Category: Negotiations

Open Letter to Premier Ford: Fix Family Medicine or Risk Losing the Next Election

Dear Premier Ford,

Just me again, your erstwhile, somewhat (but not completely) humble old country doctor. Like last time, I would point out that I am really not your harshest critic. I want to recognize that you have done much for health care infrastructure over the past few years.

For reasons that I cannot fully explain, the previous Liberal regime simply stopped building the necessary infrastructure to help Ontarians. Whether it was new (badly needed) nursing homes, new hospitals, or new teams, the Liberals basically did, well, nothing in terms of infrastructure. To your credit, you’ve reversed that trend and are building facilities we in Ontario need. (As an aside, you seem to like building things a lot!)

Ontario Premier Doug Ford

But all of that building will not mean much in two years (when the next election is – nudge, nudge, wink, wink) if, as projected, over 25% of Ontarians don’t have a family doctor. Yes, you can correctly point out that the decline in family medicine was caused by the Liberals (it truly was – Eric Hoskins was by far the worst Health Minister I personally have seen in my time in health care). You can point out that the Liberals slashed the capitation model favoured by most family docs that started the downward trend. You can also point out that their favoured Deputy Health Minister Bob Bell thought family medicine was so easy he could return to it after over thirty years away:

Screenshot

He even tried to mansplain one of the true leaders of family medicine on how the system should work.

It’s true Bell and Hoskins were completely wrong. That will NOT matter because by 2026, the general public will say – “well you’ve had 8 years to fix this – you haven’t done enough”. That’s just how politics is, and I think deep down you know that.

You can, truthfully, also say that you are listening to organizations like the Ontario College of Family Physicians or the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and who continue to go on about how team based care is the future of family medicine and how it can help solve the problem. You may not know this but I was the founding Chair of the Georgian Bay Family Health Team . I happen to believe in physician led team based care.

But here’s the thing. It will take a minimum of five years (if we’re lucky) to build out all those teams. That’s assuming the bureaucrats from the Ministry GET OUT OF THE WAY and let front line family physicians be in charge of the teams. But we are losing family doctors by the week. The people of Ontario can’t wait five years.

There is one thing that can be done now however, to stem the tide, and stabilize the system. You need to give comprehensive care family physicians an immediate, and significant raise. How significant? You will need to give an immediate 35% increase to comprehensive care family docs along with annual normative increases for the next four years. If you think that’s outrageous – I invite you to look at Manitoba’s contract or Saskatchewan’s or British Columbia’s. The competition for comprehensive care family doctors has increased significantly, and Ontario is falling behind.

I can pretty well guess what your “advisors” are telling you. They will say you are in arbitration with the OMA, just promise to abide by the result. Honestly, I do believe you will abide by the result, both this year and next.

But…

Arbitration will take months this year, and months if not a year next year. Frankly, I doubt that the OMA, despite their strong words, will advocate for an increase of the amount necessary for comprehensive family medicine (hopefully I’m wrong).

I have absolutely no doubt that the Arbitrator, William Kaplan, will give a raise to family docs, especially after the recent award to nurses. But if the raise isn’t enough, you going out to the general public in two years and saying “we honoured the arbitrators rulings” – will make zero difference to the close to five million people who won’t have a family doctor. They will still blame you for not having been pro active.

William Kaplan, Chair of the Arbitration Board

Listen, I’m on the conservative side of the political spectrum. I’ve always voted for the Conservatives in every provincial election since I was eligible to vote. I live in Simcoe – Grey which is one of, if not the most strongly conservative ridings in Ontario. Heck, in the early 1990s we were the ONLY riding east of Manitoba to vote for a Reform Party MP.

I’m telling you that most of the voices on the ground are really upset about the lack of family doctors. We have about 7,000 patients without a family doctor in our area last I heard. It’s true that when asked who they will vote for in polls, they, like most recent polls, say they’ll vote conservative. However, they always add “I guess, there’s nobody else out there”. That softness in your vote is a problem, and that softness doesn’t show up in the poll numbers.

Listen, I want you to win the next election. I personally think the NDP would be a complete disaster. I have no faith the Liberals, who showed just how much they hate doctors, have changed their tune. But in order to do that, you’re going to need to bite the bullet, and stem the haemorrhage of family docs.

Go to tell your negotiations team to offer up a deal that strengthens family medicine. Mask the increase with things like retention bonuses (like Manitoba) and matching RRSP payments (like BC) and other methods (paid admin time, paid supervision of team members and pensions would be nice). But get it done ASAP.

Otherwise, I genuinely think you will be in more trouble than you might be led to believe by your handlers in 2026.

Your sincerely,

An old country doctor.

About Asking for Reduced Admin Burden From the MOH….

Lots of talk on the net about how the economic model for family physicians no longer works in 2024. My own blog site has had guest posts dedicated to this issue. There has been some criticism of this position. Dr. Darren Larsen in a reply to the post linked above suggests he is “not seeing or hearing…ideas for solutions“. He further states that all paying doctors more will do is create a “better-paid, unhappy professional. Nothing has changed.”

Others have made the similar comments. There is nothing philosophically wrong with the argument to reduce workload instead of raising pay. Practically speaking however, history has repeatedly taught us that the Ministry of Health (MOH) bureaucracy is incapable of delivering on that promise.

Some personal stories:

In the mid 2010s I was a Peer Lead for OntarioMD (no really!). I was frustrated by the Ontario Lab Information System (OLIS) because I had to manually retrieve all the lab work for a patient individually in their chart. Hospital Report Manager (HRM) by comparison, sends reports on all my patients directly to one inbox. (why we need two systems – and now more, is another story). The then VP of OntarioMD informed me they were working on “Practitioner Query” – which would allow me to get all my lab work from OLIS in one inbox. This was supposed to be ready in six months. That was over a decade ago.

From 2014-2018, thanks to the vision of my colleague Dr. James Lane, we developed an integrated health portal as part of our Health Links project for South Georgian Bay. For $35K a year, we were able to ensure that nursing homes could message physicians on their EMR. We dramatically reduced paperwork for physicians from nursing homes, improved health care outcomes, and reduced hospitalizations thus saving the entire health system money.

The MOH bureaucracy couldn’t wrap its head around this and wouldn’t allow it to continue.

For those of you who think I should have told people about this project, I wrote an article in the Toronto Sun about it. Afterwards, I got invited to do a presentation on this with the then CEO of eHealth Ontario and her senior team. Heck, when I was a keynote speaker at OntarioMDs Every Step conference in 2019 (no really!) I presented this project. The then head of the MOH Digital Health Team was there and heard it. Still, the bureaucracy couldn’t see their way towards allowing a project that saved physician time (and improved health care outcomes) could continue.

Ok, ok, so this blog is just for me to complain about not being listened to right? Well no, there are multiple other examples.

One workload issue for family physicians is keeping track of which of our patients get immunized for which vaccines. If only there was a central tracking system that sent the information to us directly. Wait, there is! The Covax system for tracking Covid vaccinations. Obviously the easiest and most sensible thing to do is expand the already existing system to add all the other vaccines so we get notified (eg when public health gives Gardasil). Yet 3 years after Covax, the MOH can’t even make this simple common sense change.

More? When I was on the SGFP Executive, one of our senior physicians told us the story of how he was on a working group to make the schedule of benefits (the fee schedule for Ontarios doctors) easier. After six months of meetings, they made a decision to add a comma to the descriptive sentence of one code. One comma in an 800 page schedule.

I could go on but you get the point. It’s fine for the MOH to say that that they promise to reduce the Admin burden for family docs. But frankly to these aged and cynical ears, it just sounds like them saying “This time we really mean it, honest!” – kinda like when Lucy promised to hold the football down for Charlie Brown for real this time, with predictable results.

Look, we have a five alarm crisis in family medicine in Ontario. Just about every week brings a story of another physician who is struggling with the economics of running a practice, and is considering quitting.

As with all emergencies, we need to have an effective triage system in place. Deal with the most urgent thing first, then go on to other things. We clearly can’t wait until 2034 for the MOH to implement some of the workload reducing schemes they might have (and no matter how much they promise they really mean it – it will take that long). So the first thing that needs to be done is bring financial stability to family practices so that they can continue to function while we sort out everything else.

Now, given Ontario physicians are in the midst of negotiating a new contract with the Ontario government, I expect the MOH team to say to our own negotiations team something like – “I know you guys want X% increase, but we can only give you 1/2 of that, but we promise to reduce your admin burden so you are working less hard”. I would do the same if I was them.

But, my expectation, and the expectation I think of the majority of doctors in Ontario, would be that the OMA negotiations team looks at the MOH team, and quotes the best engineer in the history of Starfleet to them.

With apologies to Geordi Laforge, B’elana Torres, Trip Tucker, Jett Reno, Andy Billups, and Hemmer – but Scotty was the BEST ENGINEER in the history of Star Trek!

The first step towards fixing the crisis in family medicine is a new physicians service agreement that stabilizes family practices. Once that’s done, work can begin anew on health systems transformation/workload reduction and so on. To try to do it the other way round, or even hand in hand, is a recipe for further collapse of the health care system.

Mark Dermer: On the Ethics of Telling Residents to Avoid Comprehensive Family Medicine

 Recently Maria DiDanieli, a system navigator with the Burlington Family Health Team who holds a Masters in Medical Bioethics, wrote an article criticizing myself, Dr. Silvy Mathew and Dr. Nadia Alam for recommending family medicine residents NOT start a comprehensive care family practices at this time. Dr. Mark Dermer responded so eloquently to that, that I asked his permission to reproduce his response as a guest blogger, and he kindly agreed.

Dr. Mark Dermer, a recently retired family physician whom I’m honoured to have as a guest blogger today.

As a recently retired family physician, I am troubled by the fact that you (Maria DiDanieli) have mistaken the fact that you work adjacent to family doctors as sufficient to understand what they face. Worse, your assessment of Drs. Alam, Gandhi and Mathew is unjust. 

But that’s not why I am commenting. Instead, I am coming at this as someone with some experience in medical ethics, both as a long-time member of community and teaching hospital ethics committees, and as a teacher of medical ethics to family medicine residents. 

To put it simply: Your ethical analysis of my colleagues publishing the opinion piece in question is both facile and flawed. 

I crafted an ABCDEF mnemonic to help residents remember six fundamental principles of medical ethics:

A – the right to Autonomy in decision-making

B – the moral duty of physicians to be adhere to Beneficence when caring for patients

C – the obligation to safeguard patient Confidentiality

D – the patient’s right to receive Disclosure of all information pertaining

E – Equity in dividing finite resources among patient populations

F – First, do no harm (nonmaleficence) 

We then apply these principles to a given situation, understanding that the principles might conflict with one another. It is very rare that a single principle can be used to judge a given question. We also must accept that there are almost never absolute rights and wrongs, just better and worse answers. 

I am confident that we can agree that the current primary care crisis is first and foremost a violation of equity: present circumstances have divided the people who want a family doctor into those who have one and those who don’t. I also expect that you are aware of the evidence that demonstrates that patient outcomes are better when people have an ongoing relationship with a family doctor. 

But you make the elementary mistake of applying a single ethical principle, nonmaleficence, to the matter at hand. Furthermore, you seem unaware that physicians graduating from family medicine programs have been entirely consumed with their training over the previous 5-6 years, nor aware that the medical education system has largely withheld what graduating residents will face as they enter practice. In that light, the letter is a long overdue disclosure that brings transparency to the current state of family medicine. 

That’s right, physicians have the right to disclosure too. We also have rights as people to autonomy, confidentiality and equity. Yet when it comes to our work, we are forced to accept legislated pay and work conditions from a monopoly payer, the government. And the government uses the fact that physicians are independent contractors to justify the fact that we are not entitled to the same cost-of-living increases paid to other health or educational professionals. 

Finally, I think you fail to recognize that in family medicine, we face unusual challenges to persistently align with all the principles of medical ethics, which work best when applied to “cases” (a single patient at a single moment in time). In contrast, family physicians’ work is longitudinal and includes significant responsibility to populations of patients as well as to individuals. That means that we accept short-term harm when we do things like stick vaccination needles in people’s arms or wean them from opioids, understanding that we are looking to provide a net benefit in the medium to long term. 

To my mind, that is precisely what Drs. Alam, Gandhi and Mathew have done. In other words, they are acting very ethically. For while the short-term consequences of their disclosure may accelerate the intensification of the immediate crisis, the sooner the crisis provokes action the sooner we start climbing out of this horrendous hole. 

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.

Another Open Letter to the OMA Board: Re-visit the Negotiations Mandate

Dear OMA Board Member,

Just me again. The grumpy, aged quack with a history of being a bit of a thistle in your obliques. Well intentioned I assure you (although I’m told some may not see it that way).

Negotiations with the provincial government on a Physicians Services Agreement (PSA) continue and mediation began on February 20th. That’s all great and part of the process. However, things HAVE CHANGED a lot since the last time I wrote to you and urged you to set a strong mandate.

I am asking you to revisit the negotiations mandate at this time, in light of three new key pieces of information that are very relevant to Ontario doctors.

To recap – the negotiations mandate is the bare minimum ask that the Negotiations Task Force (NTF) can accept on behalf of the Board. If the government makes an offer that meets or exceeds that – well, then they accept it on behalf of the Board and the Board is compelled to endorse it. The mandate is, quite correctly, confidential (you can’t let the other side know your bare minimum ask any more than they would let you know their mandate). But it’s up to the Board to determine if the mandate is enough (not the NTF).

Now to be clear, I’m not saying you should revise it, just revisit it. Perhaps the mandate is already sufficiently strong. That would be great. But things are different now.

The first reason to revisit the mandate:

Other provinces have surpassed Ontario physicians in terms of income. BC and Saskatchewan have significant deals to stabilize the physician work force. Manitoba’s deal with physicians appears to be the best of the bunch. Manitoba has not only a well deserved increase for all physicians, but significant steps towards gender pay equity.

As an aside, while I applaud the fact that DoctorsManitoba made steps towards gender pay equity, I’m forced to wonder what happened to Ontario? When I was on the OMA Board we were proud of the fact that although it was too late, we were the first PTMA to report on the issues around gender pay equity. We proved that the pay gap was not because “women work less hard”. What happened ?

Also, to be clear I want to acknowledge that the negotiations counsel (Messrs Goldblatt and Barrett) are very well aware of any topic that could affect negotiations. I remember Darren Cargill, who at the time was on our NTF, told me “they read everything.”

Howard Goldblatt, Negotiations Counsel for OMA
Steven Barrett, Negotiations Counsel for OMA

Therefore, I know they read the Manitoba Schedule of Benefits which is available online and reported back to you. I’m sure you are fully aware of the retention bonuses in that deal. I’m sure you know about the significant changes that decrease the gender pay gap. I’m sure you know about the fact that Manitoba pays physicians for Admin time. And that their capitation model has no negation (although a lower base rate). And that they have an age premium. A pelvic exam premium (gender equity again). And that they allow extra payments for dealing with more than one problem at a visit. I have absolutely no doubt that our negotiations counsel has fully and thoroughly advised you of this, along with the benefits of the deals in BC and Saskatchewan.

The second reason to revisit the mandate:

The crisis in family medicine is spiralling out of control, faster than I thought possible. Not only is it badly affecting patient care, but the health, well being and morale of physicians is sinking like a stone. Last September, I never dreamed that I, along with Drs. Alam and Mathew, would write a letter to Family Practice residents telling them to stay away from comprehensive family medicine in Ontario. I never dreamed that there would be story after story after story of individual family physicians openly talking about how they were burning out. This situation has gone form bad to desperate frighteningly quickly.

The third reason to revisit the mandate:

Bill 124, the piece of legislation that limited increases to the public sector, was used to promote a low ball PSA to us the last time. You even, admittedly and embarrassingly, convinced a guy who should have known better. It’s ruled unconstitutional and the government will not appeal this. In fact they will repeal the Bill entirely. In light of that, many other public sector workers will be asking for catch up pay.

So it really is time for you to re-visit the negotiations mandate. Just double check to make sure it’s as strong as it should be given the above factors. Make sure it takes into account that the the BC deal has attracted over 700 physicians to comprehensive family practice. Make sure it recognizes that Manitoba will likely be showing a net growth in physicians shortly, and can reasonably attract physicians from out of their province. If you have to revise the mandate upwards after looking at it, then do so.

NB – IF the NTF were to push back if you do revise the mandate upwards, then make sure you hold your ground. Remember, YOU are the Board and YOU give direction to ALL committees and task forces, including the NTF. I’ll be careful how I say this so as not to divulge Board confidentiality, but the NTF in my day did have a proposal on one particular issue (not the whole PSA) that they told us to approve and our Board pushed back and said no. We had to listen to some (quite eloquent) speeches about how hard they worked and this undermined their work and so on and so forth – but after that they went back and kept negotiating as directed. Don’t do any less this time.

These negotiations are likely to make or break the profession for decades to come. They are that important. You owe it to your members to take another look at the mandate.

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor.

Dr. Corli Barnes on the Challenges Facing New Family Physicians

Dr. Corli Barnes , pictured here, guest blogs for me today. She is a Family Practice resident who is just completing her residency. She sent the following letter to the Sudbury media after reading reports about the crisis in family medicine. I thank her for allowing me to reproduce the letter here.

Hi Len,

I read your article about family physicians. I am a second-year family medicine resident here in Sudbury, ON, originally from Manitoba. Thank you for taking the time to help raise awareness about the crisis in Family Medicine. I wanted to write to you to offer a viewpoint not often accounted for in this conversation.

I’m about to graduate as a family physician. After ten years of climbing that Mount Everest, eight of those years without an income, paying for two full-time degrees plus inflation and living costs, I’m $350,000 in debt. That’s living on around $31,000 a year.

The government just denied me loan repayment assistance because I get paid ~$68,500 a year as a resident. The cost to write my final exam just went from around $1,500 to $4,201. When starting a practice, a monthly bill of anywhere from $7,000 to $12,000 in overhead is waiting for most grads who take up a clinic practice, plus ~$2,000 a month in interest on debt if you supported yourself through school.

When I start practice, I can expect the Ministry of Health to take it’s time (at least two months) to approve my funding model. My first paycheck will come in at fee-for-service levels that won’t cover my costs.

About a year and a half ago, after working a 60-hour week, I started to quietly panic when I did the math to project my net income as an attending physician. Clinic-based family medicine is my passion, and I realized that it wasn’t going to work out based on the way most physicians work. I wouldn’t be able to even begin to pay off my debt.

After all that work, sacrificing my twenties, my health, friendships, and enduring the stress of medical training – I wouldn’t be able to cover my living costs as an attending family physician.

Try imagining uprooting your entire life to go on a pilgrimage to a promise land and when you finally get there, it’s a shell of what it once was. A ghost town with worn out buildings and hardly anyone in sight. You’re 10,000 miles from home and way worse off than when you started.

The only promise this journey has fulfilled is providing the education necessary to safely and meaningfully help people who are sick and enable them to seek wellness.

A family doctor is the only professional that is trained adequately to be able to pick out disease from the general population. It is the only medical specialty educated in every body system, who is there to catch those who fall through the cracks, prevent disease, and deliver medicine in a way that suits an individual.

This work will always be challenging and meaningful, requiring dedication to keep up with rapidly increasing medical knowledge and motivation to continue to seek excellence. The challenge is great, and the reward for doing it well – a healthy patient – even greater. This is why I’m passionate about it, and sad to see it fall apart and go unappreciated. It’s hard to watch as its integrity is cheapened by being grouped into an emerging category of primary care providers with far less training and liability, and have its voice drown out by promises of funding that seem to keep ending up in someone else’s pocket.

Because of the way things are, I have had to pivot considerably by coming up with creative ways to practice medicine and supplement in my income in the future.

Many of my peers have elected to do emergency medicine, hospitalist, subspecialize in family medicine or locum while they contemplate their options.

With every news release, I read about funding for health teams, funding for free schooling for nurses, funding for nurse practitioners, funding for “programs to reduce administrative burden” that I have yet to see a benefit of. I open the news everyday, hoping to read something about increased pay for family physicians. Instead, I read about how negotiations are not going well with the government. I read that the planned increase of 2 or 3% has been cut down to 1% or 0%.

Sometimes, it’s hard to not regret going into any number of specialties I could have. I go to work, and I do my best to help the patient in front of me. They ask about where I’m going to practice with hope in their eyes. They leave feeling better, and I try not to think about the fact that for many family physicians, the thanks for that visit is just $12 to take home.

Eventually, fueled by the same determination that got me into medical school, I started to dig deep to find a solution that wouldn’t mean I would have to abandon my dream of opening a clinic-based practice. A solution that wouldn’t mean I have to give up freedom I’ve waited years for, work unsustainable hours or in a toxic environment bred by chronic underfunding.

I scoured Ontario looking for a place that would help fund the start of my career in a meaningful way while having a sustainable business model that supports good medicine. After around a year of this search, I am lucky to have found a place in Madoc, Ontario but I can report that it is a very hard thing to find.

I am sad to be leaving Sudbury, where I currently live and initially hoped to call home when I moved here in 2022. I hope this letter helps to raise awareness about the difficult situation many residents are in and how urgently family physicians need change.

Actually, Ontario Does NOT Have a Shortage of Family Physicians….

You’re probably wondering if I’ve lost my mind. The media is currently littered with stories about how 2.3 million people in Ontario don’t have a family doctor and how that number is expected to double in two years. Family practices are closing down. In Sault Ste Marie – over 10,000 people are about to be orphaned (left without a family doctor). The Ontario Union of Family Physicians just held an event geared towards helping family doctors leave the profession.

How out of touch must I be to make the assertion, as I did on CTV news recently, that we don’t have a shortage of family doctors?

Yours truly on CTV News

Truth be told, there is an important distinction that has to made, which is key to solving the orphaned patient crisis. There are family doctors, and there are family doctors who are willing to work in a comprehensive care family practice like I do. 

According to the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) website, there are over 15,000 members of the Section of General and Family Practice. These doctors have got their medical licence, are qualified to practice in Ontario, and are able to practice family medicine without any further regulatory hurdles (like getting foreign doctors licensed would entail). There are likely many more as some doctors with a family practice billing licence don’t choose a section – but let’s go with 15,000.

What’s really telling is that only about 9,300 are in what’s called a PEM (Practice Enrolment Model – where a formal agreement exists to run a family practice). The number that are in Fee For Service alone (without an agreement) but still run a practice, is likely only a couple of hundred. So at most we have 9,500 comprehensive care family doctors. The other 5,500+ do something else (hospital only work, clinical associate work, walk in, etc).

From the OMA website. PEM + APP is about 9,300. This would be the number of docs with a formal agreement to run a family practice. 

There’s a myriad of reasons why comprehensive family practice is so unappealing, but let’s look at the two main ones.

1)Decreasing net incomes over the years. It is of course, unpopular to talk about the money doctors make. The OMA has historically felt that the general public views doctors as “fat cats” and “part of the rich elite.” So they’ve shied away from talking about physicians incomes or trying to positively frame that discussion – with predictable results.

As Boris Kralj (PhD in Economics, Adjunct Asst. Prof at McMaster and former Staff at the OMA) points out, net income for family physicians has fallen drastically over the past 20 years.

My thanks to Dr. Kralj for allowing me to share his graph.

2) Increasing Admin Burden. I think everybody has heard how family doctors now spend up to 19 hours a week doing administrative work, ON TOP of the time they spend seeing patients. This work is unpaid of course (there is no fee code for admin work). On a personal note, in about 2004, my office, which was already electronic, got a vpn (virtual private network). This allowed me to connect to he office from anywhere in the world. Initially, I thought it was great. I would go on vacation, spend 20 minutes a day taking care of messages and when I got back from vacation – I would not have the backlog of messages to deal with. 

This past summer, I went on a hiking trip with one of my sons. He pointed out that I was now spending over two hours a day going through labs and messages. Essentially, family doctors don’t have any vacation now. I don’t care what your job is or who you are, a life without any breaks is unsustainable.

Me last summer, by a lake, on vacation, checking my office messages and lab work (dummy chart)

What can be done about this? How does one make family medicine more appealing? This may rub some people the wrong way but the first step is simple. Pay family physicians more. In Ontario, the most common fee billed by a family physician is about $37. (The last time I got a haircut, I paid $40). Out of that $37 the family doctor has to pay their nurse, receptionist, rent, cleaning, supplies and so on. Gets used up pretty quickly. 

Additionally, you need to pay physicians for admin work. If there is 19 hours of admin work that needs to be done – it’s only fair that work is paid for. There are people who are skeptical this will work. To them I would point out that British Columbia has gotten 700 more family doctors since increasing the pay to family physicians. 

You mean if you increase the income for a job, more people will apply for it? Who knew?

B.C. isn’t even the province that pays physicians the most. That’s arguably, as I have written before, Manitoba. Saskatchewans new deal is also much better than what Ontario offers.

The second aspect is to reduce the admin burden for all physicians. Many experts suggest this is a process that will take time. They are the same experts that oversaw the increase in Admin work for physicians with “oh it’s just one extra click or it’s just a simple form”. 

To reduce the Admin burden significantly, one needs to drastically revamp digital health care. Get rid of eHealth Ontario and OntarioMD, and run all decisions through the Digital Health Branch of the Ministry of Health. It’s too late to unify all of our electronic medical records, but you can approve one (and only one) patient app that will allow patients to access and transfer their records to the physician of their choice to reduce duplication and waste. That’s the kind of bold steps that we need to take, not just crowing about the fact that doctors don’t have to sign hearing aid forms any more.

Look we already have 5,500 licensed family physicians in Ontario able to open up a practice. If 40 per cent did so, it would end this crisis immediately without having to resort to years long plans of modifying licensing and training requirements for foreign graduates (who in fairness are generally very good).

Do our leaders have the boldness and vision to do the right thing?

OMA Needs to Communicate Better About Status of Negotiations

Negotiations between the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) on a new Physicians Services Agreement (PSA) began this past fall. The first set of bilateral meetings were in mid-October. This years negotiations present a particularly complex challenge as not only is the OMA trying to negotiate a new four year agreement for physicians, but it also has to determine how much of an increase physicians will get this year (more on that later).

Given that we are a few months into the process – I think the OMA as an organization is really not doing a very good job of communicating the status of the Negotiations with its members.  The OMA really needs to increase some of the transparency around the negotiations process.

In fairness, there are somethings about negotiations that simply can’t be divulged (and I fully support this and members do need to accept this):

  • The mandate for negotiations must be confidential, to prevent the other side from knowing what our bare minimum acceptable increase is
  • The detailed discussions between the Negotiations Task Force (NTF) and the MOH must also be confidential (a lot of stuff that goes back and forth is hypothetical – and to protect the integrity of the process – you can’t disclose this to 40,000 + people)
  • The briefings presented to the Board and the Section Chairs must stay confidential as well (for the same reasons above).
  • NB – If we wind up in arbitration, the asks at arbitration are public.

So what should the OMA be informing members about then, given what’s usually a “cone of silence” around negotiations? Well, put simply, there are a number of things that are part of the negotiations process, outlined in public documents readily available to all members. The OMA needs to recognize some members (not just me) will read and wonder about these. (Although I’m probably one of the few loudmouths who’ll publicly write about it).

The Cone of Silence, from the classic series, “Get Smart”

For example, the Binding Arbitration Framework, under which negotiations are now held, is posted on the OMA website for all physicians to see. The framework is pretty clear. After 60 days of negotiations, either side can ask for mediation. They don’t have to, but they can. 

We are over 60 days. Perhaps mediation is not needed yet (which would be a good thing). But the OMA can, without compromising the negotiations tell members something like “while we have been negotiating for x number of days, at this time the process continues and we neither side has called for mediation.” It would at least let members who follow this closely know what the stages are.

Similarly, it would be quite reasonable for the OMA to list the dates of the meetings with he MOH and a general list of what they are talking about. Eg Oct 19 met with MOH to discuss Primary Care models, Oct 21 to discuss backlog in radiology etc. (I have no idea when the meetings with the MOH were or what they talked about btw – I’m just pointing out what could be said).

Finally, there appears to be radio silence about the part of the last contract that directly affects this year. This contract was completed and ratified by members and is public knowledge. The parts of concern are:

21. ….the parties will establish a committee that will meet on a quarterly basis…..to review the expenditure calculations. Through this committee, the parties will agree to a best estimate of the year 3 (2023- 2024) PSB expenditures in accordance with paragraph 6 by December 15, 2023.

22. Any agreements reached by the Government with respect to any new physician payment program or addition to an existing program which was not the subject of a proposal by the OMA during the negotiations leading to the agreement for the 2021-2024 PSA will not be included in calculating the total PSB expenditure …..”

It’s obviously past December 15, 2023. Which means we should have an agreement on the PSB expenditures by know. This information is critical to determining how much of an increase we get this year. The OMA had told us that:

“Conservative OMA projections indicate an expected Year 3 increase of 2.8 per cent, with a range of 2.1 per cent to 3.6 per cent”

But if the expenditures are too high, then we potentially get a zero percent increase. My friend Paul Hacker did an EXCELLENT job of explaining this here:

Paul Hacker’s Analysis

As an aside, some of you wondered why I endorsed him for OMA Board Director. It’s because of stuff like the above link. He knows the Board needs to provide proper oversight on the process and ensure it’s explained to members.

Anyway, perhaps this date got pushed back. This wouldn’t surprise me. The MOH Negotiations team was never able to get data on time in the past (there was always an excuse, except for the truth – that they are generally incompetent).

But the OMA should simply tell members this. Remember last year when it was announced to primary care docs that the repurposing of the preventative care bonuses couldn’t be mutually agreed on, and so was delayed for a year? Do the same thing and say the deadline couldn’t be met and you continue to work on it. But don’t just ignore the deadline and hope no one will notice.

Communicating better would also be beneficial for the NTF. There is no task force at the OMA that is more controversial, and gets more….attention…from members than the NTF. Yet what’s missed is that the NTF works really really hard. I remember some of the 18 hour days they put in when I was in various roles at the OMA. 

But when communication about the process, and the work they are doing is substandard, members won’t appreciate all that. They’ll simply blame the NTF for what goes wrong (e.g. if we were to get zero percent this year). It would be foolish in the extreme to suggest everyone will love the NTF if they just communicated better. But better communication would at least blunt some of the criticism that will come their way.

Hopefully, the OMA as an organization will recognize this.