them a whole lotta power to do a whole lotta things. I guarantee you not all of those things will be smart.

No one in their right minds is going to argue with the issues identified in the letter three doctors wrote about:

The crisis in family medicine is real. There has been a lack of investment in primary care. This will get worse. This will cost the health system more money in the future if we fail to fix the problem. And yes, thank goodness somebody other than a cranky cynical old country doctor wants a significant overhaul and feels that “modest changes are not enough”.

But – to tell the government to enact a state of emergency, giving the same bureaucrats who have completely screwed up the health care system for the past thirty years almost unfettered power is not the solution. Let’s look at some of the goals of these three doctors:

If there is a state of emergency – do you know how these pointed headed bureaucrats will take “decisive action” to “ensure every person in their jurisdiction has equitable access”? You think they will licence more physicians? You think they will allow Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) to have strong physician leadership (which is the ONLY thing that has been proven to work in accountable care type organizations like these OHTs)?

I got news for you. The pointy headed bureaucrats will simply mandate zones, unilaterally determine how many patients a doctor must roster, and will make decisions in the interests of “urgency” given the new powers they just got from a state of emergency to show they are doing something.

Say for example the recent situation when Royal Victoria Hospital had to close down their obstetrics service. Hell that Gandhi fellow delivered babies 20 years ago, he probably hasn’t forgotten what to do – send him there to cover so it doesn’t close, he’s only 45 minutes away. Or a hospital about close their ER again – force a local doc who hasn’t worked in ER for 15 years to do so. 7,000 patients without a doctor in a certain town? Have each family doctor take a couple hundred more – even though those docs are already working night and day. (Trust me – these ideas will not sound outlandish to bureaucrats.)

Drs. Pinto/Kiran/Martin know that to make inroads into solving the primary care crisis you need to do three things:

increase the payment to family physicians to reflect the work they do. Decades of sub inflationary wage increases (cuts by another name) have made it untenable to run a family physicians office. Pay family docs more and don’t be afraid to say so.
The OHTs actually have potential for improving health care, but they need strong family physician leadership – not any other health care professional (and certainly not bureaucrats) – family physicians need to lead this. (The OMA has plenty of evidence on this and has shared with the government and will share with you).
- Interchangeable IT technology that allows easy access to patient data and thus minimizes the admin burden.

The only reason I can think of for doing this is some sort of political stunt to embarrass the politicians. Heck I agree politicians should be embarrassed for how badly they’ve messed things up. But to do it in a way that gives them more power (not less) instead of demanding a true collaboration with family physicians doesn’t strike me as a very smart move at all.

OMA, CMA and CCFP Should put MEMBERS, not the Corporation, First

My thanks to Dr. Paul Hacker, pictured here, for his contributions to this blog. Dr. Hacker is a former Vice-Chair of OMA Council and a former member of the SGFP Executive. He’s a strong advocate for physicians interests, exceptionally well versed in governance and bylaws, and good friend.

As we approach election season for the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), many members have regularly brought up one issue to me. Is it true that the the Board Directors for the OMA are all asked to sign “an oath of loyalty to OMA central and not the members?”. The question is usually asked with incredulity and a tone suggesting a disappointing response.

The OMA is a corporation, as is the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the College of Family Practitioners of Canada (CFPC). There are many, many good reasons for these organizations to be incorporated, including preferential tax rates, some indemnification for members from assuming the debts of the corporation in case of financial difficulty and a requirement that bylaws and Boards adhere to certain standards.

If you think your membership fees are high now – just wait till you see what they would be if these organizations did not incorporate.

Good corporate governance demands that Board Directors of any corporation put the fiduciary interests of the corporation first. So yes, when I became an OMA Board Director, I did have to sign an agreement saying I would act in the best interests of the corporation. “Oath of loyalty” is a bit hyperbolic, but Directors are legally bound by their fiduciary duties.

In order to help educate Board members on their role, governance training is provided to them when they assume their role at the OMA. I assume this is also the case for the CMA and CFPC. The governance training is usually provided by some hot shot consultant (we got some guru from Rotman Management). Given the consultant’s list of degrees/publications after their name, there was an understandable (but still irksome) tendency for the staff at the OMA to value their opinions on Board matters over some Directors.

But this whole thing is frankly a crock when we are dealing with a membership representing organization (I told our consultant that). Fiduciary responsibility as Director of a for profit corporation whose goal is to increase share value is fine. But it’s quite another when the raison d’être of a corporation is to be a non-profit whose purpose is to advance the interests and needs of the members.

Let’s look at some examples.

I previously wrote about the atrocious 2016 tPSA between the OMA and the Ontario. What I didn’t mention is that that tPSA was actually really good for the OMA as a corporation.

No seriously. The agreement, if passed would have ended a period of internecine warfare between the dismal Kathleen Wynne Ontario government and the OMA, saving a bunch of money. More importantly, that agreement also created some bilateral tables where the OMA could be a joint partner and “co-manage” aspects of the health care system with the government.

There was to be a table on recommendations on physician supply and distribution. One to “co-manage” expenditures of the Physicians Services Budget. A commitment to work together on health reform and much more. In short, that agreement would have given the corporation of the OMA more power and a say in the health care system. All the OMA had to do was ruthlessly stab its members in the back.

Yet look what happened in the aftermath. The then Board was thoroughly repudiated in the ensuring vote. The first non-confidence motion in a OMA Board Executive occurred. Multiple special meetings were called. The resignation of the executive led to a protracted period where the OMA had no leadership or spokesperson. This is good for the corporation?

Want more? Let’s look at the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). In 2018 the CMA surprisingly announced that it was selling MD Management, which many of its members had relied on for their retirement planning. It’s hard not to see why they did it. The CMA got upwards of $2 billion dollars for the deal. The corporation of the CMA clearly benefited significantly and, unless it is financially managed by the same crew that ran Enron (remember them?) – will never go bankrupt and will live in perpetuity.

All it had to do is, you guessed it, stab its members in the back in a move that was widely viewed with a sense of betrayal. The outcome? In 2018 when Dr. Gigi Osler took over as president of the CMA, it boasted 85,000+ members. When Dr. Lafontaine took over in 2022, that number dropped to 68,000. I asked a friend of mine who is quite high up the chain at the CMA what that number is now and she told me she tried to find out, but apparently “they don’t give that number out any more.” Hmm.

NB: I realize correlation does not equal causation, but I find it interesting that the CMA stopped saying how many members it had after a grumpy miserable old coot pointed out the drop in numbers last year. The Medical Post often reprints my blogs – perhaps one of their intrepid reporters could ask the CMA how many members they have today.

Once again, the question needs to be asked, how does a drop in members truly benefit the CMA? How can they honestly say they “champion the medical profession” when they have fewer and fewer doctors as members?

We are seeing the same thing unfold with the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC). They recently announced the truly idiotic suggestion that it was fair to raise their membership fees by 7 %, and the even dumber suggestion that the residency should increase to 3 years from two. They are now embroiled in a serious controversy over this and their annual meeting promises to be a mess. (Both of these moves would benefit the corporate CFPC of course – but not the members or the public).

The pattern is abundantly clear. When Directors of membership corporations don’t put members first (not the corporation), the corporation will suffer. I hope whoever runs for Director of the OMA has the intestinal fortitude to politely confront whatever “governance consultant” is brought on, and tell them just that.

We Should Return to the Health Care Model Tommy Douglas Envisoned

In 2004, the CBC surveyed Canadians to see who would take the title of “The Greatest Canadian.” The winner was former Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas. Douglas is widely, and correctly viewed as the founder of socialized health care in Canada.

His selection speaks not only to the dramatic impact he has had on this country, but just how much Canadians value health care. I will dispense with calling it “free health care” because that just isn’t true. Our tax dollars pay for it. But those dollars are supposed to provide care for all those who need it.

Tommy Douglas, the Greatest Canadian, and the founder Medicare.

As our health care system continues to collapse all around us, it’s worthwhile, I think, to look back at the type of health care that Douglas envisioned. The truth of the matter is, that it is quite a bit different than what we have today. And I think, is not at all what Douglas would want.

According to “The Canadian Encyclopedia“, Douglas’ views on health care were shaped by a number of events in his early life.

As a six year old, Douglas fell and cut his knee. Unfortunately, he developed osteomyelitis ( a bone infection) and the consequences hampered him for his entire life. He had numerous operations and at one point doctors in Winnipeg considered amputating his leg. Fortunately, a well know orthopaedic surgeon (Dr. R. J. Smith) offered to operate for free, so long as Douglas allowed medical students to watch. This saved Douglas’ leg, and helped convince him that health care should be readily accessible to everyone.

Later, as a young man, he moved to Weyburn Saskatchewan, and was dismayed by the complete lack of medical care. He buried a 14 year old girl who died of a ruptured appendix because she couldn’t get medical care. He also vividly told of burying two young family men in their 30s, who simply couldn’t afford to get medical care.

These experiences helped to shape his belief that we could do better as a country. I would suggest that all Canadian should share the belief that one should not have to choose between going bankrupt (or dying) and getting basic medical care.

As premier of Saskatchewan, he implemented the Saskatchewan Hospital Services Plan covering the needs of patients admitted to hospital. In 1961, he implemented the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act, that provided medical insurance for all residents of Saskatchewan. This of course eventually led to other provinces and the Federal Government adopting similar programs.

The wording is important, and I think speaks to what Douglas was trying to achieve, and frankly, where I believe we need to go back to. The plan was “Insurance”. With all the benefits, AND RESPONSIBILITIES that go along with insurance.

Here’s the thing. In Canada, ever since the Canada Health Act, we have really deviated far from what Douglas really envisioned. He never ever wanted a system where you could go to any health care provider and get assessed without any responsibility on your part. Indeed, he spoke to that quite eloquently in the Saskatchewan Legislature on October 13, 1961:

“I want to say that I think there is a value in having every family and every individual make some individual contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility. I would say to the members of this House that even if we could finance the plan without a per capita tax, I personally would strongly advise against it. I would like to see the per capita tax so low that it is merely a nominal tax, but I think there is a psychological value in people paying something for their cards. It is something which they have bought; it entitles them to certain services. We should have the constant realization that if those services are abused and costs get out of hand, then of course the cost of the medical care is bound to go up.”

Douglas intuitively grasped that if people perceive something as “free” they will start to lose their sense of using it responsibly. That’s why the initial Medical Insurance Act was just that. A form of insurance funded by the taxpayer, and like all forms of insurance, there was a deductible and reasonable limitations.

People were able to now access health care, for a small fee that allowed them to recognize that they too had to take some responsibility for how they used the system. They also had to realize that not everything was covered. Basic health care yes. Options like wanting, say, a private room instead of a ward bed in hospital – well that would be an extra.

There are many problems with the Canada Health Act. But the most fundamental is that it is based on the premise that you can endlessly get something (in this case health care) for nothing. Gutless politicians (from all parties) continue to promote this mantra in never ending attempts to woo votes as opposed to, you know, actually telling the people the truth. Namely, that people should take some responsibility for how they use the health care system.

By continuing to perpetuate the the lack of accountability, our cowardly politicians have created a culture of entitlement instead of a culture of empowerment. Many (not all) people believe that they should be able to get all manner of testing because it’s “free”. I’ve been blessed to have a very pragmatic practice in general, but even I have had to tell people that I will not be ordering the serum rhubarb levels their naturopath wanted because it would be “free” if I ordered it instead of them, or the full body MRI that some “wellness consultant” asked for.

It’s time to bring some patient accountability back to health care. And the first step in that would be to go back to the model that Tommy Douglas had proposed all along.

Dear OMA Board Member, About That Mandate for Negotiations

Dear OMA Board Member,

I read, with interest Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Board Chair Dr. Cathy Faulds update last Friday. There’s the usual information in there about the goings on at the OMA (which sadly not enough members pay attention to, though they should). Critically for most members however, was this comment by Dr. Faulds:

“The board will hold a special meeting at the end of September to finalize the negotiations mandate for use by the Negotiations Task Force (NTF)..”

This is a big step in the negotiations process and to truly understand that, members need to understand what a “mandate” is. Allow me to briefly expand on what Dr. Faulds wrote. The short version is that a mandate is the minimum offer the NTF can accept from the government. If the government offers an increase that is equal to or exceeds the mandate, then the NTF will automatically accept that offer on behalf of the Board.

The corollary to that, which some Board members did not understand when I was on the Board, is that if the mandate is met, and the NTF accepts – then it will automatically mean that you as a Board have to accept the offer as well. As per Board rules, you will then have to endorse the government offer to the membership. You can’t very well tell the NTF “you must achieve XYZ”, and if they do achieve XYZ, turn around and say it’s not enough.

Therefore, it is incumbent on you as a Board, to make sure the mandate is sufficient for the membership as a whole, given the times we live in, and the environment around us.

To that end, without spilling specific secrets, I will state that there was quite a lot of discussion about what an acceptable mandate was during my time on the Board. There were some Board Members who wanted to be “reasonable” and some who wanted to take a hard line and keep the mandate high.

I would, respectfully, point out that for the most part, mandates are never met. Usually the NTF comes back to the Board with “we tried – but this is the best we could get” and presents that to the Board. To be clear, I’m referring to all labour negotiations in general, not just physician ones. Negotiations Legal Counsel told us this last time, just ask them. Whatever you (or any Board) sets as the initial mandate, there is a strong chance the NTF will come back to you later and ask you to lower that mandate.

You will need to keep that in mind when setting your mandate.

To that end, I would encourage you to recognize that the time really has never been better to set the bar extremely high for the NTF mandate. It’s not just that physicians are considering leaving the profession. It’s not just that health care is collapsing all around us. It’s not just the ongoing problems with not just recruiting, but retaining physicians. You already know about all of those issues in excruciating detail.

No, the reality is that we now also have some significant competition for physicians within Canada from other provinces. And I mean strongly significant.

Not sure how many of you have seen this summary form the recently approved Physicians Services Agreement (PSA) in Nova Scotia. On the surface there would appear to be a fairly minimal 10% raise over four years. A deep dive however shows significant add ons like improved parental benefits, funding for overhead, funding to hire allied health care professionals, funding for admin work, enhanced FTE and income stabilization for specialists and so on. That plus a retirement fund!

Similarly, in Manitoba, their recent agreement was widely hailed as a landmark and a game changer. I spoke to a friend of mine from Manitoba who confirmed that it too contains things like a retention bonus ($21,000 and higher for those in rural communities), funding for admin time, funding for new models of care, additional funding for those patients who are older and an equity lens applied to fees. In short, the increase is widely viewed to be in the double digits percentage wise per year.

Look, I know the NTF knows all the stuff I’m pointing out (but others who read my open letter may not). I also would acknowledge that Dr. Mizdrak is a fine chair for the NTF and is (in a very good way and said with total admiration on my part) a real pitbull on behalf of the profession. I also have full confidence that the NTF did it’s due diligence in reviewing the many asks by the leaders of all the specialties.

But at the end of the day, it is up to you, dear Board Member to set the minimum acceptable deal (mandate) and it is up to you dear Board Member to ensure that Ontario remains a competitive place to attract physicians.

To that end, you must ensure that if there is a negotiated agreement, it must at least equal the increase in Manitoba or Nova Scotia (whichever is higher). Anything less would, quite frankly, be rightly viewed as the Board selling the profession out. (If we wind up going to arbitration, that’s a different story – but at least we will have gone there because the Board refused to take a sub optimal deal).

All of which is a long way of saying that since it is quite likely that an initial mandate may not be met, it is incumbent on the Board to set a mandate for the NTF that is HIGHER than what was achieved in Manitoba/Nova Scotia. This will allow for the usual process of the NTF having to come back and say what parts can be achieved and what can’t, and allow some wiggle room.

If you set the bar lower, well, frankly, I have to wonder how you can justify saying that you are advocating for the Doctors of Ontario.

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor.

#Docxit on the Rise, Means More Trouble for Our Health System

Acknowledgement: I want to thank my friend Dr. Graham Slaughter for coming up with the term “Docxit”. Graham is not only a brilliant internist, but is incredibly talented at wordplay and music. Plus, he has really thick, lustrous wavy hair!

A bunch of stuff has come to my attention recently in my social life and on my social media feeds. I’m saddened by all of these and even more saddened by what this means for the residents of Canada.

Item 1: a friend of mine in her early 40s confided she is going to give up her family practice. She loves her patients, but the admin burden and the poor remuneration make it no longer feasible to do this work.

Item 2: two more friends of mine, also in their 40s, are actively making plans to leave medicine altogether. One of them told me she knew four family physicians (all in their 40s) who left this year alone, and two others in their 30s who have moved out of country.

Item 3: I came across a social media post from a friend of mine from my days in OMA leadership announcing he was now a real estate agent. Amongst the people congratulating him on passing his real estate exams were other physicians also saying they were look at ways of getting out of medicine.

Item 4: The family health organization I’m part of in the Collingwood area has gone from 52 family physicians to 47 as some have retired without finding a replacement, despite trying.

Provincially of course, there are many more such stories. Three family doctors in the Ottawa area left their practices earlier this year. Twenty per cent of family doctors in Toronto are planning on closing their practices in the next five years. The list goes on.

It’s not just Ontario. British Columbia is facing a “dire picture” when it comes to family physicians. Doctors Manitoba, through their excellent (now past) president Dr. Candace Bradshaw, pointed out the need for more doctors on more than one occasion. I could probably find articles from every province highlighting issues with recruiting and retaining physicians, but you get the point.

Doctors, it seems, are looking at leaving the profession (for either retirement or other jobs) in alarmingly high numbers. This phenomenon, dubbed Docxit by Dr. Slaughter, is happening at a time when our health system can arguably least afford it (if it ever really could).

This is particularly a concern as our younger physicians seem to be more likely to quit. A report by Statistics Canada suggested that up to 47% of physicians with less that 5 years experience are intending to leave or change jobs in the next three years. To be clear, they are not intending to retire, just do something other than what they’ve trained for.

This phenomenon is not just present in Canada. The American Medical Association is concerned about “Medicine’s great resignation” as 1 in 5 physicians in the U.S. are also planning an exit in the next two years.

The situation in Europe would appear to be even more dire. The Politico article I linked to states that seven million people in France do not have a family doctor, with more family doctors retiring than setting up a practice. There is a shortage of two million health care workers in Europe. Brexit has badly worsened the shortage of doctors in the United Kingdom. Spain is running out of doctors. And so on.

Once again, those leaving appear to be over represented by younger physicians. It’s so bad that European Junior Doctors (an association of younger doctors in continental Europe) issued a press release warning the health care system there was going to collapse.

What’s going on then? Why are so many doctors leaving? I mean, despite the few (but loud) vociferous miscreants on social media, being a physician is still the most respected profession in the world (at 83% we’re tied with farmers and scientists). Studies show that Canadians trust their doctors to make the right choice for them and are afforded a measure of leeway that politicians and bureaucrats must surely be envious of. And you know that stereotype about first generation South Asian immigrants always wanting their kids to grow up to be doctors because of their status in society – it’s true (trust me, I and many of my friends lived it).

But the reality is that over the past ten years, practicing medicine has devolved to where it is no longer about caring for patients (which is what all good doctors want to do). In Canada, it’s been about fighting bureaucracy. With doctors now spending up to 19 hours a week doing paperwork (that’s a half a work week for most people) or fighting nameless, pointy headed, basement cellar cubicle dwelling bureaucrats to get them to actually pay for surgery that a patient needs, medicine is now more about who can do paperwork better than who can promote health care better.

In the United States, the rise of corporate entities eating up private medical practices has fuelled an explosion of a different kind of paper work, all with its own stresses. One study suggested that each physician spends almost $83,000 U.S. a year interacting with insurance companies.

Add to that the ludicrous number of options and waivers and liabilities and I sometimes think it’s easier to understand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity than it would be to understand U. S. Health Care. Dr. Glaucomflecken does an excellent job of explaining the frustration here:

I don’t know what the reasons for #Docxit are in Europe, but I imagine they are similar. The over bureaucratization of medicine is taking its toll everywhere. As was stated in the Politico article:

“At its core, it’s really that there is the perception that potentially medicine is no longer an attractive career choice, a choice for people to stay in for a whole career. And this will really endanger the sustainability of health care systems in future,” – Sarada Das, secretary-general for the Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME)

There are so many crises in our health care system right now, it’s honestly hard to keep track. But two things are for certain. First, we won’t be able to fix health care without retaining doctors. Second, as more doctors opt for Docxit, we would appear to be doing a lousy job at retention.

Never Been a Better Time to Slash Bureaucracy, Inefficiency in Health Care

Recently, I was honoured to have been invited to participate in a debate hosted by the London and Area Muslim Healthcare Professionals group. The topic was a current hot button issue in health care:

“ Integrating private funding into Canada’s publicly funded health care system will help improve access, quality and equity“

I wound up having to speak against the motion, even though I actually do support the concept of increasing private sector involvement in health care with strong oversight. (I can already hear the usual suspects alleging I believe in “Two Tier American Style Health Care!”)

It’s a challenge to come up with ways to advocate for a position you don’t truly believe in, particularly when your opponent is the incomparable Dr. Saadia Hameed Jan. This woman is brilliant. Became a physician in an extremely patriarchal country (Pakistan), was an anchor on their national television service, then wound up doing more training in Canada and rose to the ranks of associate Professor at Western all the while maintaining a family practice. I had to be on my toes for this one.

Yours truly, and the amazing Dr. Saadia Hameed Jan

In the process of trying to figure out what to say, one fact continued to stand out in my mind. While one can argue about the merits of private funding, no reasonable person with any familiarity with our health care system could argue that it’s efficient.

During the debate I brought up the story of a patient of mine with cancer. She needed to see a surgeon, a medical oncologist and a radiation oncologist. When she got to the surgeon, the surgeon couldn’t access the actual imaging I had done (did have the written report, but any surgeon will tell you they want to see the pictures). The medical oncologist didn’t get the pathology report (fax machine blurred) and radiation oncology didn’t get a couple of things either.

All of which meant my patient had completely unnecessary delays in treatment. We all know that delays in treatment lead to worsened health care outcomes.

Yours truly desperately trying to hold his own at the debate.

Did the situation eventually resolve and my patient start treatment? Yes of course, after some running around and re-faxing of information and so on, but the point is that there was rather a lot of wasted time.

And that really was the genesis of my position in the debate. We have so many inefficiencies in our health care system right compared to other countries and all of that leads to waste.

Let’s look at a comparable patient in Turkiye. (Full disclosure – I do consulting work for Medicte, a medical tourism firm that provides cost effective health care services for Canadians in Turkiye). In Turkiye, my patient would have her entire health history accessible to her via eNabiz, an app on her phone that’s free to all citizens of Turkiye and allows them access to their health records. On going to see the surgeon, she would have been asked to consent to the surgeon looking at her health files, which would have allowed him, through his own software, to look at the images directly. The two oncologists could have gotten everything they needed right away as well.

Now take this patient, and multiple by 40 million Canadians, and just think of how much better everything in health care would work if we had such a system. No more specialists not getting full information. No more pharmacies losing prescriptions. No more need to repeat tests because you can’t access the tests that were done a short time ago.

Dr. Jan eloquently defending her position at our debate. (I cropped out the image of me sweating buckets!)

The really frustrating thing is that our politicians have known all along just how inefficient our health system is. Heck, Matthew Lister, a top health systems executive and now consultant wrote back in 2011 (!) that our health system had far too many bureaucrats. Back then we had 10 times as many health care bureaucrats per capita as Germany (!). Having watched health care devolve over the past decade, I dare say that ratio is worse now.

Just one example (albeit an important one) is the mess that is the digital health system in Ontario. The Ministry of Health has a digital health branch. Then you have a separate government funded arms length agency eHealth. But wait, there’s yet ANOTHER government funded agency, OntarioMD. This is complete nonsense. You don’t need three agencies to run digital health. Get rid of two of them already and have one unified vision for digital health.

I met with all three agencies during my term on the Ontario Medical Association Board and while it’s true that they are all staffed by nice people (except for one bureaucrat who’s a grade A prick), the reality is they often had competing visions for health IT and frankly, weren’t able to articulate a clear reason for their existence, or a vision for the province.

Now multiply this by all the other areas in health care and you get my drift. As Lister wrote:

“Our current health-care processes are lethargic, inefficient and unproductive. Excessive approvals (“courage in numbers,” in the words of one health-care administrator) hinder decision-making. Overproduction of documentation was cited as a necessary waste to accommodate the whims of bureaucrats.“

Health Systems and High Performance Operations Executive, Matthew Lister

This is why we have ridiculous situations in Canada like that of Christine Kaschuba, who’s had to wait years for badly needed scoliosis surgery, and now finds that she may not get it at all because the bureaucrats can’t decide whether or not to pay for the procedure.

Look, I realize that Canadians value our health care system and as such are always going to have strong opinions about the role of private companies in health care. But if we value health care so much, we should also hold our politicians to account, and ask them why we waste so much money on needless bureaucrats in the first place. Who would object to a more efficient health care system, where money is spent on doctors and nurses, as opposed to the loathsome bureaucrats who contribute to Ms. Kaschuba’s suffering.

Dr. Katherine Smart, past president of the Canadian Medical Association, said last year that the health care system is “collapsing all around us“. Surely if that’s the case, there has never been a better time for our politicians to show the courage, leadership and chutzpah needed to re-organize and reduce the health care bureaucracy and transform our health care system. Is that really too much to ask?