Politics – Page 6 – justanoldcountrydoctor

Easier Than Ever for Front Line Doctors to Control the OMA – But Will They?

My thanks to former OMA Board Chair Dr. Paul Conte for his input into this blog. Dr. Conte is one of the strongest advocates for physicians I have ever met, and doesn’t get nearly the credit he deserves for some of the major work he’s done at the OMA on our behalf.

Big news recently at the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). A new CEO. An announcement from the Board Chair that a mandate for negotiations has been set (hopefully one as strong as that grumpy old bugger suggested).

Which results in a bunch of chatter on Social Media expressing concern about how good a job the OMA is doing. Can the OMA deliver a fair PSA? Do they represent academics only? Specialists? Family Doctors?

Lost in all of this is that the OMAs election period will soon be coming up, and as part of that, we will be voting for leadership positions, particularly at the Board level. It has always been true that the best thing front line doctors can do is to ensure they vote in people to the Board who truly represent them. What’s not appreciated, is that it is much easier to do this now than ever before. (No really, bear with me on this one.)

A brief history lesson first. In 2016 the then OMA Board endorsed a tentative PSA to the membership for an approval. The tPSA was widely viewed by front line physicians as an attack on the profession. Despite this, the Board spent upwards of $3 million of members money in activities to endorse the agreement. They engaged in desultory practices like robo-calls, ads on social media feeds, hyper partisan emesis inducing emails and road shows to promote this dreck of an agreement. (The information about the $3 million was revealed at OMA Council before I joined the OMA Board so I’m not revealing any corporate secrets here).

The tPSA was soundly defeated by a wide margin. That particular Board never could wrap its head around the fact that by being so thoroughly trounced in the membership vote, despite them hyping the agreement at levels only seen by MyPillow guy (and ardent Trump supporter) Mike Lindell, this was a de facto vote of non-confidence in the Board. They continued to carry on trying to govern a profession that had thoroughly repudiated them.

Eventually, a group of front line doctors (including a certain boorish loudmouth from Stayner) did a bunch of work reviewing the then bylaws, and discovered that it was possible to call a special meeting of Council for the purpose of having a vote of non-confidence in the Board Executive. That motion passed of course, but even still, the Board executive initially refused to do the honourable thing and resign. And the truth was, Council legally had no jurisdiction over the Board. (They eventually resigned about a week later).

Now that same group of front line doctors did run for various leadership positions at the OMA but the process was a mess (and in some cases actually contravened Ontario Law). Some members ran in district elections, others (like myself) got voted onto the Board by Council and so on. The convoluted process turned off many front line doctors and momentum was lost.

Having said that, what was accomplished was that there was a dramatic transformation of the governance at the OMA that does allow front line docs to have much more authority than they had before…….assuming they use it. While a many doctors contributed to this, I do need to give a huge shout out to Dr. Lisa Salamon and Dr. Paul Hacker for leading the charge on the transformation.

Drs. Salamon and Hacker who led the governance transformation

OMA Council, which was a collection of members that was voted through various means was sunset. Council supposedly had the authority to govern the Board, but it turns out that’s contrary to Ontario law. That’s why the Board Executive tried to stay on – they knew Council couldn’t enforce the non-confidence motion. Despite some members on various social media posts longing for the old days of Council, Council had its fair share of criticism too.

Now, the OMA Board is directly elected by the membership as a whole. Every member has the ability to vote on every Board Director. It’s smaller – only 8 physicians, and three non-physicians meaning it is easier for an activist group of front line docs (if they got organized) to promote a slate of candidates that can make meaningful changes. It’s one thing to get six docs elected to a Board of 27 like we did back in the day, but if you get 6 elected to a Board of 11 – well……(especially since members vote for half the Board every year).

Most importantly, the membership now has the authority to legally repudiate the Board if they wish. None of the byzantine process we used in 2017. The members decide.

Section 12.3 of the OMA bylaws clearly lays out that 5% of members in good standing (i.e. those who pay voluntary dues -not those who are RANDED) can sign petition demanding a special members meeting. The petition would need state specific which matters would be considered (e.g. a potential motion to remove one or more Board Directors). The special meeting would have to occur within 3 weeks of the petition being presented to the Board. Then whatever motions are the subject of the special meeting would be voted on by all members. Legally speaking, a 2/3 majority would be needed to remove one or more Board Directors, but the reality is that anything over 50% would likely make it impossible to govern.

So, should we immediately recall the Board? Of course not (unless they try to sell us a hard cap on the next PSA in which case I will lead the charge!). But, what it does mean is that as front line members, it has never been easier to organize, get a slate of candidates that agree with your views and influence the Board. Or, if necessary, for front line members to remove the Board.

The question is, do enough front line members have even that little amount of time and energy needed to direct the organization?

We Should Return to the Health Care Model Tommy Douglas Envisoned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear OMA Board Member, About That Mandate for Negotiations

Dear OMA Board Member,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly, and the amazing Dr. Saadia Hameed Jan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Systems and High Performance Operations Executive, Matthew Lister

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

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

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

RePost: Marcus Welby Couldn’t Handle Today’s Medicine

This blog originally appeared in the Huffington Post on May 2, 2016. Reprinted here so that I can keep track of my old blogs, and also to once again point out how warnings of a crisis in Family Medicine were ignored for years.

Recently, Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason lost his family physician to retirement. In an eloquent post, he reflected on how much he was going to miss his physician of 22 years, and how difficult it was to find himself in the position of not having the family physician. Unfortunately, as he pointed out, a growing number of Canadians are finding themselves in the same position.

Understandably concerned about his predicament, and wanting to know what’s going on, he did what most reporters and politicians do to find out about health care. He asked a health-care policy consultant, in this case Steven Lewis.

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how when people want advice with what’s wrong with health care, they always turn to health care consultants. Why not just ask a physician instead? If I have a leaky faucet, I don’t ask a Water Flow Policy Analyst from the Ministry of Environment what’s wrong. I call a plumber.

At any rate, I happen to think that Mr. Lewis gave Mr. Mason some pretty bad advice. Mr. Lewis suggested that newer Family Docs were incentivized to “do less.” This led Mr. Mason to opine that “in other words, Marcus Welby is dead.”

While I agree the situation is complex, the main reason that younger family physicians are taking fewer patients has nothing to do with either a lack of dedication or desire to help their patients, but rather that medicine has become far more complex in the past 30 years.

The past 30 years have seen an exponential increase in the number of screening and preventive care tests, all of which the family physician is expected to order.

For example, when I took over my current practice 24 years ago, I recall looking at one patient’s chart, and seeing the notation: “April 26, 1990. Strep throat. Penicillin.” This was clearly all the family physician at the time, really needed to know. However, there is no way on God’s green earth that you could get away with such a note in this day and age.

Since the 1990s there been a number of regulations on documenting patient visits set by Provincial Colleges and physician funding agencies (eg. OHIP in Ontario). In principle, the rules are put in place under the very reasonable rationale that there needs to be some accounting for spending public funds, and that documentation will prove those funds were spent wisely. In practice, that means that even a notation for such a simple problem, requires a minimum of four to five sentences in the chart. All of which means that there is less time in the day to see patients.

Additionally, contrary to what Mr. Lewis has told Mr. Mason, the responsibilities of the average family physician has actually increased since 1990. The past 30 years have seen an exponential increase in the number of screening and preventive care tests, all of which the family physician is expected to order.

For example, we never used to do bone density test on men. These were exclusively a test done on women, as they were thought to be at higher risk for osteoporosis. The guidelines have changed and now men over 50 are also being tested based on certain criteria.

In the past week, I have had six bone density results, four of which came back with a diagnosis of “low bone mass,” which require the patient to be called back, and counselled on the importance of the intake of dietary calcium, and vitamin D, weight bearing exercise etc, to preserve bone health and reduce the risk of fractures as patients get older.

I happen to be one of the relatively few physicians in Ontario lucky enough to have a superb Nurse Practitioner working with me, and she is really enthusiastic about counselling patients about these type of lifestyle changes. As a result, I am able to get patients to see her to learn about these lifestyle issues while I deal with some more complex cases. I appreciate that this may seem to be a “clinic” to Mr. Mason, but it certainly does maximize the value of both my time and hers.

Similarly, we now screen (in appropriate patients) for aortic aneurysms, colon cancer, breast cancer, diabetes and several other diseases. All of which require more time per patient, and result in abnormalities found, which result in time required to address those abnormalities.

One of the benefits of having an electronic medical record system, is the you can program them to have the system remind your patients when they are due for appropriate screening test. This could never be done on the old patient’s chart.

Recently, a patient came in to see me with a sore foot. Marcus Welby would undoubtedly have looked at the foot, and wrote in the chart: “Gout. Indomethacin.”

In contrast, my note documents when the pain started, that there was no history of trauma, a review of previous blood work to check his uric acid level (a contributing factor to gout), whether the neuro-vascular status was affected, how far up the foot the redness goes, and his vital signs. To which I add, “Assessment: Gout, Treatment: Indomethacin.”

At his visit, I also looked at the reminder screen of his electronic chart. I’ve included a snapshot (with personal information removed) of what I saw.

So now, not only did I treat his gout, but I ordered all of the investigations this fellow was due for (he tends to avoid coming to see doctors). If you do this on enough patients, you will find abnormalities, which will then require follow up.

Lest you think I’m complaining, let me categorically state, all of this is a good thing. Reports have shown that investing in primary preventative care, is good not only for the patient, but also for the population as a whole. These are wise investments to make, as they prevent far more expensive complications from occurring in the future. It’s like that old commercial about getting your oil changed on time in your car. You can either pay a little now, or pay a lot later.

However what it also does a significantly increase the workload per patient per family physicians. Which means it is no longer possible for a family physician to look after the same number of patients as Marcus Welby did. It is not as Mr. Lewis was quoted as saying “A desire to do less”, rather the work per patient has increased.

I’ve generally enjoyed Mr. Mason’s columns in the Globe and Mail. I wish him well in his quest to find a family physician. If he moves to my neck of the woods, I would probably consider taking him on, if only because I rather enjoy funny stories and debating politics with people. As a bonus, I don’t drink, so Mr. Mason would not even have to give me the expensive bottle of scotch he promised. (I would however, demand some inside dirt on his fellow columnist and health care reporter Andre Picard!)

The Admin Burden That’s Really Killing Family Practice

Recently, there’s been a lot of talk about the “administration burden” faced by family physicians. The Ontario College of Family Physicians estimates family doctors spend up to 19 hours a week on “paper work”. Given there are only so many hours in a week, the more hours spent doing paperwork, the less hours seeing patients.

It also contributes to situations where people just get too frustrated with family medicine, and quit. Twenty percent of Toronto family doctors are planning on leaving within five years. This bad karma is not lost on medical students, who, as I mentioned in a previous blog – are avoiding family practice like the plague, worsening a crisis that has been years in the making.

But what exactly is this “administration burden”? What’s the “paper work” that is driving us all to frustration? I would argue it’s not paper per se, it’s digital.

That’s not to say there isn’t paper. I frequently get asked for completely pointless sick notes from employers, impractical forms to return to work and seemingly useless – “we agreed your patient was permanently disabled, but we want a one year update to make sure your patient is still permanently disabled” forms from the pointy headed bureaucrats at insurance companies. But I’ve taken a somewhat mercenary approach to those forms in order to keep myself sane.

A sick note costs $20 and takes about a minute to write. A form the insurance company asks for usually takes a few minutes to fill out and I charge $40-$175 depending on the form. I reconcile the fact that these forms are a burden, with the fact that at least I make money out of them. While somewhat unscrupulous on my part, it keeps me from totally blowing my lid whenever I see one of these.

No the real admin burden comes from the completely absurd and unrelenting avalanche of reports/lab work/follow up notes – all of which present to me in a haphazard way, seemingly designed to drive me to psychiatric medications.

I took the Friday of Eid ul Fitr off to celebrate with my family. On Saturday, I logged into my Electronic Medical Record (EMR), correctly realizing that if I waited until Monday, the EMR inbox would crush my sorry soul.

Unsurprisingly, I had a total of 75 labs/reports/messages about patients to review. It wasn’t so much the number of items to take care of, (truly if they were straight forward it wouldn’t have been too bad). It was rather how badly and inefficiently the information came to me that sucked all of the happiness I had enjoyed on Eid from my spirit.

One method of getting information to me is via a system called Hospital Report Manager (HRM). I look at HRM in my EMR and see a report on a renal transplant patient from Sick Kids. But the note was “uncategorized” which meant that I had to go into the HRM software and enter the category “nephrologist” in the report. The VERY NEXT report in my HRM in box was……the exact same report on the exact same patient, but this time HRM had categorized the report as being from a cardiologist – so I had to go in, change the report once again to “nephrologist” and I now have two copies of the same report.

By the way – Sick Kid’s hospital provides exceptional medical and nursing care to my patients, but ever since they switched their hospital IT systems to a company called EPIC there has been no end of issues like this. The only thing that software is epic at is causing physician distress.

That’s not all. HRM has more goodies awaiting for me. There’s a report from my colleague Dr. Collings on his expert management of a wrist fracture on one of my patients. Thorough, comprehensive, and well done. Except HRM has auto-categorized him to be a gynaecologist So yes, I either have inaccurate information in my patients chart, or I go back and re-categorize the report to reflect that Dr. Collings is an orthopaedic surgeon.

Next up, HRM has a report from an Emergency Room physician about a patient who was seen and apparently had some abnormal bloodwork. Not life threatening, so asked to follow up with me. Only problem is the blood work from the hospital doesn’t come to me via HRM. Now I have to go to that patients chart, and access yet another system called OLIS, log into that and download the lab work from the hospital. But wait the note from the ER was unfortunately late getting to me (about 10 days out). OLIS is set up to auto download for the past seven days, unless I click more buttons, and back date – which I have to do.

Next up, a report from HRM that a patient of mine had a Covid swab done. But HRM won’t tell me if the swab was positive or negative. Just that it was done. Now I go back to that patient chart and access OLIS where the result is, adding yet more steps to my day.

Next come messages (yes, that’s on top of HRM and OLIS). I note a message from the local Shoppers Drug Mart asking for a renewal of blood pressure medications for a patient of mine. Only problem is that a brief look at the chart shows I sent a one year supply of that same medicine to the Shoppers three months ago, and they accepted this and downloaded it. I tell the pharmacy staff who tell me they “can’t find it” which leads to……well, let’s just say a deterioration in the conversation.

As an aside, while I’m not allowed to endorse any specific pharmacy, I will say I’ve generally found care to be much better when provided by smaller, independent pharmacists who build relationships with their patients, rather than big chains that just seem to fly in itinerant staff.

Anyway, you get the point. In total it took about 3 hours on Saturday to sort through this mess and it just doesn’t have to be this way. The reason I wrote a blog about Health IT in Turkiye was to show that other countries do a much better job of managing this burden. I’m sure there are other examples and we need to learn from them.

The vast majority of my family practice colleagues practice family medicine because they genuinely like their patients, like providing comprehensive care, value the relationships built over time and feel like they make a difference in peoples lives. But unless we do something about this administration burden, I fear more and more will leave the profession, because at some point, being human, they just won’t be able to take it any more.

What if We Didn’t Lose the Doctors We Trained?

Canada is in the midst of doctor shortage. In particular there are at least 6 million Canadians with out family doctor. The situation is worsening. The most recent Canadian Residency Match for medical students applying to specialties, showed that there were 268 empty spots for family medicine after the first round. This is the highest number of unmatched family medicine positions ever. Medical Students, being really smart people, are viewing family medicine as a dead end specialty and avoiding it like the plague.

If only the boorish loudmouth who predicted we were heading in this direction six years ago and been listened to…..

Governments at both federal and provincial levels are taking steps to try to address this. In British Columbia, they have introduced a capitation based payment model for family physicians (think of it as salary + performance bonuses). Ontario has a model like this that had great success in the early 2000’s. The federal government pledged more spending on health care in the future. Ontario plans the “largest expansion of medical school education in ten years.” And so on.

But what would have things been like if successive governments didn’t drive doctors away from Canada in the first place?

Going back as far as the 1990s, inept governments have, over the years, done their best to make physicians feel unwelcome. The Bob (“I am super elite“) Rae NDP government of 1990-1995 in Ontario implemented the Barer-Stoddart report. This report decided “there were too many doctors” (I kid you not) and cut medical school enrolment by 10%. Three decades later we are still feeling the adverse ramifications created by that move.

Similarly, the disreputable Kathleen Wynne Ontario Liberal government went to war with physicians in the mid 2010s, led by her woefully incompetent Health Minister Eric Hoskins, and his inept sidekick, Deputy Minister Bob Bell. Those geniuses thought it was a good idea to CUT 50 residency positions (training for doctors) and only saw the light during a deathbed confession just in time for the 2018 election. In particular, Hoskins and Bell’s blatant disregard and borderline contempt for family physicians resulted in, as OMA Vice-Chair Audrey Karlinsky put it, 6 years of family medicine graduates not choosing comprehensive family medicine.

https://twitter.com/docter_audrey/status/1621738233875816448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1621738233875816448%7Ctwgr%5E4e6147a2734a089709fba7d9ea702653111e2ee9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustanoldcountrydoctor.com%2F

Do you think supporting hundreds of those young potential family docs then would have made a difference now when 2.2 Million Ontario residents are without a family doctor?

To prove that idiocy in health care management can occur with parties of all political stripes, the former Alberta Conservative Health Minister, the combustible Tyler Shandro, actually verbally attacked a physician at his home in Alberta, along with, you guessed it, going to war with physicians in his own province. Really helps to retain physicians, no?

In my first ever blog for the Huffington Post (seven years ago!), I pointed out to then Health Minister Eric Hoskins that 30% of my graduating class no longer worked in Ontario due to Bob Rae’s intransigence. I urged Hoskins to change his behaviour or that by the time of the next election, health care would be in a worse crisis and hinted his government would pay the price in the 2018 election. (I wonder if Kathleen Wynne regrets sticking with him as health minister for so long, despite the fact he was obviously not up to the task).

Admittedly, that’s one person’s recollection. Are there any statistics out there that show just how many Canadian trained doctors have left Canada? There are, although they are really hard to come by, and not as up to date as I’d like. Huge shout out to Dr. Mary Fernando for digging these up for me.

In 2000, the OECD published a report on the mobility of health care professionals. On page 50, it indicated that 19% of doctors born in Canada were working in other countries. Given the crisis we see in health care around us right now, do you think it would help if we could have retained those doctors in Canada?

But wait, aren’t we trying get international medical graduates (IMGs) to come to Canada? Ontario health minister Sylvia Jones did direct colleges to come up with a way to speed up the ability to get foreign doctors licensed. But it turns out we have trouble keeping them as well. A study on retention patterns of IMGs in Canada showed that 12% of IMGs were approved to practice in Canada between 2005 and 2011 LEFT Canada by 2015. While IMGs apply, we have trouble retaining them too.

Clearly, governments need to focus on retention of physicians just as much (if not more so) than recruiting new physicians. What can they do?

The federal government can do a couple of things to help. First it can heed the results of a poll taken by the Medical Post magazine (I voted just before closing and these were the results):

Doctors don’t have pensions and benefits mostly due to some weird federal tax laws. Changing these should be easy and offering pensions and benefits would be a strong way to retain physicians. Similarly, reversing the 2017 tax changes that completely threw retirement planning out the window for doctors would be a big help.

Provincial governments should of course, take note of the fact that going to war with doctors always leads to a deterioration in health care for the residents of their province. But since most politicians are incapable of thinking about anything but their own self interest, let me point out three facts.

In 1995, after going to war with doctors, the Bob Rae NDP government was turfed from power in Ontario and the NDP has yet to form a provincial government since. In 2018, after going to war with doctors, the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government was decimated in the Ontario election, even losing official party status, which they have yet to regain. In 2022 after going to war with doctors, Alberta Premier Jason Kenny had to resign as premier because his own party saw the writing on the wall.

The message is clear. Going to war with doctors is bad for health care and bad for political careers. It’s time politicians realized that, and came up with meaningful solutions like pensions to retain the ones we train.

Canada’s Health Care Landscape has Changed Since the Canada Health Act

I’m honoured to have Dr. Silvy Mathew guest blog for me today. She’s a former member of the OMA Board, former member of the Physicians Services Committee, has a Master’s in Health Policy and Economics, a Certificate in Global Health and is hands down one of the smartest people I know.

Health care in Canada is governed by the Canada Health Act, a federal act that essentially states that medically necessary care provided by physicians and hospitals, will be covered by public insurance and administered by each province.

The Act was passed in 1984, and is reflective of the type of acute medical care practiced at the time. However, in 2023 (and for at least a decade prior), medical care, through technology, medical advancements and aging, has changed drastically. Publicly covered care now, however well intentioned, is sorely lacking. Ironically, because of that, it is also very expensive.

For exampe, we lack public pharmacare for adults despite being promised this by 2006 by then Prime Minister Paul Martin. (There is some pharmacare for seniors and children).

We lack dental care. We lack appropriate home care in an aging population that is getting weaker and frailer. We lack coverage on physiotherapy. In an era of increasing mental health burdens we lack psychotherapy.

The list goes on and on, notwithstanding the severe social issues that contribute to many of these issues (healthy food, exercise, housing and all the other social determinants of health).

Because we have not invested upfront, we pay significant costs in expensive procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and medications much of which could be minimized or avoided.

Why does it matter?

McKinsey Global Institute published a prospective analysis of 200 countries, looking forward on the impact of 52 diseases over the next two decades to quantify the social and economic gains if health is made a priority by government and private sector. They quantified the value of health to the economy and showed that if using the existing interventions we have today, we can reduce disease burden by 40% in the next 20 years and extend “active middle age by 10 years”. This translates to an economic return of $2-$4 for each $1 invested. That’s remarkable.

What’s the hold up? The lack of foresight, upfront cost and political inertia is costing us.

We have a shortage of healthcare professionals, and we use the ones we have, in extremely inefficient ways. For example, the lack of a proper digital health infrastructure in Ontario (like they have in Turkiye!) results in duplication of services, poor coordination, and inconsistent delivery of health care. Even the electronic services we DO have don’t capitalize on Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Technology advancement is a double edged sword. There are benefits to patients in terms of ongoing updated guidelines for care. But health care workers are having to do more, monitor more and change practice styles more, all leading to more individual HCW time.

Each test, often results in further testing or reassessment down the line, which compounds the problem. It’s rare that physicians just close the door on one issue a day.

Again, at the time of the Canada Health Act, we were practicing acute, limited health care. Today’s world is focused on prevention and chronic illness with monitoring. That shift has placed a huge burden on physicians time to review, inform/educate, coordinate new referrals and remind individuals to do monitoring. Much of the time, it seems like we still don’t know how much benefit we will get from this. Hopefully the data will show we were correct to do this.

To collect and review the data though, we would need better digital systems to capture the information, which we don’t have.

Some people imply this will be managed with more “healthcare team members”. I think a huge solution for this particular issue is investing in technology and AI solutions.

Right now, we are trying and failing at holding back an avalanche. We have technological advancements, but limited access to those. We have lack of integration of our digital infrastructure. An ageing population is leading to increased needs. But an aging health care work force is seeing retirements and illness leading to less access. New providers are available but their impact is less clear due to lesser training and duplication of services leading to increased costs. Delayed diagnoses are leading to worsened health outcomes and more expensive care. There is less preventative care due to a shortage of family physicians which leads to delayed diagnoses, worsened health outcomes and more expensive care. Lack of care giver support and home care support means that people are leaving the workforce to care for ill relatives which leads to hospital dumping. Burnout is endemic in health care, due to a feeling of disrespect and an inability to practice best patient care.

And so, physicians are in all areas of the country are giving up and closing their practices.

In the meantime, while we wait for our wishes to come true, there is opportunity to push the envelope and to drive change. People are desperate and they want options.

When access to health care is inadequate, people will choose out of jurisdiction options for delayed procedures and even screening tests. There is a moral hazard involved. People are taking risks by going elsewhere under the assumption that they will be taken care of properly.

However, with any challenges, there are opportunities. Some “non-medically necessary” medical tests (eg. screening for vitamin D) are not covered by medicare. However, it’s increasingly viewed as an early intervention. We will only see technology increase these options as better screening methods become available, and governments delay paying for them. Perhaps instead of waiting for open heart surgery or stenting, there may come a day where preventative procedures can be used to dissolve plaque in the heart arteries.

Health care faces inescapable and exponential change. However, it is unlikely, at least in the near future, that Canada (or any country’s) public health system will be able to keep up with technology and demand.

Oh for some strong, principled leadership that can see these challenges and address them head on, without resorting to political sound bites.

•

Canada Should Look to Turkiye for Health Information/Data Systems

Disclosure: I have a business relationship with Medicte, a firm that provides high quality medical tourism services for Canadians. They provided me with some information for this blog. If you are on a prohibitively long waiting list for medical or surgical services, and are willing to consider travelling out of country to have treatment, contact Dr. Abdullah Erdogan at: medical.developer@mestassistance.com

I’ve written previously about Health Data Systems and what a poor job Ontario (and indeed all of Canada) does at using information technology (IT) to help with health care. Let’s look at country that does things the right way, Turkiye (formerly Turkey). I appreciate this choice may come as a surprise to many, but Turkiye has a very modern, highly efficient health care system, and had to go through their own period of transformation from a fragmented system to a more integrated one.

The long version of how Turkiye evolved their health systems can be found here. The short version is that in 2003, the Turkish government came up with the political will to introduce the Health Transformation Program. Over the next ten years this act, and unyielding political will, transformed the Turkish health care into a fully integrated system. In many ways, it’s a model for what Canada needs to do.

I had the honour of being invited to do a talk for the Canadian Turkish Business Council on the Canadian health system (along with my smarter and more esteemed colleagues Drs. Nadia Alam and Silvy Mathew). In preparation, I studied up on how Turkiye handles health data (with the help of Medicte). I cannot tell you how impressed I was with their system.

Drs. Nadia Alam, Silvy Mathew and yours truly speaking at a meeting sponsored by the Canadian Turkish Business Council

In Turkiye, the federal government has mandated that all hospitals in Turkiye use the Hospital Information Management System (HIMS). Now to be clear, different hospitals in Turkiye still use some different modules of software, but they are all compatible with HIMS. The data for all citizens of Turkiye is then backed up securely.

Then, every citizen of Turkiye is offered a patient portal called e-Nabiz.

Official logo of Turkiye’s patient portal.

What does this portal allow patients in Turkiye to do? According to Medicte:

“When people enter their E-Nabız profile, they can make appointments at all public hospitals and access the records of these appointments. They can review all of their examination, diagnosis and treatment data in the health facilities they visit and access the details of all the tests performed during this process. This includes all data related to the process, such as all laboratory tests and radiology images with their reports, prescriptions, diagnoses and drug usage details.”

Further more, the app can be used to allow other health care providers access to patients health information (with consent). Let’s say a resident of Istanbul happens to travel to Antalya (a truly lovely tourist destination about an 8 hour drive away). If that person gets ill, they can use the E-Nabiz portal to allow doctors in Antalya to see their previous health information to help guide their care. Not only that, information about their visit in Antalya will automatically be available to their family doctor in Istanbul, including lab work, diagnosis, and prescriptions. I can’t even get health information on patients of mine that go to a walk in clinic in Barrie, and that’s only 30 minutes away from my office.

Not only does this system allow for much better communication between health care professionals of all kinds (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, home care and so on), but having knowledge of a patient’s previous health history significantly reduces duplication of tests. And leads to more optimal outcomes.

For people who are not citizens of Turkiye, but go there for medical tourism (Turkiye is one of the top medical tourist destinations in the world), their travel companies can offer them similar access to their health care records. For example, Medicte will soon offer the MestCard app via its parent company MestGroup.

Essentially, a patient of mine, who choses not to wait the 13 months that they currently have to wait for a hip replacement in my area, could go to Turkiye next month, get their hip replaced AND have much better access to all their health records than a patient of mine who got that done in Canada. (And yes, all of these apps/software/portals are compliant with recent security standards).

But that’s not all, this tight integration of IT allows for other benefits. For example, Health Systems Consultant Matthew Lister, who spoke at the same event, informed how this allowed hospitals across Turkiye to manage their supply issues. If one hospital was short on something (tubing, a drug, IV fluid or so on), it can immediately check the inventory of nearby hospitals and request a transfer. No phone calls, no double checking. It’s all online, backed up, and available for hospital management to see. He also emphasized that this has been the case in Turkiye since at least 2011!

Matthew Lister speaking at the Canadian Turkish Business Council event.

In Canada, given the disastrous current state of our health care system, there have been calls for system transformation from multiple sources. Whether from what are viewed as conservative organizations like the Fraser Institute and Postmedia News, or progressive organizations like Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Torstar Media group, everyone from all sides of the political spectrum agrees that health care is need of a fix.

Here’s thought. Rather than start from scratch, let’s look at countries like Turkiye, that have taken their own fragmented health care systems, unified them and leapfrogged Canada to develop a much more efficient health system. Then just do what they did.

The benefits to the citizens of Canada would be enormous.

Post Script: While it’s true that Turkiye has a modern, high functioning health system, even such a system can be overwhelmed by a disaster like the recent Earthquake that has claimed at least 50,000 lives. To help the victims of the earthquake in both Turkiye and Syria, I encourage you to donate to the IDRF Earthquake Relief Fund.