Negotiations – Page 2 – justanoldcountrydoctor

Will the OMA Learn Lessons from OHIP’s Latest Attack on Doctors?

Last Friday (May 2), in what was a classic Friday afternoon bureaucratic dump, the OHIP bureaucrats at the Ministry of Health announced that they wouldn’t be paying the full amount of back pay owed Ontario’s doctors, as per the arbitration award. This was a unilateral decision on their part. It was contrary to what was in a signed agreement, and the OMA Board was notified at the last minute. (OMA CEO Kim Moran’s email is attached to the bottom of this blog). The bureaucrats promptly ran away an hid for the weekend hoping this issue would go away (kind of like how Sam Bennett cowardly hid from the press after putting an elbow to Leafs goalie Anthony Stolarz head).

This is, in my opinion, the latest attack on physicians as a whole from Ministry of Health (MOH) bureaucrats, who clearly are more interested in trench warfare than working co-operatively with Ontario’s doctors to improve health care for the citizens of Ontario. Don’t believe me? Consider the following:

The bureaucrats had the option of realizing that provinces like Manitoba/BC/Saskatchewan and even Alberta(!) recognized the need to work with their doctors and come up with a funding formula for them. Instead they chose to drag Ontario’s physicians through a protracted (going on three years now) and highly antagonistic arbitration/negotiations process.

Not only that, in response to now multiple stories of people lining up to find a family doctor in the press, their response was that there was “no concern” about the shortage of comprehensive family care physicians. (Seriously, how out of touch must they be to think that that type of Orwellian double speak is going to work in Canada).

People lined up hoping to get a family doctor in Walkerton. Photo originally posted in the farmers forum.

Frankly, this inept, combative and dismissive treatment of physicians is just par for the course for this bunch of bureaucrats. It saddens me, but it doesn’t surprise me.

No blame for this decision should fall to the OMA. They did negotiate a signed agreement (as per Ms. Moran’s email) and they clearly were not notified about the unilateral change until far too late. So the unilateral action is not their fault.

But….

What the OMA can, and should be held accountable for is how they proceed from here.

I don’t want to seem overly difficult here. If I truly was an obstinate person, I’d try to get a job at the Ministry of Health – perhaps on their Negotiations Team. The reality is that I actually have a long history of working co-operatively with government to improve health care in my neck of the woods.

I’m serious. In 2001 I helped bring in the first stage of Primary Care Reform called the Family Health Group. In 2004 I was one of the lead physicians who brought in a capitation model of payment for family physicians (it was initially a Family Health Network and it eventually evolved into a Family Health Organization). From 2007 -2013 I was the founding Chair of the Georgian Bay Family Health Team and From 2013-2015 I was the Health Links lead physician in my area.

And in each of these roles I worked closely and co-operatively with government to try to improve the health care needs of the patients in my area.

But – in those days, the bureaucrats wanted to work with doctors. They wanted to co-operate to improve health care and they were genuinely concerned about the lack of family physicians providing comprehensive care. They didn’t want to play power games with physicians or harass them or do dumb things like the current crop just did.

It’s important for the OMA to (finally) realize that there really is no hope that they can work with the current lot. They’ve already dragged us through three miserable years of negotiation/arbitration and fought us (thankfully often times stupidly – as even the Arbitrator pointed out) – for the sake of…….. I don’t know why really. Maybe it’s a power play? Maybe there are just bullies?

Recognizing the obstinance of the MOH bureaucrats is why I was proud (and still am) to have my name on an Op-Ed in the Toronto Star last year advising Family Medicine Residents to NOT start a practice in Ontario at this time. But I have to tell you the blowback from the OMA was saddening to me. I will not mention names – but one senior exec told me that the OMA was working well with the Government. Worse, one senior physician leader texted me the following:

Text from a very senior physician leader at the OMA

Remember – at the time this text was sent to me – we had already been locking horns at the negotiations table for two years and the government had done absolutely nothing to solve the family medicine crisis. Perhaps the physician leader felt the relationship was “best ever” because at least they weren’t sabotaging doctors left right and centre like the abhorrent Eric Hoskins did.

Despite all of that, there was some movement forward with arbitration. While no where near what other provinces got, it at least recognized the need to fund health care better, and provided hope for funding for offices, clinics, and frankly other badly needed resources.

Now the MOH has decided unilaterally to not pay, or pay whenever they feel like it, so we are back to – do NOT start to work in Ontario.

At any rate – as mentioned, while the OMA cannot be judged on decisions by the Ministry, what the organization does next will be telling. Will they finally recognize that the current lot of bureaucrats simply cannot be dealt with by reason? Will they recognize that physicians are essentially being bullied by these ruffians and the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them? Will they take legal action (according to Ms. Moran’s email – there was a signed agreement which the MoH is now in violation of)?

I don’t know the answer to any of the above. But I can only hope that the current Board recognizes that there is no hope of working in good faith with this lot of bureaucrats and that strong, frankly militant actions, are needed to support the members.

Addendum: After I published my original blog, an anonymous colleague asked that I publish a link to a survey about this issue. I’ve therefore appended my blog and ask all Ontario physicians to click on the link below and honestly reply to the questions:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/W2ZPMCC

Re-Post: Hoskins Won’t Survive The Mess He’s Made Of Ontario Health Care

NB. The following is a re-print of a blog I wrote for the Huffington Post, published originally on July 10, 2017. It’s being republished here mostly for my own record keeping.

Recently, one of my medical school classmates (now a cardiologist) was awarded the Society of Thoracic Surgeons top rating for patient care outcomes. A great honour for her, and well deserved. Unfortunately for the rest of us, she practices in South Dakota, one of the many physicians who left Ontario during the protracted battles with Ontario Governments in the 1990s.

Back then, as I mentioned in my first blog, many health ministers continued to insist that physicians in Ontario were the highest paid in all of North America. Yet we lost physicians in droves. The reality is that while physicians wanted to be paid a fair wage (who doesn’t?), what they really wanted was to have a say in how health care was delivered and be able to advocate for their patients.

So when the then Ontario government of Bob “Super Elite” Rae made unilateral decisions about health care, physicians left for jurisdictions where they were paid less (according to then Health Ministers Frances Lankin and Ruth Grier). But at least they had a say in how health care was delivered.

I mention this because it appears that current Ontario Health Minister “Unilateral Eric”Hoskins and his Deputy Health Minister Bob Bell have been unable to grasp this fundamental concept. Hoskins (and, to a lesser extent, Bell) have based their whole political strategy on portraying the dispute in the media as one of doctors wanting endless sums of money. If only the doctors would take less, the health-care system would improve. They appear unable to grasp the fact that doctors VALUE the ability to advocate for their patients and contribute to health care decision making.

From a purely political point of view, the strategy had some benefits for Hoskins and Bell. They were able to pass both the Patients First Act and the Protecting Patients Act. There was muted public response because they were able to portray physician opposition to these Acts as physicians protecting their incomes. The fact that the Patients First Act does nothing but increase bureaucracy and that the Protecting Patients Act actually violates Charter Rights of all health-care workers, and will likely be the focus of a Charter challenge, meant nothing to Hoskins and Bell. Good PR in the face of mounting, repeated, ongoing evidence of the collapsing health-care system was all they wanted.

Surely the Hoskins/Bell duo thought their troubles were behind them when the OMA ratified the BA framework. Not so.

It must therefore have come as a shock to Hoskins and Bell when, after giving Physicians Binding Arbitration (BA), physicians actually increased their attacks on the Liberal Government mismanagement of the health-care system. Now to be clear, giving BA is not the same as awarding a contract. The Ontario Medical Association still has to negotiate a contract for physicians.

But central to Hoskins and Bell’s way of thinking was that all physicians cared about is money. And the spectre of BA does force both parties to negotiate fairly.

Also in fairness, it’s pretty evident that Hoskins himself didn’t want to give physicians BA. Not only did he deride physicians for asking for it and fight it in cabinet, but when the Ontario government sent a press release indicating they want to return to negotiations with the OMA with the first order of business being to develop a BA framework, it came from the premier’s office, not Hoskins’ office.

Regardless, surely the Hoskins/Bell duo thought their troubles were behind them when the OMA ratified the BA framework. Not so.

Wait Time Series: Cataract surgery patients are finding themselves on longer #waitlists as funding fails to meet demand in Ontario. #ONpoli pic.twitter.com/Nh466RND1k

— Ont. Medical Assoc. (@OntariosDoctors) July 5, 2017

Since then, the OMA has become even more aggressive in its attacks on the Liberals. Have a look at their Twitter feed where they attack wait times for cataract surgery and joint replacement surgery.

Also, a grassroots group of doctors have now begun tweeting multiple barbs at the Liberals. Saying that doctors are required to put the pieces of health care together, they’ve used inventive and creative images to drive home the point that the Liberals don’t know what they are doing in health care.

Finally, OMA President Dr. Shawn Whatley openly wrote in his blog that physicians need to be champions, not doormats, and fight for health care for their patients. Surely poor Hoskins and Bell never expected this when they actually gave the OMA a path to a fair contract via BA. Goes to show you just how much they misjudged physicians’ desire to advocate for their patients and for a fair health-care system for all of us.

Hoskins and Bell are now, as the old joke goes, officially “post turtles.” This joke compares a (usually inept) politician to a turtle balancing on a fence post. You know he didn’t get there by himself, he doesn’t belong there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, and you just want to help the poor thing get off the post.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne basically has little choice now. Hoskins and Bell are just too easy targets for the mess that they’ve made of health care and the way they’ve badly misread physicians passion for protecting their patients. The differences are irreconcilable.

Hoskins is the easier of the two to deal with. Wynne needs to shuffle her cabinet and move Hoskins on to minister of sanitation or something.

Bell, being an employee, has certain rights and can’t just be fired. However, the anonymous surveys done by Quantum Transformation Technologies indicating how unhappy his own bureaucrats are should be enough evidence for Wynne to order a formal administrative review of the senior management team at the ministry of health. Maybe they can be salvaged with administrative coaching.

But what’s clear is that as the health system fails, Wynne needs front line physicians to help put its pieces back together. Wynne needs to regain their trust. The way to do that is to bring tangible change to the leadership of the ministry of health.

OMA Does a Disservice to Members with Veiled Threats to Board Candidates

OMA Elections will soon be upon us. This year the possibility of significant change to the organization exists as half of all physician Board Director positions are up for grabs. A review of the OMAs election page shows that there are 58 (!) candidates running for 4 Board positions.

My three loyal readers know that I have long felt that the first and foremost responsibility of the OMA is member advocacy. Many have heard me say time and time again that you cannot have a high functioning health care system without happy, healthy and engaged physicians. The OMA needs to consistently and effectively promote physicians.

Unfortunately the government of the day continues to disrespect physicians by forcing us into a never ending arbitration process. It also, despite the correct warnings of the OMA, continues to expand the scope of practice of non-physicians. I therefore wanted to see which of the Board candidates would be willing to take a more aggressive approach to this issue. So on a bunch of Social Media forums, I posted a request for all Board Candidates to sign a pledge if elected.

#medtwitter Are you a candidate for Board Director of @OntariosDoctors? There are 58 candidates for 4 positions. In order to help me choose my preferred type of candidate – there is a pledge I'm asking all candidates to sign. DM me for details. (spam DMs will be blocked)
— Dr. Sohail Gandhi, MD (@drmsgandhi) December 24, 2024

What exactly was this “pledge”? Was it a demand to remove the compulsory dues that all physicians have to pay to the OMA? Was it to split the OMA into two organizations- one for specialists and one for family doctors like they have in Quebec? A demand to fire certain staff?

Nope. It was a pledge to get data on how much allied health care providers (in this case NPs) cost the health care system when they try to do the work of family physicians. See below:

Now, did I think the culture of the OMA, that has been put in place by and is overseen by the current Board, would be happy with this? Of course not. Despite what my kids tell me, I’m not that out of touch. I expected some sort of push back suggesting this was (in their view) inappropriate.

But I confess I was taken aback by not only the factual errors in their response, but what quite frankly can only reasonably be perceived to be a veiled threat to myself and Board candidates. Here’s a copy of what I got:

The first factual error is to conflate the governance transformation (which I supported, and still do) with the elections process. The governance transformation was about reducing the size of the Board, and making it electable by and therefore responsible to the membership as a whole. This is opposed to the mishmash of ways people got on the Board before. It was also about sunsetting OMA Council (which had long served it’s purpose) and putting in a better, more co-operative General Assembly system, along with a Priorities and Leadership group to advance the needs of the members.

I did, and continue to support all of that (trust me, the old system was much worse). BUT – that is completely separate from the elections process itself. The intense over regulation of what candidates can and cannot say or how they can act during elections is NOT governance transformation, it’s micromanagement.

The second error is to suggest that it is because of my previous role at the OMA that I am “viewed as a leader”. Apart from the obvious fact that I have a bunch of detractors, the blunt reality is that there are a whole lot of ex-OMA Presidents out there who would not have influence because of the title itself. They have influence because of who they are/what they advocate for/actions they take outside of any past title.

The email to OMA Board Director candidates was almost as bad:

The underlying message is quite clear. Sure you can run for Board Director. BUT, if in OUR opinion, you “campaign”, or take a position WE don’t like, or speak out of turn – WE disqualify you. Intentionally or not, it creates the impression that the organization only wants a certain kind of Board Director. Not a strong independent type who can think on their own, and, dare I say it, take a bold stance that perhaps requires come chutzpah (like signing the pledge would!) But rather a benign, meek, Board Director – who will simply rubber stamp what’s been presented to them.

Unacceptably, in my view, is the more subtle threat of damaging our careers. The comment that this is”not in keeping with OMA’s code of conduct and civility”can really only be viewed as a veiled threat. Charging someone under a code of conduct violation has the potential to be extremely damaging. Many physicians, when they apply for new positions have to answer questions like “are they now under investigation” for such and such, even if there has not been a ruling yet. Being charged with this would force them to answer yes and potentially damage career options.

To be clear, I actually support the code of conduct and civility. I saw in the aftermath of the miserable 2017 tPSA debacle some incredibly unprofessional comments made towards the OMA staff (and others). I also am aware of many instances since where staff have been verbally abused by members and that is completely unacceptable. The staff are a very hard working bunch – who follow the direction and the culture the Board puts in place. It’s the Board that should be – respectfully – held into account.

But to tell a potential Board Director candidate (and me) that stating an opinion that might be viewed as controversial and advocating for that as part of an election process might see them charged?? Especially when there was absolutely no foul/derogatory/demeaning language used in the posts? Sorry but that simply comes across as attempting to censor a view point that you don’t happen to like. And that’s just wrong. Worse, it gives credence to the many critics of the policy who feared it would be used to suppress discussion.

Members deserve a strong, independent thinking and bold OMA Board. An elections process that goes to these extremes to prevent candidates from taking a stand on issues, advertising to members their skills (or lack thereof!) and their philosophy does not serve the membership at all. It will only disenfranchise them and lead to more voter apathy. About the only thing members can do at this point is NOT vote for any incumbents for Board Director and hope that will trigger some changes to this process.

As for me, I will try to get through the elections material – and pick candidates who I think will work to change the organization for the better. I will let you know my thoughts in a later blog.

OMA’s Recent Messages to Family Physicians are Disappointing and Misleading

Last week, Alberta, the province that once had a health Minister who went to a physicians house to berate him in person, created a new pay model for their family physicians. Even Alberta, the province whose premier told the health service to not talk about vaccines, realized the obvious. Family physicians need to be paid commensurate to the foundational work they do, and the role they play, in a high functioning health system.

Alberta Premier Danielle “Covid? What Covid?” Smith

I’ve taken a look at the new Alberta model. Some of the specifics are gated but the rough overall numbers are public. My back of napkin math suggests there is about a 24% increase in gross income for family physicians with a practice size of 1200. This includes payments for indirect work (checking labs, reviewing reports, supervising staff – all the admin work that Ontario refuses to recognize) and increased payments for more complex patients. I congratulate my colleagues in Alberta on this accomplishment. It WILL stabilize not only family medicine, but their whole health care system.

In response OMA CEO Kimberly Moran sent out an email on Friday Dec 20th. (A complete guess on my part is that she saw some of the responses to this deal on Social Media). I personally was offended (but not surprised) by the manipulation of figures and data in her email. While it’s true that every thing she wrote in the email was technically correct, the manner in which it was presented created an impression of successes that just aren’t there when it comes to advocating for family physicians.

I hate to talk numbers, this stuff gets confusing. But here’s a short set of data you need to know (numbers rounded for simplicity).

2022/23 is the BASE YEAR for all future increases negotiated/arbitrated going forward
The 2022/23 physicians budget was $16 billion
For 2023/24 (the last year of the previous agreement) the OMA negotiated a 2.8% ($448 million) increase
for 2024/25 the Arbitrator awarded us 9.95% compounded to the 2.8% from 2023/24 – which winds up being 13.03% more than the BASE YEAR ($2.08 Billion more than 2022/23)

So what’s the problem? Well for starters Ms. Moran states that the OMA “successfully” advocated for a 9.95% increase without mentioning that the OMA asked for 22.9%. Getting less than half of what you ask for is successful? But more importantly she went on to tell family physicians that they will receive a higher increase than the arbitration award of 9.95%. (11.75 – 13.54% depending on the practice model). But here’s the thing, the arbitration award was the increase for one year only (2024/25). The increase that family doctors are getting is an increase from the BASE YEAR (2022/23) – so it reflects your increase for two years not one like the arbitration award. The two year increase to the physicians budget is, as mentioned above 13.02%.

Now I completely respect the fact that the numbers that I’m quoting do not reflect the fact that the the award is meant to be split 70/30 between fee increases and targeted funds (but neither did Ms. Moran’s email!!). A very brief summary of how targeted funds are supposed to work:

70% of the $2.08 billion are supposed to go to fee increases ($1.456 billion)
the other 30% is supposed to be targeted ( $624 million)
of the $1.456 billion, 25% ($364 million) is supposed to go to across the board (ATB) increases for everybody. Crunching the numbers means everyone gets a 2.27% increase to their 2022/23 (BASE YEAR) income. The rest of the increase is based on relativity. Ophthalmologists for example get an additional 0.18% for relativity, and family doctors get between 9.48 – 11.27% additional for relativity. But again – that’s the increase for TWO YEARS, whereas the 9.95% was just for the one year.

This type of sophistry in messaging from the OMA regarding family medicine is sadly all too common. For example, the OMA has said that Ontario Family doctors have the highest capitation rates in Canada. Is that statement true? Of course it is. BUT – what’s also true is that no other province has deductions for outside use. Also, at a bare minimum family physicians in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba (with Manitoba being on top) pay family physicians more. Maybe Nova Scotia as well. Ignoring that while trumpeting higher overall capitation payments is unsettling.

While I sadly did expect such sleight of hand over numbers from OMA central, I must admit I was very disappointed in the SGFP email that came shortly thereafter. The SGFP has recently really gotten quite a bit stronger at advocating for family doctors and done some good work. But even they sadly fell into the trap when SGFP Chair Dave Barber told members in his letter:

“…Family doctors will receive increases greater than the 9.95% arbitration award announced earlier this year”.

David Barber – Chair of the Section of General and Family Practice

Again, technically a true statement, but very inappropriate. I don’t know what he was thinking signing off on that.

The really sad thing is that it didn’t have to be this way. The OMA (and SGFP) could have been completely forthright and honest and simply laid out the facts as I did above. This still shows family doctors getting a relativity bump more than a lot of other specialties. And they could have said that they want a good chunk of the targeted funds to go to Family Medicine but the government continues to fight them. Finally, they could have blamed the government for not recognizing the seriousness of the crisis. All of that still would have talked about the positive work being done, without creating the impression that they were trying to hoodwink the members. But alas……

What can we done? Well, I’ve said it many times before. Only the members can change the OMA if they want to. This year in particular, four physician members are up for election for Board Director – which represents half of all the physician positions. There are also multiple candidates running for SGFP executive positions. This really represents the best opportunity in a long time to continue to change the culture at the OMA so that we don’t get disingenuous messaging like this.

I’ll have my thoughts on the election in an upcoming blog.

Arbitration Part IV: What to Make of the New, Updated Payment Schedule

Disclaimer: The payment schedule below is based on my personal analysis of information from the OMA as of December 6, 2024. It would not surprise me if there were more changes. Do NOT use this as your sole source of planning. Contact info@oma.org with any questions.

On Nov. 1, 2024, OMA Board Chair Dr. Cathy Faulds announced an update on how the arbitration award for Year I of our PSA (Fiscal 2024/25) is going to be paid out. The plan was to have final numbers in a couple of weeks. Follow up information didn’t come until December 6 in an OMA news alert. Some things never change.

Wait old country doctor! Didn’t you already do a blog on the Arbitration Award?

Yes, parts two and three of my Arbitration analysis did say what was planned. But the blogs were filled with with statements like “allegedly” “supposedly” and chances of some of the changes happening were “slim to none”.

So we read all your previous work for nothing?

At the risk of sounding somewhat less than humble – most to the stuff I wrote about has come to pass – including splitting the increase with 75% of the amount going towards relativity, and 25% for across the board (ATB) raises.

Well what changed then?

There are a couple of delays (of course) to some of the retroactive payments. But the big change is changing the amount of your increase based on your specialty. I don’t know who came up with the idea of doing this, and suggested it to the OMA’s Negotiations Task Force, but whoever it was deserves the thanks of our profession.

This method is not perfect, because some billing codes are used by more than one speciality. For example, I’m a family physician, but I do joint injections. So do orthopaedic surgeons and rheumatologists. But the billing code (and thus payment) for doing a joint injection is the same. Applying an increase to that code will affect at least three specialties. Therefore, by given specialty specific increases instead, some of the lower relativity specialists will get more of an increase sooner.

The “permanent” changes to the fee codes will now not happen until April 2026 (!!). So expect your income to fluctuate some more then.

Don’t tell me you’re are going to toss large numbers and calculations at me!

I’m going to toss large numbers and calculations at you.

Here are numbers I needed to understand the contract. Numbers rounded for simplicity.

Fiscal Year 2022/23 is the base year for calculations. Physicians budget was $16 billion.
2.8% increase agreed to for 2023/2024 (from last PSA) = $448 million
9.95% awarded by arbitrator for 2024/2025 when compounded with 2023/2024 – total value =$2.085 billion
The plan was to spend 70% on fee increases, and 30% on “targeted” investments. For 2023/2024 this would be $314 million for fee increases, $134 million for targeted investments. For 2024/25 – $1.460 billion for increases, $625 million for targets.
Finally, as of now, it appears that we are going to stick to 25% of the total for fee increases (not the targeted money) will go to across the board (ATB) raises, and the rest based on relativity.

Wait a minute Old Country Doctor – didn’t everyone get the same percentage increase this year?

Yes. Under the terms of a previous agreement, if the OMA and government were not able to sort out how to divide the money for a fiscal year, ALL of it would be paid ATB on a temporary basis. Emphasis on temporary. So we all got a 2.8% increase for 2023/2024 (you should have gotten the retroactive pay in November). Additionally your monthly remittance should be 2.8% higher beginning on the MAY 2024 statement (The increase took effect April 1, but of course, that gets paid out on May 15).

For this fiscal year (2024/25) the OMA and government have conceded they won’t come up with a plan on how to divide the funds, and so everyone will get an ATB of 13%(1.028 x 1.0995). The way it’s paid out will be a mix of monthly increases and some retroactive pay.

However for fiscal 2025/2026, there will be specialty specific increases. Each physician will get another temporary increase in their billings, based on their specialty. The OMA and government will continue to ~~argue~~ negotiate. Probably need arbitration for this. The exact fee code changes are scheduled to be in place April 1, 2026 (!!)

You’re going to bring back Drs. Alpine and Valley to explain this aren’t you?

Of course dear reader. It helps to put a “face” to the numbers. However, on this occasion, let’s assume Dr. Alpine is an ophthalmologist (speciality chosen only because they appear to get the lowest increase) and Dr. Valley is a family doctor in a capitation model (for reasons that will become clear shortly).

I won’t restate the assumptions for my calculations (please refer to my previous blog on this issue). Assuming that Drs Alpine and Valley see the exact same number of patients every year – this is what their gross income will look like.

Time Period	Dr. Alpine	Dr. Valley
Monthly billings 22/23	$100,000	$30,000
Monthly billings 23/24 (increase not applied yet)	$100,000	$30,000
Monthly billings April 2024 till Dec 2024 (2.8% finally applied)	$102,800	$30,840
Nov 15, 2024 (retroactive pay added)	One time payment of $33,600 in retroactive pay for 23/24	One time payment of $10,080 in retroactive pay for 23/24
Jan 15, 2025 – 2.8% lowered to 2.55% as part of agreement to use funds to increase HOCC	$102,550	$30,765
Feb 15, 2025- April 15, 2025 – OHIP will finally given 1.0995 on top of the 1.0255 now	$112, 754	$33,826
May 15, 2025 retroactive pay for April -December	One time payment of $89,583	One time payment of $27,549
May 2025 – April 2026 monthly billings	$102,452	$33,525

WAIT A MINUTE! Capitated Family Doctors gross will go down as well??

Yes. As mentioned above, for 2023/24 and 2024/2025 the OMA and government could not agree how to divide up the now $2.085 billion, so it was given ATB on a temporary basis. This was meant to get some money into doctors hands sooner otherwise Allah/God/Yahweh only knows how long we would have to wait for the process to complete.

However, 30% of the $2.085 billion (or $626 million) was meant for “targeted funds”. The expectation is either through negotiation (very unlikely IMO) or through arbitration, a decision will be made on where to spend that $626 million for fiscal 2025/26.

Therefore, there is only $1.459 billion for general increases for 2025/26 (plus whatever increase the arbitrator gives us). Of that, 25% ($365 million) will go ATB. So everyone will get 2.03%. The remaining $1.094 billion is distributed via relativity.

With less money to distribute – well, there is less of an increase. Now of course the possibility exists that some of the targeted funds will be spent on captitated family medicine too, but who knows at this point? This is why virtually every specialty sees a decline in 2025 when you look at the OMA’s spreadsheet.

Keep in mind the fee increases for April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2028 have yet to be negotiated (more likely arbitrated) so there will be more money in the future – we hope.

I’m not a family doctor or an ophthalmologist- how do I find out my numbers?

I suggest you go to the table that the OMA has prepared for you. Use your base 2022/23 monthly income to figure out your projected numbers. If you have specific questions about your situation, I urge you to contact info@oma.org. The organization can’t really answer questions if they don’t know what they are. Also please register for the live Zoom Webinar on this process, and ask your questions there.

So this is the final word on this issue?

Nope. I suspect there will be more to come. And that it will be just as confusing.

You’re just a bundle of joy Old Country Doctor.

I aim to please dear reader. I aim to please.

Sunday Snippets: Dec 1, 2024 (ft. Bonnie Crombie, Vaccines, Microplastics and more)

Item: More and more family doctors are turning to AI scribes to reduce their workload. Many physicians in the article state time saving is the main driver for adopting these scribes.

My thoughts: I’m piloting an AI scribe right now with my Health Team. It can reduce the number of hours spent on paperwork. However, one does need to review the note dictated to ensure it’s accurate (a few examples of mistakes so far). The notes also tend to be wordier than my own notes. Finally, it’s really important to review the examination section of the notes – as the scribe has no way of knowing what a patient “looks like” and it’s up to you to ensure accuracy.

There are of course some privacy concerns. That’s why I like the fact that the scribe I’m using is not integrated into my Electronic record. That way the patients name/date of birth/health card/other identifying information does not get sent into the ether when the scribe generates a note.

My hope is the government settles on one scribe (after appropriate vetting) and pays for all physicians to use it. This will have significant positive benefits for health care.

Item: Ontario Liberal Party Leader Bonnie Crombie has launched her first campaign ad. She blames current Conservative Premier Doug Ford for the shortage of Family Physicians.

My thoughts: It’s a bit rich for the Liberals to blame the current government for the doctor shortage when most of the problems with family medicine began during their tenure. But, just as federal/national elections are won based on the cost of living/inflation (the big reason why Trump won), provincial elections in Canada are often lost based on how the current government is managing health care. And this truly is Doug Ford’s Achilles heel.

I know it seems like Ford’s handlers have him convinced that he can win a third term if only he calls an early election. But the blunt reality is that an early election call will be viewed as cynical even by people who will vote for him. Similarly the $200 Ontario “rebate” cheques are going to be viewed as a bribe.

Will Ford win a third term? I don’t know. But I doubt it will be as easy as he or his handlers think. He really needs to take some significant steps between now and the spring on health care. If only some would give him advice, and on more than one occasion.

Item: We’ve all heard about the rise in measles cases across the country and in the U.S. It seems that now Whooping Cough is also on the rise.

My thoughts: Jeez. Get vaccinated and get your kids vaccinated already people.

Item: On that note, it seems very few adults in the United States are getting updated Covid/Flu and RSV vaccines, even in high risk populations like nursing homes.

My thoughts: Life expectancy in the United States continues to fall. These two articles are not unrelated.

Item: Microplastics have now been found in the human brain.

My thoughts: Not nearly enough attention is being paid to this story. There are significant red flags for the harm that microplastics can do to human health including increasing the risk of dementia/heart disease/stroke and reducing fertility and sexual function. While it’s true that most of the studies raising alarm have been in labs or in animal models that don’t give a complete picture of the effect on humans, there are just too many concerns to ignore. We need an urgent review of microplastics (along with a review of all the processed garbage in the North American diet).

Item: A great article in the Annals of Family Medicine shows that when your doctor is away, there is LESS downstream use of ER and associated health care costs if you see a doctor in the same group practice than in a walk in clinic.

My thoughts: This is yet another reason why expansion of scope of allied health professionals is a bad idea. Rather than getting your care fragmented between health care workers who don’t have your full health history – the ideal is to support your family doctor to make sure whoever is covering can see that information, to give you better care. And on that note….

Item: Ontario is going to allow the further expansion of scope of nurse practitioners. PEI is going to allow physiotherapists to order X-rays.

My thoughts: Go read the article from Annals of Family Medicine above. This move (to expand scope) will eventually be shown to have been a big mistake.

Item: Excellent (and unusual for the Trillium – ungated) article on the aging population of family physicians in Ontario and what it could mean for the future.

My thoughts: None of this is surprising. Four of the five doctors in my clinic are late 50s or older. We are heading for a real problem if we don’t immediately support family medicine now.

Item: I somehow missed this but it seems that Australia just had its worst flu season on record.

My thoughts: I wrote this in 2017 warning that our health care system couldn’t handle a bad flu season. The situation is worse now. I don’t know what the flu season will be like, but if it’s a bad one we will see a proliferation of horror stories about health care. At the risk of sounding like a broken record – get your flu shot people. Keep yourself safe.

Yours truly getting his flu shot this year.

That’s it for this week. I’m away next week. Might have a blog later on a specific issue that is making Ontario an undesirable location to practice medicine. Back in two weeks with more snippets.

We Know How to Save Family Medicine. Why Aren’t We Doing It?

I’m honoured to have Dr. Mark Linder guest blogging for me today. I first met Dr. Linder during our time advocating against Dr. Eric Hoskins unilateral cuts to health care. He’s exceptionally well spoken and articulate . He’s a former ER doctor and now full time family physician and clinic owner. His other claim to fame is that got fired from the Kaplan MCAT teaching course after one session – which apparently was a first.

I just wrote this in a flurry this morning. I see stupider and stupider proposals from the government and from newspaper editorials. I see our new grads learn from their teachers that they need to stay away from this job. I then see the domino effect this has on recruitment, job satisfaction and reinforced by absurd government initiatives to save the system. I watch the OMA get pulled in every direction to try and please everyone. So apologies in advance -this is just my take really-and mostly to get it off my chest-not that it will lead anywhere. So thanks for reading.

The Family Health Organization (FHO) is what saves family medicine. It has done it before and it can do it again.

In 2006 something unprecedented happened. It hasn’t happened before or since. And perhaps we didn’t quite appreciate how unique it was. The provincial Liberal government, under Dalton McGuinty and Health Minister George Smitherman, introduced an upgraded payment model for Family Medicine. It built on the existing capitation based Family Health Network (FHN) model to enhance it.

What was so unique about this? It stands out as one of the only times a government has thought beyond their 4 year term to the ultimate health of their population as well as their economy down the road when they may no longer be in power. Sure, it was going to make them look good if everyone got a family doctor out of it-but it was a big expensive risk, a risk based on an assumption that family medicine was critical to the system, AND that practitioners need to be paid fairly for their work if they wish to retain these doctors in the future. A different time to be sure!

It worked. Look at the stats from 2008 to 2018. Look at how many Family Doctors gladly embraced the new system. Look how the number of orphaned patients dropped.

The system had flaws. I mean this was the second iteration of what was described as an experiment. The “outside use” enforcement rule made little sense in most cases. The calculation of capitation payments wasn’t always a fair representation of how much work it took to look after the patient in front of you. Certain “in the basket” fees were bizarre and should never have been part of the package. Doctors were actually more incentivized to send people to the ER over a walk in clinic!!! But all in all, it was a great innovation, a great idea, and saved family medicine. It also, no doubt saved the province millions in treatment dollars and ER visits as family doctors made themselves available to look after patients.

And then, In 2015 Kathleen Wynne and Eric Hoskins, the health minister at the time, effectively shut down enrollment in FHOs And that was the beginning of the end. I presume they just wanted to control the immediate budget – paying for family medicine up front meant huge savings down the road. But it resulted in a pretty big chunk of budget going out the door NOW. And the Wynne liberals didn’t have a health care crisis, didn’t heed the warnings that we as physicians laid out pretty starkly at the time, and decided, nah, we’ll just “pause” the experiment.

Which they did. And the fall out was obvious. As a clinic owner and a family doctor, I had a front row seat. The residents and new grads had all been trained in the new system, and now were unable to access it. If they wanted to work, they’d be taking a tremendous risk setting up a clinic in a Fee For Service environment using a Schedule of Benefits that had failed to keep up with inflation for 20 years. They were screwed. The aging Family Doctor population continued to retire at a predictable rate, and the aging population continued to get more desperate to find doctors with increasing difficulty.

By the time the FHO’s opened up again in 2021, it barely mattered–The reputation of family medicine among new grads had been thrashed for 6 years.
With the new rules, new grads would have to gather 6 like-minded individuals (instead of just 3 like in the old days), or find a bigger FHO that was already established and could fit them in. Not so easy. Opening up your own shop had become increasingly more expensive with post pandemic inflation, so the debt would be crippling just to get started if you wanted your own clinic. And these are graduates who already had a huge amount of debt coming out of school.

Couple this with the insane increase in administrative burden as we become more and more efficient at having hospitals and labs forward us copies of paperwork. In theory, amazing, in practice hugely burdensome, time consuming and unpaid. Arguably, if the FHO rates had increased at the level of inflation, there’d be no complaints about this additional work. But the FHO rates had more or less remained static relative to the cost of doing business. Still better than FFS, still paid a lot less than the actual market value of doing the job as proven by the lack of uptake that continues today.

The thing is: The FHO is still the answer. It absolutely needs some significant tweaks. The rates need to go up. The outside use concept needs to go. Minimum size and shared EMR requirement needs to be softened so that smaller groups can join together in nearby geographic areas. Some sort of separate funding will be essential to help clinic owners to keep up with inflation. But it still achieves by far the best mix of physician autonomy, clinic management, and long term government savings. And it’s evidence-based! We have a recent history we can look back on to demonstrate efficacy!

Other solutions, such as having lesser-trained individuals diagnosing and managing patients give the appearance of short term gains at a huge future cost as more referrals to specialists are made and more referrals to the ER are made. Another concept of having government run all clinics is clearly so expensive as to be dead at the gates-Doctors currently pay for rent, administration and their own retirements out of their incomes. It’s not great for us, but it’s a heck of a lot cheaper for the taxpayer to do it that way, and simply pay the doctors more.

I recognize that my FFS colleagues are not helped at all by an enhancement and advocacy for the FHO approach. And I’m sorry. I obviously think there’s a lot of work that could be done to improve FFS rules and individual payments. No doubt.

But we actually have the evidence that the FHO saved family medicine when it was introduced. It was stunningly effective, and if nursed back to health, will absolutely work again.

Sunday Snippets – Oct. 27, 2024

I was away last week but I’m back with another in a weekly series of brief snippets of health care stories that bemused, intrigued and otherwise beguiled me over the past week along with my random thoughts on the matter.

Item: There was significant growth in the number of physicians in Alberta in the third quarter.

My Thoughts: Alberta is kind of a funny province. There are some very strange goings on with their health care policy. But it can’t be denied that despite all of that, if you provide incentives to attract younger physicians it will help. Having said that, it can all be easily undone if they don’t get on with it and implement the compensation for family physicians they promised, and for some reason appears to be delayed.

Item: The province of Nova Scotia has launched a physicians retirement fund initiative, helping physicians to retire well.

My Thoughts: What’s that you say? You mean ensuring that physicians have peace of mind about their retirement might actually help recruit (gasp!) and even retain (double gasp!!) physicians? Who would have thunk it?? In all seriousness, given the way the Federal Liberal government of our effete Prime Minister really screwed physicians with the recent tax law changes – this is a necessary move and I hope will get copied by all provinces. It really will help improve morale and reduce some of the burnout.

Item: John Richards and Tingting Zhang, from the CD Howe Institute wrote an op-ed in the Financial Post encouraging more use of nurse practitioners since they can “do almost everything an MD can”.

My Thoughts: El Toro Poo Poo. (This is a PG rated blog so that’s all I could get away with). I work with Nurse Practitioners and I have seen them help patients and I firmly believe they have a role in health care. But that role is not to replace physicians. The studies that show they can “do almost everything” are done based on what scope of practice suggests they can do. The blunt reality is nurse practitioners drive up costs and worsen care if used in settings as these characters suggest. The studies that show that NPs are cheaper ONLY look at the actual income an NP gets and compare it to a physicians income, as opposed to looking at the work that is actually done/number of patients seen/and number of tests ordered. The FP article isn’t even fit to be used for toilet paper.

Item: The crisis in Home Care supplies, first reported by Avis Favaro on X (formerly Twitter) continues. Home care nurses are reporting heartbreaking stories of patients buying their own supplies on Amazon since home care couldn’t provide them. Dr. Drew Moore and Dr. Hal Berman should be lauded for going public with their concerns. (I’ve met both of them and they are both mensches).

My Thoughts: I’m old. I’ve seen a lot of government screw ups in my time, especially in health care. But I have yet to see bureaucrats who screw up be truly held accountable and fired. Ever. They just get shuffled off to some other department. It it too much to ask that if someone makes a mistake at their job (and this is a BIG one) they get held accountable?

Item: Quebec is attacking family doctors for some reason. First they suggested they would link people to non-family physicians for care and even remove patients who were “healthy” from their own family physicians. Then they presented erroneous data suggesting that family doctors basically don’t work hard enough.

My Thoughts: There are 9 other provinces and 3 territories that would love to have these doctors.

Item: Penn State Medical Residents unionized, went on strike and got significant benefits (despite being driven off the hospital grounds by hospital security!)

My thoughts: Unionization of physicians is going to happen eventually. Whether through the long gestating Charter Challenge (yes my Ontario peeps – it is still working its way through the courts) or some other mechanism. The younger physicians clearly seem to want this model of representation and at some point in the not too distance future, physicians will be unionized.

Item: The Ontario government announced plans to effectively bar foreign students from attending medical school in Ontario.

My thoughts: My thanks to Am640 News for interviewing me on the topic, and my thoughts on this can be heard below. (This short version – this is populist rhetoric that will do nothing to help with the health care crisis):

Ontario Government to Family Doctors: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

That we have a family medicine crisis in Ontario is indisputable. That the numbers of family doctors leaving comprehensive care family medicine continues to rise and is expected to leave over 4 million people without a family doctor in the next couple of years is irrefutable. That the need to recruit and retain comprehensive care family doctors has never been more urgent especially as competition from provinces like British Columbia, Manitoba and others increases is unquestionable.

All of this is self evident to anybody following health care.

People lined up in Kingston desperately hoping to get a family doctor when a new clinic opened (image first put out by the CBC)

Except of course, the Ontario Government, and their Ministry of Health Bureaucrats. As far as they are concerned, now is actually the perfect time to attack family doctors. Because, you know, the way to improve burnout, morale and encourage them to take on new patients is to ambush people who are already under siege with overwhelming workloads.

Here’s what happened. About 6,000 family doctors in Ontario practice under what is called a Family Health Organization (FHO) model. Think of it as a base salary plus performance bonuses. As part of working in that model, the family doctors have to sign a contract agreeing to deliver a basket of services, including, a certain amount of after hours care.

Because we have so many rural areas in Ontario, where family doctors do a whole bunch of other work (emergency department, hospital on call, palliative care, long term care on call and more), there is a provision in the contract that says if you have X number of family doctors doing this kind of work already, then the amount of after hours care you provide as a FHO can be reduced. There’s a somewhat complicated formula but that doesn’t really matter – it’s the principle that counts. Essentially, if you are already doing after hours work – then you are not asked to do more after hours work.

Unless of course you are a Ministry of Health bureaucrat, taking the guidance of your bellicose negotiations team that said there was “no concern” about a shortage of family physicians. This allows you licence to use a stick against family physicians.

Then, you send letters to 75 FHOs telling them they are not meeting the terms of their contract, based on made up metrics. The letters (I’ve seen a few of them) all allege that the doctors in the FHOs are not living up to the terms of their contract.

Let’s be 100% clear on this. If a physician signs a contract as part of a FHO, they should hold up their end of the bargain. You should read the contract, go in with your eyes open, and make sure you are capable of meeting all of the terms that you agreed to.

BUT.

It appears what the Ministry is arbitrarily and unilaterally determining how to decide if a physician is meeting the terms. For example, one FHO letter I saw suggested that that FHO was not performing as well as its “peers” and was therefore targeted. Two things though. First the Ministry unilaterally decided who the peers were. Second, performing up to the standards of your peers was not part of the original contract.

Another letter I saw alleged that the doctors who do call for their hospital or their nursing home, don’t qualify because……they don’t bill enough for going into the hospital. The ministry unilaterally decided that in order to claim after hours work, you couldn’t just be on call, but you had to keep going into the hospital when on call, a certain number of times (this number was never up for discussion before).

I’ll use myself as an example. Last Wednesday I was on call for my hospital. I got three calls (one at 4:00 am!) and managed all the patients over the phones. I DID perform the task I agreed to (being on call). But the bungling bureaucrats won’t acknowledge that. They want me go to the hospital (even if I can handle it over the phone) and then bill OHIP for the service (which would drive UP the cost!!) to be recognized – a decision they seemingly made on their own, without consultation.

My two loyal fans and one non-fan regular reader know that I’ve long maintained that Star Trek is a far better franchise than Star Wars. But in this case, I will concede the Ministry’s actions are most appropriately compared to this fellow:

Normally when a government changes the terms of an agreement unilaterally, one would expect the Ontario Medical Association to step in and advocate for their members. However, the response from the OMA, in a letter sent to all its members was, frankly, pathetic. The letter basically told doctors to “notify the Ministry” about the circumstances around your group. Try to reason with Darth Vader as it was. No dedicated email or legal team staff member either. Just contact the general help email.

I guess specialists who had expressed concerns on Social Media about too many family doctors on the OMA Board have nothing to worry about. Clearly the OMA, between allowing the across the board increases to the arbitration award this year and not dedicating resources to tackle this issue cares nothing about family medicine. (They talk a great game on social media, but it’s the actions that count).

I imagine the issue will eventually sort itself out after many rancorous meetings and back and forth – all of which will take up physicians time and prevent them from doing minor and inconsequential things like, say, seeing patients. The Ministry will continue to claim that we have more family doctors than ever before – but let’s face it, if they keep behaving like this, those doctors won’t practice comprehensive care medicine. It just seems so ridiculous, and indicative of a Ministry that truly doesn’t understand or value family medicine.

And that should frighten the general public more than the Death Star ever did. (Drat, made ANOTHER Star Wars reference).

The original Death Star from Stars Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope

Arbitration Part III: When and How Much Will Docs Get Paid?

Disclaimer: The information is based on my personal analysis and should not be your sole source of information. The payment schedule below is based on what we were told was “PLANNED”. Being a firm believer in “Murphy’s Law“, I would suggest that changes to the below may come at any time. Contact info@oma.org with any questions.

After writing why the Arbitration Award will be bad for patients and doctors, it seems my three loyal readers were unhappy that I couldn’t say when docs would be paid. Being a demure, sensitive, and eager to please sort, I feel compelled to try my best to explain when money is coming.

Once again, my two examples are Drs. Alpine and Valley. Both had 13 years of post secondary education (4 years for a BSc, 4 years for medical school and 5 years for residency). Dr. Alpine does a lot of procedures and can see more patients than he could 20 years ago due to improved technology. Dr. Valley spends a lot of time with intensively sick patients, so she sees the same number of patients as 20 years ago.

What assumptions am I making for the Calculations?

Drs. Alpine and Valley will each provide same number of OHIP services yearly from 2023 – 2026. We have to assume that the entire 2.8 % increase from last year, and the 9.95% award this year will be given across the board (ATB) until April 1, 2025. (The OMA and MOH could reach an agreement on distributing the funds more fairly- but I highly doubt it). We’ll also assume that the schedule for payments the OMA provided at their webinar will be met – I remain very skeptical.

Let’s assume Dr. Alpine billed OHIP an average of $100,000 a month for fiscal 2022/23 and Dr. Valley billed OHIP $30,000 a month. This time period is the base rate for OMA calculations, and hence mine. (Physicians who read this blog can put their average 2022/23 monthly billings into the calculations below to find out their own numbers).

What happened for April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024?

The OMA and MOH agreed to a 2.8% increase in fees that was to be divided into across the board (ATB) increases and relativity increases. Because the agreement came late, and the OHIP Computers couldn’t be updated (sigh), Drs. Alpine and Valley continued to bill OHIP at the same rate as 2022/23.

What happened on April 1, 2024?

The OHIP computers finally updated to reflect the previous year’s increase. Since the two sides didn’t agree on a relatively formula, the 2.8% was given ATB. Dr. Alpine’s gross income went to $102,800 a month. Dr. Valley’s went to $30,840. Both increases showed up on the May Remittance. Doubtful Dr. Valley even noticed her increase.

What will happen on the Nov. 2024 Remittance ?

Well, finally all the reviewing and rejecting and re-submitting of claims for the year April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024 will have happened. The computers will then pay the retroactive 2.8% amount of this year to the doctors. Dr. Alpine will get an additional $33,600 (1.028 x $100,000 x 12) on his remittance for retroactive pay. Dr. Valley will get $10,080 (1.028 x $30,000 x 12).

Isn’t there a drop beginning in December 2024?

The increase drops to 2.55% and the funds saved are dedicated to enhancing the Hospital On Call Coverage program (HOCC). Dr. Alpine will now see $102,550 (1.0255 x $100,000 and Dr. Valley will start to get $30, 765 (1.0255 x $30,000).

What happens for the January – March 2025 Remittance Advice?

Allegedly, the OHIP computers will be able to apply the 9.95% increase for this year now (I’ll believe it when I see it). The word “prospective payment” was used in the webinar, but I don’t know what that means. This increase is compounded to the now 2.55% from the previous year. As a result, starting with the January remittance, Dr. Alpine will now get $112,753.73 ( 1.0255 x 1.0995 x $100,000) a month from OHIP. Dr. Valley will be at $33,826.12 a month.

What is supposed to happen on the March 2025 Remittance?

What’s that you say? Wasn’t the 9.95% increase supposed to start on April 1, 2024? So what happened to all that money? Well, according to the OMA you will get a lump sum payment for April to December in the March remittance. Dr. Alpine can expect to see a one time retroactive payment of $89,583. 57 ($112,753.73 that he should have gotten subtracting the $102,800 that he did get, multiplied by 9 months) and Dr. Valley will get $26,875.08. This is in addition to their usual remittance.

OK, What Happens After April 1, 2025?

Well at this point the new ‘permanent’ fees are supposed to kick in. Up until now, everyone has been given ATB increases. Whatever is negotiated or arbitrated, is supposed to start now. However, the base rate will be the 2022/23 rates. In a previous blog, I assumed that we would carry on the process of giving 1/4 of the increase as ATB and 3/4 via relativity. IF this is done (not sure if it will be) then every speciality will get 2.46% (0.7% for last year + 1.75% this year, compounded) plus X percent – with the X varying from speciality to specialty based on relativity.

Let’s assume Dr. Alpine’s speciality got an X=0% and that Dr. Valley’s got X = 17.54%. In that case Dr. Alpine will now get $102,460 a month:

$100,000 base rate from 2022/23 x (1.0246 ATB increase + 0 for relativity).

Dr. Valley on the other hand will get $36,000 a month:

$30,000 base rate from 2022/23 x (1.0246 ATB +.1754 for relativity).

I imagine Dr. Alpine will be annoyed.

What are the chances of the new fees being ready on April 1, 2025?

Slim to none. Militancy on the part of the MOH and incompetence on the part of bureaucrats in charge of OHIP are two constants as sure as death and taxes.

Um…well what happens to our monthly incomes after April 1, 2025?

I honestly can’t figure that part out (and not for lack of trying). The procedural agreement states:

“Any unexpended portion of the targeted price increases will continue to be paid to physicians as a separate payment on the monthly Remittance Advice until such time as each targeted increase is implemented or unless the parties agree otherwise.”

This is the part that I think most people have missed (including, frankly, the OMA Board that approved this agreement – and yes I know it was an attempt to get real money in the hands of physicians). It’s one thing to accept 2.8% ATB. But to accept 12.75% ATB (2.55% from last year compounded with 9.95% from this year) is a bit much. You really have to wonder if there wasn’t a fairer way to spend this money, especially with so many Dr. Valley’s struggling. Time will tell what happens here.

Geez old country doctor, all you’ve done is fuzzify the muddification!

I aim to please dear reader. I aim to please.

SPECIAL MESSAGE FOR FAMILY PHYSICIANS ONLY

Those of you who have read my blogs know that I (and many others) are really really upset with College of Family Physicians of Canada for inviting Dr. David Price to be a keynote speaker at the Family Medicine Forum. I view it as a slap in the face to family physicians, given his role on the Ontario Government’s Negotiations Team.

The Ontario Union of Family Physicians would seem to agree with me. They are asking all family physicians to sign the petition below to have Dr. Price removed as a Keynote speaker. PLEASE click on this link to read and I encourage you to sign.