Ontario Medical Association – justanoldcountrydoctor

More on the OMA Elections

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

Is “Relational Advocacy” a Concern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Independent is Promeus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMA Manipulates Board Elections and Weakens Members Voices

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

Current Past President of the OMA, Dr. Dominik Nowak

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

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

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

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

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

Colleagues, we have a big problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physicians will truly be hurt by this short sighted decision.

Expanded Scope of Practice Will Ultimately Hurt Patients

On October 1, the CBC published an article on how a program to expand the scope of practice of pharmacists in New Brunswick completely fell apart and was cancelled. There’s a litany of reasons why the project died. But the ones that stood out for me were (italicized quotes are lifted from the CBC article):

the project promoted a “a convenient new option” as opposed to to focusing on quality health care first
the project’s hypothesis – “..every patient getting care at a pharmacy would take pressure off the public system — remained unproven..”
there is a lot of focus on the fact that pharmacists need to be able to order bloodwork
There is significant mention of the role of Perry Martin, a paid lobbyist for Shoppers Drug Mart pushing for this change. There’s also this line – “the pilot pharmacists were being deluged with patients prescribed point-of-care tests by Maple, the private company operating the eVisit virtual care service.” Curiously, even though Maple referred patients to Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies, there’s no mention of the fact that Shoppers Drug Mart invested $75 million into Maple. One would think that if company “A” invests in company “B”, and then company “B” sends business to company “A”, and company “A”makes money from the government for that business (though public health insurance), that should get a mention.
The provinces physicians feared duplication of tests and fragmenting of care
There was significant push back to the statement that letting pharmacists treating minor illnesses led to a 9.2% drop in Emergency room visits in Nova Scotia – “Health officials checked, however, and concluded the drop was because of a combination of several initiatives.“
Unsurprisingly, the government noted “an Ontario report that surveyed pharmacists who complained of corporate pressure to hit quotas and revenue targets“
Most importantly to my eyes: “Nicole Poirier, the director of primary care, pointed out the report contained “no conclusive findings” that it reduced pressure on the public system, and did not show better health outcomes for patients.“

I bring this up because in Ontario, we continue to fail to heed these warning signs. On Sep 17, the Ontario government announced plans to consider expanding the scope of practice of many allied health care professionals (AHCP).

It’s not just this report from New Brunswick that should raise concerns. There has been a growing body of evidence over the years about how the idea of offloading “minor” illnesses to non-physicians doesn’t achieve the benefits intended.

For example a three year study of expanding Nurse Practitioner (NP) autonomy in US Veteran’s Health Administration hospitals found that:

There was a 7% increase in immediate costs to patient care, and an overall 15% in costs for caring for patients when one included downstream costs. This was attributed to NPs taking longer to evaluate patients and ordering more tests.
Sub optimal triage of patients was also noted leading to things like under‐admission when needed (leading to worse outcomes and later, costlier interventions) or over‐referral/overuse
Patients under NP care had worse decision‐making about hospital admissions and increased return ED visits (which cost more)

It’s not just studies that are opposed to scope expansion that have expressed concerns. In Australia, a generally favourable report to having AHCPs work to their full scope of practice, still mentioned the significant need for training, regulation, and funding to support safe expansion. The training part is important because contrary to what’s being put out, many AHCPs are not trained to recognize a potentially serious issue from a minor one. (You don’t know what you don’t know). The same report also mentioned significant concerns about more fragmented care, waste and higher long term health system costs.

Another generally supportive of scope expansion of NPs study purports to show that NP delivered primary care for patients with multiple chronic conditions show similar outcomes to care delivered by family doctors. BUT, a deep dive into the study showed that the models studied often included physician-NP teams, or limited scope expansions. They did not always include fully independent NPs. Training, team collaboration, and oversight often remained intact.

With respect to AHCPs expanding their scope of practice in general, a number of concerns need to reviewed.

First is antibiotic stewardship. This is a big problem as overprescription of antibiotics is increasingly resulting in more and more virulent and drug resistant strains of bacteria. As I’ve pointed out before – CANADIAN provinces which allow pharmacists to provide antibiotic prescriptions- have a higher per capita rate of antibiotic prescriptions than others. That’s just reality.

Secondly the reality is that AHCPs will over order diagnostic testing, particularly if they “are not sure” about the diagnosis. We saw that with the Veterans Hospital study above. We will see that if, as suggested, AHCPs will be able to order more and more tests.

Thirdly, there is going to be an increase fragmentation of care. Whether one looks at Japan, Norway, Great Britain, or really any other country, it’s been repeatedly shown than having a consistent family doctor will result in better health care outcomes and reduced costs to the health care systems. Central to this is the family physicians ability to provide a medical home where all of the patients information can be consolidated at one spot, and their ability to help patients understand and navigate health care.

In Ontario our system is so disjointed and disorganized that it is not possible for all of the testing/prescribing done by allied health care providers to get to the family physicians easily. This very quickly will lead to fragmentation of care and will eventually come back to hurt patients. To their credit, both OMA Past President Dr. Domink Nowak and current President, Dr. Zainab Abdurrahman have repeatedly pointed this out.

Finally one thing that has not been discussed is the liability concerns. I don’t see any of the people talking about expanding scope of practice acknowledging that there will be increases in the cost of liability insurance. We’ve already seen in the US that NPs have had increased lawsuits against them. I’m positive that this will happen to other allied health care professionals if these changes go through.

It’s fair to note that much literature also finds benefits (e.g. improved access, equivalent outcomes in many primary care settings, especially for chronic disease management), and some cost savings under certain models. The risk is that decision-makers may generalize from settings where allied expansion worked well under supportive conditions to settings where such supports are weaker. Which appears to be where we are heading in Ontario.

All of which means we should expect a newspaper report in about 2029 showing that expansion of scope of AHCPs has not shown the expected results. Say, isn’t that about the time of the next Provincial Election?

It Appears Family Doctors are Giving Up…

Recently, I attended the Menopause Society’s Biennial National Scientific Conference. I’ve long felt that medicine as a whole has done a poor job on women’s health issues, and wanted to learn more about what I can do to better help my patients. The conference itself was packed (over 600 attendees). Half of them were family doctors like myself. As with all medical conferences, not only did I get the chance to learn some valuable information to benefit my patients, I got a chance to network with colleagues from across the country.

Sadly however, a rather large number of family doctors I met were in a similar state of mind. They were tired, burnt out, and were actively exploring ways to stop practicing family medicine. In short, they were all giving up.

A dear friend of mine is taking 6 months off her practice to re-evaluate her work (despite having helped countless numbers of people over the years). Another physician has found happiness working part time at a specialty clinic and occasionally doing locums (vacation relief work). Another is actively looking to find someone to take over his practice. Another is simply going to close her practice after two years of trying to find someone to take over. Another…….ah, you get the point.

About one -third of the family doctors I spoke to were all at some stage of quitting family medicine. Given that Canada has 6 million people without a family doctor – which is already a disaster- it’s safe to say our health care system won’t survive if this happens.

About the only part of the country where family doctors seemed to want to carry on was Manitoba. They cited a new contract that fairly compensated them for their work, and a reasonably positive working relationship with the government. I guess that’s why Manitoba set a new record for recruiting physicians last year. Paying people fairly and working with them co-operatively will attract new talent? Who knew?

(As an aside, Manitoba is also the only province I am aware of that has a specific billing code for counselling women on issues related to peri-menopause and menopause).

But I digress. The question becomes why are so many family doctors planning on giving up? I would suggest it’s a host of issues. There is an increasing level of burnout in the profession. It’s primarily driven by by the administrative workload which has gotten out of hand. For example, I recently went on vacation to Manitoulin Island, and while waiting for the ferry, I couldn’t help but pull out my laptop and check my lab work and messages. I knew that if I didn’t check my labs every day, the workload on my first day back would be crushing.

Me in my car, waiting to get on the Chi-Cheemon ferry to Manitoulin Island, checking my labs and messages on my Electronic Medical Record (dummy chart on screen)

There’s also the constant delays in getting patients tests and referrals to specialists. The most common message I get from my patients is something along the lines of “I haven’t heard from the specialist/diagnostic test people yet, do you know when it’s going to be?”

And of course there is the ever present “But my naturopath told me you could order my serum rhubarb levels for free” and “I did a search online and it told me I need a full body MRI”.

The worst part of it of course, is that the family doctor becomes the brunt of the frustration and anger that patients express when the health care system doesn’t live up to their expectations. I had to tell three patients (while I was on vacation) that, no, I couldn’t do anything to speed up the specialist appointment. Four more were told that I had in fact called the pharmacy with their prescriptions – and I had the fax logs/email logs to prove it. And so on…

So what can be done?

In the absence of anything else of course, the first thing is to pay family doctors more. Recently, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and the Ministry of Health (MoH) have rolled out the “FHO+” model of paying physicians. There is a slight bump in pay (about 4% for the next fiscal year over this year). There is also an acknowledgement that administrative work needs to get paid and some other tweaks. It’s perhaps a start, but in the current system, a 4% raise will not stop the haemorrhaging of family physicians.

What really needs to happen is for Ontario to forcibly, quickly and rapidly move to a modernized, province wide electronic medical records system. I’ve been talking about this for years and years and even presented on this to eHealth Ontario (in 2018!). But I have not been able to explain it as well as my colleague Dr. Iris Gorfinkel did in her recent Toronto Star Op-ed. (It’s a really good read and I encourage you all to read it). To shamelessly quote her:

“A fully integrated, province‑wide, patient‑accessible electronic health record system should no longer be viewed as a luxury, but an essential part of the solution to Ontario’s existing crisis…… It would free family doctors to do the work only we can do.”

Secondly, we need to rapidly move towards team based care with family physicians as the lead of the team. While the MoH is announcing teams proudly in the hopes of connecting patients with doctors, the rollout seems kind of uneven. They amount to a call for proposals as opposed to a specific evidence based structure of how these teams should run. There’s also no specific role guarantees for family physicians in these teams (beyond saying they are important). The process seems slipshod at best.

Finally, at the end of the day we must not shame or diminish those family physicians who have given up. Many of them have spent years, if not decades fighting for better care for their patients. The fact that the unrelenting bureaucracy of our cumbersome health care system finally got to them and made them give up should be cause to shame the people in charge of health care, not the individual physicians.

Let’s hope that message gets across.

Never Ending Arbitration Seems to Be Our Fate

On September 18, 2026, Arbitrator William Kaplan handed down an award for Ontario physicians in their ongoing and seemingly never ending negotiations process. I imagine rather a lot will be written about this. There are already lots of comments on social media, and many rushes to analysis, sacrificing accuracy for expediency. This is sadly true for any hot button news topic these days. I’m going to take my time to review the ruling in detail and probably have some more thoughts on it later. I would prefer to be accurate, not quick.

Photo of Arbitrator William Kaplan, owner of Kaplan Arbitration — Arbitrator William Kaplan

One thing I will say is that physicians are going to be locked into a perpetual negotiations/arbitration process for the next few years. In a previous blog I had commented that all outstanding arbitration issues would be resolved with this ruling. I based that on comments made by the OMA, and by the arbitrator himself. Being a victim of Murphy’s Law on many occasions, I did go on to say that:

“Of course now that I write this there probably will be yet another process announced after this which will mean more negotiation and arbitration”

Unfortunately, it appears that last part is indeed the case. All this ruling really does is set a (too low) dollar value ruling for how much of an increase (general and targeted) physicians are entitled to for the fiscal years April 1, 2025-March 31, 2028. It doesn’t deal with rather a whole lot of implementation issues.

For example, what exactly is going to be the dollar value of each fee code as of April 1, 2026?. The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) has long stated that current fee codes/billing are temporary and the new permanent values for codes will be implemented this coming April 1. The award defers that to the ongoing Physician Payment Committee (PPC) process that is supposed to have fee codes ready by then.

Additionally, the Award mentions the targeted funds for things like Hospital On Call (HOCC)/Unbundling Surgical Codes/Alternate Payment Plans and more – > but not the specifics of how those funds are going to be distributed or billed. Even the OMA’s own “agreed issues document” doesn’t really offer an agreement. For HOCC for example, it states:

“The parties shall conclude negotiations on the revised burden-based HOCC system bilaterally….If agreement cannot be reached by January 1, 2026, either party may refer the matter to mediation/arbitration ….”

Ok – what about things like the constant delay in physicians getting paid for work they do, supposedly due to the inefficient and ancient OHIP computers. The Award doesn’t set out a specifically penalty. It simply directs the OMA/MOH to make it a priority to fix this issue and if they can’t :

“This Board will remain seized in the event that the parties cannot reach agreement, with either, party having the right to return to this Board after January 1, 2026”

Yup, more negotiations and arbitration if the OMA asks for penalties for delayed payments. I hope there’s a good legal reason the OMA didn’t ask for specific penalties in their Arbitration briefs, otherwise it was dumb of them not to. The MOH asked for penalties in the new FHO+ model for family doctors, and that was awarded.

There’s also the fact that this award has funds that should have been already paid to us on April 1 of this year. The award does provide some guidance in terms of saying the increases should be paid retroactively on a lump sum basis, but once again – if the parties can’t agree to the relativity splits for that money – it goes back to……..more Arbitration.

Essentially the award says physicians as a whole are to get 7.3 percent in general increases and 2.2% in targeted increases. The MOH and OMA are to figure out how to split that (mostly through the PPC) – and then go back to the Arbitrator if they can’t agree.

Now the PPC itself is, you guessed it, a bilateral committee of the OMA and the Ontario Government. In fairness to them, they have been working quite hard all this time from what I can tell. They may be further along than we think. But I’m guessing that the government members will have a different overall agenda than the OMA. All it takes is for the government to put their foot down on one issue and the whole thing goes back to Arbitration.

The lawyers are gonna get really really rich……

I will once again state that this Arbitration process is still preferable to having unilateral actions imposed upon physicians by governments. Those of us who lived through the Eric Hoskins/Bob Bell years realize just how much worse things would be with the government acting unilaterally.

BUT – never also forget that this protracted process is also because the current government doesn’t really have the capacity to understand the complexity of the health care system (and the complexity of how physicians get paid). Rather than have a bold vision for transforming health care, and making it clear how they will invest funds to promote that vision, they have opted to simply drag out the contractual process. If the MOH had come to the table in a constructive spirit, all the implementation could be rapidly done. The MOH’s absolute insistence on doing everything in the most drawn out way, regardless of the worsening health care crisis, is where they are really failing the people of Ontario.

Politically, of course, it makes some sense. Instead of negotiating a fair contract right from the start and then getting up and defending that from the usual critics, the government instead has chosen to simply let the Arbitrator make all their decisions . Then the government case say “we did what the Arbitrator told us” and shrug their shoulders if things go bad.

I’m acutely aware that to a certain extent the process benefits the OMA as an organization as well. Look at the new FHO+ model for paying family physicians. Because a couple of elements of the program couldn’t be negotiated – that issue went to Arbitration. Because it’s gone there, family doctors don’t get a chance to actually vote on the model like they would if there was a negotiated tentative agreement. So the OMA can kind of impose a model of payment they feel is acceptable on family physicians, rather than promote it in a free and fair vote.

The unfortunate thing is that I actually do think the FHO+ is a small step forward (not as big as the OMA is making it out to be) and likely would have passed if given to members to vote on. I would have voted for it myself despite my criticism of some aspects of it.

So what does this all mean for physicians? It means that for the next three years (at least) we should all get used to living in an era of constant ongoing negotiations and constant Arbitration, with continual delays in payments because of an intransigent government.

Sigh…

How the Arbitration Process Works and How it Applies to Family Medicine

Dr. Mark Dermer (pictured inset) , a recently retired family physician guest blogs for me today. He posted his thoughts about the arbitration process and how it can potentially affect family medicine on a private facebook group. I thought his post was excellent and I’m honoured that he has agreed to allow me to republish his thoughts here, so more people can see it.

A common misconception about how the arbitration decision will be determined is that the arbitrator will choose either the entire OMA submission or the entire MOH submission as the PSA award for 2025-28. While some arbitrations work like that – salary arbitration does – that’s not the case in the OMA-MOH 2017 Binding Arbitration Framework (BAF). As stated in paragraph 18 of that document (in this group’s files section):

“Absent an agreement of the parties, the method of binding interest arbitration to be used shall not be final offer selection. In particular, unless the parties agree otherwise, the arbitration board may, on any issue or issues, select either party’s proposal, choose a middle ground, or issue any award that it determines is appropriate in the circumstances.”

In other words, the arbitration board will issue a decision that is built point-by-point, with quantitative decisions set anywhere on the continuum between the two parties submitted positions. And the choice for each point/issue will be made in the context of the entire Physician Services Agreement (PSA).

For family physicians, there are four points of dispute that await the final PSA arbitration decision:

1) Annual increases to the Physician Services Budget (PSB) in years 2, 3 and 4 (2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28) of the present 2024-28 PSA. Note that these overall increases will then be subject to relativity adjustments that are managed within the OMA.

– OMA submission: 3.75% in each of the three years for a total of 11.25%

– MOH submission: 2.25% year 2, 2% in years 3 and 4 for a total of 6.25%

The arbitration board will award a percentage amount for each of the three years that lies on the range between the two parties submitted figures guided by the information supporting their numbers (the OMA’s justifications for its figures in its submission look to my eyes to be considerably stronger).

2) Continuity of Care Accountability Measure with Financial Consequences – the methodology of the measure has been agreed by the parties. But the question of whether there will be financial consequences and if so, the trigger threshold and financial magnitude, have not.

– OMA submission: no financial consequence but if so, trigger threshold should occur only if continuity falls below 70% and penalty should be a 10% reduction in base rate

– MOH submission: Trigger threshold is falling below 80% continuity and penalty should be 20% reduction in base rate

The arbitration board must first decide whether there should be a financial consequence and if so, when it should be implemented. For example, it could say that physicians need several quarterly reports to allow them to adapt their practices before the financial penalties start. With respect to the threshold, the arbitration board will likely choose a figure in the 70-80% range, though it is free to choose outside that range and here to, it could make a setting that changes over the three remaining years of the agreement. Same goes with the size of the base rate penalty, which we can assume will be in the 10-20% range if a penalty forms part of the new PSA.

** Note – Continuity of Care and any penalty is assessed at the level of each individual physician’s practice, NOT at the level of the FHO.

3) Increase to FHG premium

– OMA submission: Increase from the current 10% to 20%

– MOH submission: No change

The arbitration board may choose to keep the FHG premium the same, or increase it by any amount it wishes. Including raising it by more than 20%.

4) $5 per patient visit overhead fee for community practices (up to 40 visits per day; excludes hospital, contract and FHO/FHO+ services)

– OMA submission: Newly proposed by OMA

– MOH: No response

The arbitration board will have to decide whether to introduce this fee at all and then at what dollar rate to set the fee. Note that this fee applies to community specialist practices as well as to non-FHO family medicine practices.

The bottom line:

There is a wide range of possible financial outcomes of the arbitration board award. That’s why trying to forecast how it will affect you, or plan adaptations, will likely not be a very good use of your time at the moment.

I also think that the past week has demonstrated, yet again, the OMA’s poor member communication skills: it was irresponsible of them to publish scenarios and calculators that neither acknowledge nor take into account the possible continuity of care financial penalties. My recommendation is to generally ignore their messages until the arbitration board issues its decision.

The FHO+ Model Alone Won’t Save Family Medicine in Ontario

Disclaimer: I’ve looked through the OMA page on the FHO+ model and interpreted the data as best I can, BUT, this information should NOT be used by others for their own financial planning – they should review the data for themselves. Additionally, because this is a complex model – if the OMA’s Negotiations Task Force feels there are mistakes – I would be happy to correct those.

Last week, the OMA announced that they and the Ontario government had developed an enhanced model for paying family physicians. In Ontario, the most popular model for paying family physicians is something called the Family Health Organization (FHO). More physicians would choose it, but in typical unthinking and regressive fashion, the bureaucrats at the MOH convinced the government to limit entry into that model in the 2010s – because you know, why would you want people going into family medicine to have their preferred payment model? What were they going to do? Stop working as family doctors? Sigh…..

The OMA website states the new FHO+ is the “Future of Family Medicine” and talks glowingly about how this will “bring back the joy of family medicine, and build a foundation to support recruitment and retention”.

It’s always tough to break things down with a new model, and there are a lot of variables and enhancements to review. I encourage all family physicians to watch my friend Dr. Adam Stewart’s set of truly excellent videos on this new model.

For my part, I consider myself to have a medium sized practice. I therefore looked at Dr. “B” on the OMA’s web page to come up with my thoughts. (Note to OMA – come up with some better names for the doctors!)

How much of an increase in income am I going to get?

According to the OMA site, I should expect an increase of 13% of my gross income. But it’s not clarified what the baseline for that increase is? Is it this year’s income? Last year’s? So I emailed the OMA and was given this answer:

“The base rate the parties agreed to use in our costing was FY2023/24, keeping in mind the last permanent increases were on April 1, 2023, the recent years 2.8%, 9.95% and the monthly relativity for FY2024/25 are all temporary and will end on April 1, 2026.”

Alright, some more math (my apologies). Let’s use fiscal year 22/23 to start. Let’s assume I grossed $X in that year. For FY 23/24 – that was the last year of the previous PSA and we got a 2.8% increase in fees. So I grossed $1.028X that year. FY24/25 was year I of the current PSA and we were awarded 9.95% by the Arbitrator (compounded to the 2.8%). Because there was no agreement on how to divide it up, it was distributed equally among all docs. So I grossed $1.13X.

Still with me? This year, FY 25/26, by mutual agreement, there was a relativity based increase from the original FY 22/23. FHO docs like me got 11.7% so this year, for now, I will be grossing $1.117X. This is down from last year but may change based on whatever happens in Arbitration.

Based on the OMAs reply, if FY 23/24 is the base year they used in their calculations (when I made $1.028X) then and increase of 13% on that will translate to $1.161X. In essence, if FHO+ goes through, it will mean a 4.4% increase for me next year, compared to this year (1.161-1.117) and a mere 3% more than last fiscal year. Better than nothing? Sure. Is it the major dollar influx needed to save family medicine? I think you know the answer to that.

Graph showing a hypothetical growth in gross income for a category “B” family physician who billed $350,000 in FY 22/23

2. How will rural medicine fare?

One of the things that strikes me about this model is that effectively, rural medicine will not do as well. Now, in fairness, there are attachment bonuses for taking on new patients, and those bonuses are higher in rural areas. So there is that. But my understanding is that rural doctors are working overtime anyway and not really able to take more patients right now.

But what should be noted is that in the OMA calculations, the assumption has been made that doctors are getting at least some access bonus currently. So let’s look at Dr. Rustic and Dr. Metro, a rural and urban doc.

Let’s assume they also fall into category “B” as per the OMAs example. It is well known that urban doctors, despite how hard they work, have challenges getting the access bonus. Dr. Metro currently gets an access bonus of $0 because there are five walk in clinics with 15 minutes of her office. This is despite her group working after hours care. Dr. Rustic on the other hand, gets $25K in access bonus, mostly because his group is the only game in town.

With FHO+ the access bonus gone and repurposed to pay for other items (and that is a very good thing as my friend Dr. Mark Linder pointed out) in effect, Dr. Metro’s raise will be $25k MORE than Dr. Rustic’s. I don’t begrudge Dr. Metro the income, she deserves it. But in order to recruit in rural areas, we’re going to have to find a way to bump Dr. Rustic’s income more.

3. What exactly will the Accountability Metric be?

This is of course, the great unknown. These metrics are often presented as “reasonable” and then governments always find a way to make them unreasonable. We won’t know the answer to that until after Arbitration.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I think family doctors as a whole need to realize that FFS family medicine has gone the way of the Dodo bird (I know this will upset some FFS purists). The government also seems to recognize this and as part of the agreement is increasing the number of FHO+ positions.

Despite some of the concerns above, I do think that FHOs should migrate to the new model. It is slightly more money, and I do wonder if by tweaking your practice more – the amount can go up. For example, I have about 200 patients whom I have not rostered because of outside use issues – I would now roster them – and this would increase my income even more. So I suspect there is potential to make more than a 4.4% increase if you manage your roster well. Looking at increased shadow billing rates also offers some potential for more growth.

However, saving family medicine requires a multi-pronged approach that requires a single, unified health information system, family practice teams with physicians clearly placed as the leaders of the teams (with funding for leadership roles) and much more than a 4.4% increase in income. So take the money for now, but don’t in anyway shape or form believe that this in and of itself will fix family medicine.

MOH Pleasantly Surprises (!) and OMA Disappoints in Arbitration Briefs

As I write this, yet another round of Arbitration has begun between the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). This time, the goal is to provide a contract for years 2-4 for the Physicians Services Agreement (PSA). As was pointed out to me on social media (thanks Jane and Lisa), year 2 of this current PSA cycle began on April 1, 2025. Yet again, physicians are going to be due retroactive pay for whatever the Arbitrator decides.

Lawyers from both sides have prepared rather thick legal documents called “briefs”. (Proof number 4,638 that lawyers have a rather weird sense of humour). These briefs are public.

I’d be lying if I said that I had thoroughly understood the briefs from both sides. The excruciating agony in trying to parse the language in these things would make having a kidney stone preferable. But these are my humble thoughts from trying to do so….

The MOH team appears to have learned their lesson from last time.

To be abundantly clear right off the bat, the MOH offer for physicians is too low. They are clearly undervaluing doctors in their stance and if the Arbitrator was to accept their position, it would spell further disaster for health care in Ontario.

But….

As I mentioned in my last blog, offering low is what you expect from the other side. It’s part of posturing for the Arbitrator and I’m genuinely not ruffled by it. What would have been unacceptable is they had refused to recognize the severity of the health care crisis like they did last time. Or if they had once again repeated the truly stupid statement that they weren’t concerned about the shortage of comprehensive care family doctors.

Additionally, the MOH has actually agreed to enhance family medicine models through the “FHO+” program, and has agreed to spend a large chunk of the funds on family physicians, an area of the health care system that is dire need. In essence, they admit that there is a problem with a shortage of comprehensive care family doctors. (NB – I will have my thoughts on the FHO+ model sometime early next week).

To re-iterate, there are still a number of problematic issues with their arbitration proposals, including the too low wage increase, the hopelessly complex method of “accountability” in the FHO+ model, a laughable statement that attachment bonuses for Complex patients will begin on July 1, 2025 when the Arbitrator won’t even rule on this until September or October of this year.

But their position is at least not stupid, and certainly not enough to make me go off like last time.

2. The OMA Disappoints With Their Brief

Once again, to be fair, there is a lot to like in the OMA Brief. There is a good analysis of the economic picture in Ontario, a great analysis of the the delays in care, the crisis in family medicine, hard hitting information about the challenges of recruiting and retaining physicians, superb advocating to relieve the admin burden and a clear explanation of why many Alternate Payment Plans are outdated.

Alas, there is once again a “but” here…..

All of the above is what one should expect from a representative organization. One should however, also expect that organization to advocate strongly to make sure their members get their increases in a reasonable time. And it’s here that the OMA falls (badly) flat.

One of (if not THE biggest) issues for physicians these past couple of years has been the constant delays in getting the increases the Arbitrator awarded them in a timely manner. Just recently the MOH unilaterally announced a delay in paying the retroactive funds owed physicians. This is amongst a series of delays all attributed to an ancient and decrepit computer system at the government. (They’ve been making this statement for well over a decade, and very tellingly, have NEVER bothered to upgrade their system).

While the last 4 pages of the OMA Arbitration Brief does a nice job of outlining the issue for the Arbitrator, including the consequences of the MOH incompetence (physicians will simply stop doing certain procedures), the remedy the OMA seeks is milquetoast at best. From the Arbitration brief (edited):

“As a result, the OMA requests, as is normal and customary, that this Board of Arbitration remain seized with respect to any issues arising from the implementation of this Award……….“

“….with the OMA reserving its right to seek appropriate remedies (e.g. interest) in the event that the Ministry fails to meet agreed upon or directed implementation dates, particularly where the Ministry is unable to provide justification for any delay, or otherwise where the delay is unreasonable and unwarranted.”

That’s it?? All this means is that WHEN (not if – we all know the MOH can’t get their act together) the next payment delays show up, all that will happen is the OMA will complain to the Arbitrator, then there will be more hearings, and those hearings will go on for months/years and then finally, the Arbitrator MAY announce penalties to the MOH. The only good that will come out of this is that a bunch of lawyers will get rich going to repeated hearings.

What’s worse is the OMA readily admits they know the Arbitrator “favours accountability measures” in their video on the new FHO+ model (around the 3:36 mark). So doctors have to be accountable to follow an agreement, but the MOH can wiggle out and delay? The OMA can’t advocate for accountability to go both ways?

EVEN worse is that in reading the MOH briefs, they actually clearly lay out what accountability measures they want from physicians. Page 92 specifically outlines what accountability they expect from family physicians in the new FHO+ model, and how the penalties will be implemented if physicians don’t meet those accountabilities. No “seizing of the Arbitration Board” or any such thing. Now I disagree wholeheartedly with the MOH stance on this – but at least they clearly outlined what remedies they are seeking without the need for further drawn out processes. The OMA couldn’t have done the same thing??

Overall, this Arbitration hearing appears less contentious than last time, and the gap in asks is smaller overall. Hopefully this means a quicker resolution. But while there is a lot of good stuff in the OMA brief, it’s hard not feel let down by the subservient, almost nonchalant attitude the OMA is taking on payment delays. Sure looks like a golden opportunity to address this was missed.

What to Look For in Next Weeks Arbitration Hearings

As I write this, it appears that once again, the Ontario Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) have been unable to agree on a contract for physicians. We are again heading for Arbitration on June 30, with hearings all next week. A slim chance exists that a last minute deal will be struck – but I highly doubt it.

Up until now of course, the negotiations have been held under a strict cone of silence. There is no public knowledge of what has really been said between the two sides. But Arbitration in Ontario is public. The MoH and the OMA will have to publicly disclose what they are asking the Arbitrator to award.

Some Things to Remember:

These arbitration hearings are a continuation of last years hearings. Last year the Arbitrator only set an award for the total dollar amount to be given to physicians for the FIRST YEAR of a four year contract. This year’s hearings were originally slated for March of this year, but the Arbitrator delayed them until June. He wrote:

“The issues discussed have been far-ranging and include various implementation matters, the allocation of the Year 1 targeted funding, and complex and significant physician compensation issues for Years 2, 3 and 4.”

and:

“…the Board of Arbitration is now directing that the arbitration proceedings over any remaining Year 1 targeted allocation issues, and over physician compensation and all other issues for Years 2, 3 and 4, now take place over four days during the week of June 30. ”

These hearings will be a lot more complex than last years, and will have a lot of moving parts. Not only will the Arbitrator decide on how much of an increase will be allotted to physicians in years 2-4, but he will decide on how the targeted funds are distributed. Remember that 30% of the year one Award (approx $480 Million) was to be “targeted” for areas of health system need. Because of the malignant obstinacy of the MOH’s negotiations Team, the OMA and MOH have not arrived at an agreement on how to distribute these funds. So now the Arbitrator will rule on that.

Not only that, but there is the issue of how much of an increase each specialty should get. There was general agreement between the MOH and OMA the last couple of times that 25% of any increase would be given to across the board raises for all members, and the remaining 75% would go to relativity based increases. But the two sides have never really agreed on how the 75% would be split between various specialties. Reading the statement from the Arbitrator makes it sound like he will decide that too this time. (Of course now that I write this there probably will be yet another process announced after this which will mean more negotiation and arbitration).

Last year by my very rough count, the OMA and MOH submitted over 1,400 pages of documents (ironically called “briefs”) just to determine what percentage increase should be given to physicians. I can’t imagine how big the “briefs” will be this time. I won’t be able to go through them without gouging my eyes out but I do know what we should be looking for.

Has the Ministry of Health’s Team Smartened Up?

Look, both sides are going to “posture” for the Arbitrator. As part of that, the MOH will significantly undervalue physicians and offer a pittance. We should expect that and NOT get all worked up about it.

Unless…..

Last time, the MOH team went far beyond posturing. They showed nothing but contempt for physicians and an utter and complete lack of understanding of how health care works in Ontario. The MOH teams statement that there was “no concern” about a shortage of comprehensive care family physicians while the media was full of pictures of people lined up for hours for the mere hope of getting a family doctor, set a new bar for stupid government statements. The fact that they lied to the Arbitrator saying there was no crisis in family medicine until being forced to release documents proving otherwise made me wonder if a Court Jester was their spokesperson.

A Court Jester who, given the accuracy they present, could probably be a great MOH Spokesperson

It will also be telling when reviewing the MOH briefs exactly where they feel health care is most lacking in Ontario. Do they propose more investments in family medicine? How much for each specialty? In the last couple of negotiations the MOH has tried to alter the Family Health Organization (FHO) contracts on how family doctors are paid. What changes do they propose this time?

Finally – it will be VERY telling how the MOH wants to spend the $480 million in targeted funds. Will they try to skirt paying physicians for it? For example, will they propose to pay certain physicians to hire an allied health care practitioner, saying “well it will reduce your workload”, all the while demanding copies of proof you are paying that person in triplicate? Or some such thing.

I appreciate the above may sound far fetched, but the MOH Team has proved itself to be so incompetent and borderline vengeful that a scenario like that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

What About the OMA Briefs?

In comparison, the OMA’s job is relatively easy. They simply have to advocate for increases that will make each of their many sections 100% satisfied and not complain……

OMA Negotiations Chair Dr. Nikolina Mizdrak

In all seriousness, OMA briefs will also tell the profession a lot. I imagine each of the sections of the OMA will pour through the documents and send information to their members. But in short order we should all see how much of an increase the OMA has concluded each specialty warrants, and how the OMA plans to handle the perpetually thorny issue of relativity.

Additionally, the OMA has repeatedly point out that we have a shortage of comprehensive care family doctors. They’ve used the word crisis more than once to describe this. So as a family doctor, I am eager to see what changes they propose to the FHO model as well.

Most importantly, will the OMA be aggressive in defending its members? These last couple of months had seen absolutely unacceptable unilateral decisions by OHIP, delaying payments to physicians and making mistakes on their remittance . The OHIP bureaucrats blame their old outdated computers. Of course, when they plan to recoup the 9.95% they overpaid for the preventive care bonuses this past month – the OHIP computers magically managed to figure out how to get the money back immediately.

Will the OMA finally demand in their Arbitration briefs some sort of penalty for OHIP screwing up? Remember, the fee changes as a result of this contract are to come into effect on April 1, 2026. Given the Arbitrator likely won’t hand down a ruling until the fall, there is no way OHIP will get their act together in time without……..encouragement. Penalties/Interest for delayed payments should absolutely be demanded by the OMA.

All in all, next week, physicians will learn just how both the OMA and MOH feel about them. Buckle up folks……

Survey on Delayed OHIP Payments

NB: The following is a guest blog, written by the (anonymous) author of the survey I referenced in, “Will the OMA Learn Lessons from OHIPs Latest Attack on Doctors?“. While it’s true these surveys tend to attract negative responses by their nature, the rather large number of respondents (especially compared to some of the OMAs own Thought Lounge surveys), suggests the OMA really needs to pay attention to the extreme dissatisfaction this issue has caused. My thoughts follow at the end.

The purpose of this survey was to highlight to the OMA the need to take this issue more seriously and to outline the impact the delayed payments had on members. The OMA’s response to this has been tepid. At the time the survey responses were collected, the payment timeline for November and December, 2024 retroactive pay was set as November, 2025. This was changed to August, but this does not alter the fact that the MOH has repeatedly delayed payments for physicians over the years.

Even with a signed, public agreement, the MOH has not managed to uphold its obligations, yet the OMA seems resigned, on behalf of its members, to accept whatever delays happen, based on whatever excuse the MOH provides. The members are not the cause of the MOH’s problems, yet they pay, over and over, for these deficiencies.

The survey results are summarized below. As a practicing physician, my time is at a premium, so I utilized AI to summarize the main findings of the survey.

Technology willing, the full survey results are here. Survey Monkey dashboard is here.

AI-Generated Summary of the Full Survey Document:

The survey responses reveal widespread dissatisfaction among Ontario physicians regarding delayed payments, systemic issues in healthcare administration, and inadequate advocacy by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). Key themes include the impact of late payments, financial hardship and impact to personal finances.

Many respondents reported being unable to meet financial obligations, pay taxes, or fund discretionary purchases due to delayed payments. Some had to take on debt or cancel planned expenses like maternity leave benefits, vacations, or home down payments.

Clinic Operations:

Clinic owners faced cash flow disruptions, inability to pay staff, and delayed renovations. Others mentioned the administrative burden of tracking payments and rejected claims.

Mental and Emotional Toll:

Physicians expressed feelings of moral injury, frustration, and discouragement, with some considering early retirement or leaving the province entirely. The delay has eroded trust in the Ministry of Health and the OMA.

Lack of Accountability:

Respondents described the Ministry as untrustworthy, disrespectful, and adversarial, with unilateral decisions that breach agreements. Many called for interest payments on delayed funds and legal action to hold the Ministry accountable.

Systemic Issues:

Complaints included outdated payment systems, rejected claims, and lack of transparency in billing processes.

Weak Advocacy:

Many respondents felt the OMA failed to advocate strongly for physicians, with delayed and insuﬃcient responses to the payment issue. Some called for legal action, media campaigns, and stronger negotiation tactics.

Loss of Trust:

Physicians expressed frustration with the OMA’s perceived lack of power and transparency, with some questioning the value of membership dues.

Declining Appeal to Practicing in Ontario:

Many respondents are considering leaving Ontario or medicine altogether due to poor compensation, lack of respect, and systemic challenges. Some noted that other provinces offer better pay structures and support.

Family Medicine Crisis:

Respondents highlighted the lack of investment in family medicine and primary care, with concerns about burnout, scope creep, and inadequate funding.

Rejected Claims:

Physicians reported valid claims being rejected by OHIP , causing financial losses and administrative burdens.

Delayed Payments:

Delays in flow-through funding, parental leave benefits, and relativity-based fee adjustments were frequently mentioned.

Outside Use Penalties:

Respondents criticized penalties for outside use, especially when patients sought care elsewhere due to hospitalizations or urgent needs.

Recommendations for Advocacy:

Demand Accountability:

Push the Ministry to honour agreements, pay interest on delayed funds, and improve payment systems.

Increase Transparency:

Advocate for clearer communication about payment timelines, rejected claims, and billing processes.

Strengthen Negotiation:

Take a more aggressive stance in negotiations, including legal action and public campaigns to highlight the Ministry’s failures.

Support Physicians:

Address broader issues like rejected claims, outside use penalties, and inadequate funding for family medicine and specialists.

Conclusion:

There have been severe financial, emotional, and operational impacts of the delayed OHIP payment. There is an urgent need for the OMA to advocate more forcefully with the Ministry of Health to address late payments and systemic issues affecting Ontario physicians. Physicians are calling for immediate action, including interest payments, stronger advocacy, and accountability from the Ministry of Health and the OMA. The dissatisfaction expressed by respondents highlights the risk of losing physicians to other provinces or professions if these issues are not resolved.

An Old Country Doctors Thoughts:

While the above was written by my colleague, my personal thoughts on the survey is that I’m not really surprised by the results. I try to “keep my ear to the ground” so to speak, and there is a broad level of dissatisfaction with how the MOH repeatedly gets away with violating its own signed contracts, and the frankly abject level of incompetence at the MOH. The incompetence is unfortunately, not limited to just their payment systems/processes, but also how they run health care in general.

I’m also not surprised by the negative comments towards the OMA. Admittedly (as mentioned before) these surveys tend to cater to negative responses. However, there is a real sense of defeat on the ground about how physicians are being treated by the current government (protracted arbitration, stupid statements about the family physician shortage, and more). My sense is most physicians are resigned to defeat and are disengaging from health care – which is bad for the whole health system.

It does not help frankly, that a few short days after being told physicians would not get paid on time, OMA CEO Kim Moran was quoted in an Ontario Government News release on Primary Care saying:

“Ontario’s doctors are encouraged by this announcement and look forward to working with government to ensure that every Ontarian has access to a family doctor. We will do everything we can to accelerate this goal by collaborating with Deputy Premier and Minister of Health Sylvia Jones, and the lead of the Primary Care Action Team, Dr. Jane Philpott. It’s a long road ahead but this is a positive step forward to protecting Ontario’s valued health care system.”
Kimberly Moran
CEO, Ontario Medical Association (OMA)”

A very well respected physician from another province told me after seeing this: “It’s a bit pathetic. Screw us over and we’ll still be nice to you”. Personally I think Ms. Moran should look up “Stockholm Syndrome“.

I’ve repeatedly said you cannot have a high functioning health care system without happy, healthy and engaged physicians. These survey results suggest that that isn’t the case in Ontario.