Tag: #familypractice

Dear Specialist, You’re Awesome, but PLEASE STOP Calling Me A Provider

To my specialist colleagues,

In over 30 years of family practice, when I have been uncertain about a diagnosis you’ve been there. When I needed some advice on best treatments, you’ve been there. You’ve helped me and my patients, and you deserve many many thanks for that.

As with all things, there have been some ups and downs over the years (we really need to talk about the “go see your family doctor to have your staples/sutures removed” thing). Perhaps it’s because I work at a fairly small hospital with generally collegial colleagues, but I genuinely have positive feelings about our relationships and interactions.

There is, however, one thing that is starting to creep in to the vernacular that needs to be addressed before it goes too far. I’ve noticed it increasingly in reports from specialists. It seems to be particularly endemic in notes from the Emergency Medicine specialists and younger specialists.

It is the unfortunate tendency to use the highly offensive and derogatory term “provider” when referring to the family physicians. As in “the patient should follow up with their primary care provider.”

A couple of months ago, I attended the biennial menopause society update (yes, the same one where I discovered family physicians were giving up). At one of the small breakout groups, I happened to sit with a couple of my specialist colleagues. We were talking about how to handle various clinical scenarios, when I noticed both of them using this abhorrent term.

My personal observation (and I suspect I’ll get in trouble for saying this, but I’m going to say it anyway), was that the two of them looked like they weren’t even born when I entered medical school. It’s a credit to them just how involved they were in their hospital and community and patient advocacy at such a young age. As I understand it, they had been told that “primary care provider” was the appropriate new terminology to use.

I don’t really fault them. They were not aware of the negative connotations involved in that term or how objectionable it was. In fact, I credit both of them with being very open to change when I spoke to them about this.

What exactly is the problem you may be wondering? What’s the big deal about using the term provider?

Because language matters. Words matter. Definitions matter. Just as it is highly reprehensible and dehumanizing to use the word “client” when referring to a patient, it’s pretty offensive to use the term “provider” when referring to a family physician.

The term “physician” has meaning. It denotes a person who is entrusted to help you heal. It signifies a sacred bond between the healer and the sick that dates back to Hippocrates. It infers respect and dignity. It attributes professionalism, honour, and morality. It automatically speaks of the implicit trust that patients have.

The term provider, in health care, is egregious and appalling. To quote an excellent article by Jonathan Scarff:

“The word provider does not originate in the health care arena but from the world of commerce and contains no reference to professionalism or therapeutic relationships.”

He goes on to state:

“This terminology suggests that the clinician-patient relationship is a commercial transaction based on a market concept where patients are consumers to be serviced”

I could not agree with him more.

One of the things that the bureaucrats who run health care have long resented is the respect that physicians have from patients. Despite all of the attacks against physicians on social media, and even from official government types like RFK Jr in the States, physicians consistently continue to be shown to be among the most respected professionals out there (yes we are behind nurses). We receive these high rankings based on the proven belief that we are honest and adhere to ethical behaviours and high standards.

I firmly believe this is why bureaucrats have tried to bring in new terminology to describe physicians. They know that if we speak out against their brilliant ideas to “fix” health care, physicians will inherently get more trust than bureaucrats. I’ve seen the resentment of physicians first hand at a bunch of bilateral meetings between the OMA and the Ministry of Health. Trust me, it’s there, both implicitly and in some cases, very explicitly.

So the bureaucrats, under the guise of “inclusivity” or “patient centredness” or some such thing, are now introducing the term “provider” to diminish the significance of our roles. Their goal is to curtail our value in the eyes of the public, so when we call out their (many) mistakes, there will not be implicit trust in what we say. Think about it, which sentence below has more impact:

“Ontario’s providers speak out against government’s health proposal “

or

“Ontario’s physicians speak out against government’s health proposal”

Get the point? I beseech my specialist colleagues to not fall into this trap. Being a physician (as you know) is a sacred responsibility that all of us take seriously. We routinely make life altering suggestions to patients, and have a strong bond with them. Our role in their lives is not a commercial transaction. We do not treat patients as consumers who need to be managed. As the Section of General and Family Practice points out:

This term (provider) devalues the training, expertise, and vital role we play as physicians in the healthcare system. Family physicians are not providers; they are physicians.

So I ask you my specialist colleagues, the next time you write an Emergency Department note, or a consult note, be mindful of what you write. Recognize and respect the value of the person you are sending it to. Ignore the bureaucrats self serving machinations when they try to change the terminology.

Tell the patient to follow up with their FAMILY PHYSICIAN. (Except for the staple/suture removal – you can do that yourself).

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor

CFPC Fails to Learn its Lesson, Makes the Same Mistake Again

Here we go again. You know, after all the body blows the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) has taken over the years, you’d think they’d learn the most basic of lessons. A membership driven organization should not cheese off its members. Do that and bad things will happen. Yet somehow, they never seem to learn this basic principle.

First, you don’t insult your members, you support them. So when someone (anyone) writes an article that criticizes all your members, don’t publish it. Otherwise, you are basically telling people that you know better than them, and that they should do as you tell them. I actually had warned them when they allowed a miserable, hateful missive to be published that they should pull it and apologize to all their members or family physicians would lose confidence in the CFPC. Alas…….

Second, if you are truly concerned that trainees are not getting an adequate experience, you should first focus on improving the current training program instead of automatically extending it by one year. Do residents really need to go for all these “clinical day backs”, “forum days”, “research days” and “retreats”. Shouldn’t they be laying hands on a patient instead? Should they not be taught real life skills like how to run the business side of things? And so on.

And if you really, really believe that the training period needs to be extended, then communicate properly why it’s not possible to improve the program based the current times. Show every thing you’ve done to fix it. Then clearly explain how an extra year would help – don’t just force it down everyone’s throat.

Thirdly, if you need to raise dues, don’t just ram it down the members throats in a ridiculously convoluted manner. Otherwise people will smell a rat and will fight against it. Instead, clearly communicate why it’s necessary and how the membership will benefit from the increase. The fees we pay should be viewed as a value proposition. Yes we paid $X, but in return we get Y services. Prove Y services are worth it.

Alas, despite promising a “humbler and more transparent organization” just two years ago, the CFPC is at it again. They are once again attempting to get around the membership by baking in annual fee increases that do NOT require member approval.

Buried deep in the meeting package for the CFPC annual meeting, is a motion to amend section 10.5 of the bylaws (copied verbatim):

“THAT section 10.5 of the CFPC Bylaws be amended as follows: The Members shall pay the annual College membership fees applicable to their class of membership, as determined annually by a majority vote of the Board. If the Board intends to increase the existing membership fees for any class or category of membership by an amount that exceeds the annual Canada Consumer Price Index (as published by Statistics Canada for July of each year), and rounded up to the nearest dollar, such proposed increase must be ratified by an Ordinary Resolution of the Members at the Annual Meeting before it becomes effective. Any increase to the annual membership fees becomes effective on July 1 of the ensuing calendar year. Such membership fees shall subsequently be ratified by a simple majority of the membership eligible to vote at the Annual Meeting. Membership fees shall be directed towards the cost of College programs and activities, as determined by the Board.“

In essence, what the CFPC is asking, is to set in place a process where dues go up annually up to the CPI, without any rationale provided to the members. They are guaranteeing themselves annual increases in revenue. To quote a colleague: “It’s really an unprecedented consolidation of power, and removes member centredness from a member centric organization”.

Look, I actually get the need to raise fees (honest!). Contrary to what Ladouceur wrote in his offensive editorial, I actually run my office as a business. I know inflation has taken its toll. My expenses are up. Despite my best efforts at efficiencies, my overhead is higher than it was 5 years ago. I suspect this is the same for the CFPC.

But the solution is not to give the CFPC carte blanche to keep increasing dues. The CFPC needs to show real leadership and say to the members:

“This is what we’ve done with the money. This is the value we bring. These are the efficiencies we’ve implemented. But despite that, this is the increase we need to bring you the organization you deserve.”

And next year, it needs to do the same thing. And the year after. And so on. And that’s how you build an organization worthy of the trust of your members.

In the meantime, if you want to make your voice heard and vote against this nonsense, here’s how to stop it (shamelessly mostly copied from a colleague who gave me permission to do so):

  1. Live, at the Annual Meeting of Members (AMM). Wed Oct 29 from 7-8:30 PM. Details on how to join this were emailed to you by CFPC.
  2. If you cannot attend the AMM, assign a proxy by going here: https://reg.lumiengage.com/cfpc-2025. You will need your unique control number. See the email called “The CFPC’s AMM participation details“.

The bylaw in question is called “Bylaw Amendment Regarding Membership Fees”. Vote “Reject“.

By assigning a proxy, that person you assign does not know your vote, and must submit your ballot as is, so they can’t change your vote. You can assign your proxy to one of the CFPC leadership, or a specific individual with a backup option of CFPC leadership, or a specific individual alone. The danger of the last option is that if that person does not or cannot attend the AMM, your vote does not count. I personally would recommend you assign the CFPC President (who is pretty well guaranteed to attend the meeting) as your proxy.

Let’s stop the CFPC from getting out of hand on this issue. Then we can work on trying to figure out how come the organization never seems to learn its lessons.

Primary Care Reform Needs More Than a Phone Call 

Dr. Madura Sundareswaran  once again guest blogs for me. She’s a community family physician who’s resume is too long to print here. She helped found the Peterborough Newcomer Health Clinic and is a recipient of the CPSO Board Award which recognizes outstanding Ontario Physicians. I happen to think she is one of our brightest young leaders.

I was feeling incredibly optimistic after Friday’s SGFP report, which articulated the importance of family physicians in addressing the current primary care crisis. But that hope was abruptly crushed by a recent email I received from Ontario Health East. Ironically, it serves as a prime example of how health systems transformation continues to follow a top-down approach with little regard for the realities of primary care delivery.

In its latest communication to its members, Ontario Health East outlines a two-step strategy for clearing the Health Care Connect waitlist. 

Let’s talk about the good first. 

Given that the Health Care Connect waitlist has been largely stagnant, the proposal to verify and update the list is reasonable and welcomed. 

In its latest proposal, Ontario Health East also commits to providing “interim services” for patients who are not immediately matched to a family physician or primary care team. This is great – and arguably where the new “Care Connector” portfolio should focus. Why? Because this is what many Ontarians need right now: assistance navigating our complex healthcare system without a family doctor.

Now, the not-so-good.

A large part of Ontario Health’s plan is to connect with every primary care clinic in the OHT to determine available capacity. If I am reading this correctly, they want to cold call every primary care clinic in the region and ask if they are accepting new patients. Are they aware that people have been trying to do this for years…? 

To their credit, Ontario Health has expressed a commitment to support capacity-building. They’ve emphasized exploring “creative ways” to expand capacity at the individual clinician level — but this language effectively masks the absurdity of the underlying ask. The expectation appears to be that family physicians, already working at or beyond full capacity, can somehow stretch further, simply by reimagining how we work — all while receiving little to no additional resources.

To their credit, Ontario Health has expressed a commitment to support capacity-building. They’ve emphasized exploring “creative ways” to expand capacity at the individual clinician level — but this language effectively masks the absurdity of the underlying ask. It assumes that family physicians already working at full capacity, can somehow stretch further, by simply reimagining how they work — with little to no additional resources.

I’d like to apply the trending analogy of comparing our healthcare system to the public education system.

Imagine 30,000 children in your community suddenly need a place in schools – all at once. Instead of building new schools, adding classrooms, increasing the budget for school supplies, or hiring new teachers – the plan is to call each teacher and ask if they can “accept a few more students.” Not just one or two students– try about 100 each. Now teachers, please brainstorm how you can better meet this need (on your free time, of course).

Parents and teachers – would you allow this to happen? 

The dilution of services is not the solution to this primary care crisis. This government’s current focus is entirely on numbers – with little regard for the quality of care being compromised in this process. What happens when each of us have 100 more patients with little to no additional support? 

Some argue that teams will offset this burden. Full disclosure: I do think teams can help. But whose responsibility will it be to create medical directives, identify how the teams can best work, and continue to engage in quality improvement and assurance as this new process evolves? Family physicians. Back to the classroom analogy – it doesn’t matter how many other support staff you hire, a classroom of 130 students needs more than one teacher. 

This proposal assumes we haven’t already asked—more accurately, begged—family physicians to take on more patients. We have, many times. And with limited success. And before I’m criticized for being negative or dismissing innovation, allow me to share my own experience.

In 2023 I founded the Peterborough Newcomer Health Clinic with the intention of supporting newcomers to Peterborough transition to the Canadian Healthcare system. In this process, I follow newcomers for 6-12 months after which I personally cold call family doctors and primary care nurse practitioners to see if any of them will accept my patients after I have done a great deal of work completing intake assessments and consolidating all previous health records. I have already brainstormed and implemented strategies to make the transition as easy as possible. Have I successfully attached my patients? Rarely. Many of these patients remain unattached. 

This is just one story. Many in our community — advocacy groups, primary care providers, and local organizations — have made similar efforts with limited success. And let’s not overlook the fact that this proposed model of attachment completely ignores the issue of inequitable access for marginalized populations (another post for another time).

As I sit here on a Sunday, preparing to enter the week without sounding like a “grumpy physician,” here are my final thoughts. 

  1. In this race to reach 100% patient attachment to primary care; we must advocate to ensure that this is not done in a way that dilutes existing resources, compromises existing access to care and devalues family physicians who are currently working at full capacity. We need to protect our existing workforce and support sustainable growth. I encourage every user of our publicly funded healthcare system to advocate for this.
  2. Family physicians – I urge you to continue to advocate for better remuneration and exercise caution when pressed to roster more. Please remember that our contracts exist with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. When new opportunities arise – exercise due diligence to ensure that what is being asked of you aligns with the policies of your own practice/organization and the CPSO.
  3. Rushed, expensive, and poorly planned reforms that focus on quantity, not quality is not good for patient care. Failing to address the core issues with primary care – demonstrated by fewer and fewer family physicians choosing to practice comprehensive, community-based family medicine – is resulting in top-down, expensive, and band aid solutions to the primary care crisis. It edges on careless spending on taxpayer dollars. We should advocate for a system that prioritizes sustainable, safe and equitable care – not just a solution for tomorrow. 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any affiliated organizations or institutions.

Dear Minister Jones – Fire Your Negotiations Team.

Dear Minister Jones,

Just me again, a certain crotchety and increasingly cantankerous geezer offering you advice in an open letter that you are not likely to take. But you would be better off if you did. More importantly, so would the people of Ontario.

Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones

First, I would once again suggest that you have done some good work in the health ministry. Moving surgical procedures to outpatient clinics, increasing the number of diagnostic testing facilities, starting a new medical school focused on training family doctors and more are all good moves. While the effects of some of those decisions will not be felt for many years – the reality is that somebody had to do this to help health care down the road and you’ve done that.

Unfortunately however, the past couple of weeks have been catastrophic for your Ministry’s relationship with Ontario’s doctors. It’s funny how one dumb decision or comment can completely wreck a relationship, but that’s exactly what happened when your Negotiations Team stated that there was “no concern” about a diminished supply of doctors. Therefore, they refused to negotiate money for retention of physicians or admin work, like other provinces have (cough BC, cough Manitoba, cough EVEN Alberta!)

In essence, your Negotiations Team has been a disaster, first by militantly dragging out negotiations into a very adversarial arbitration process (when all the other provinces above figured out a way to, you know, respectfully negotiate with doctors) – and then by making a statement about the supply of doctors that is so comically stupid and out of touch that Ontario has become a laughing stock.

David Price
Bob Bass
Craig Rix

Three members of the Ministry’s Negotiations Team pictured above.

This will not bode well for health care in this province.

Look, I know there may be a temptation to say “Ok this was a mistake” and to try and walk back the comments.. While it’s abundantly true that the people of Ontario are a good and kind people who will forgive politicians if they own up to their mistakes (cough greenbelt, cough enhanced police powers and closing playgrounds during covid) – one thing that politicians can’t survive, is being made a laughing stock. Except Donald Trump of course. I still haven’t figured that one out and I don’t think I ever will. (N.B. Donald Trump is not someone you should try to emulate).

Anyway, the reality is that at this point you really only have one path left to turn this thing around. You have to fire your negotiations team. All of them. I’m not just talking about the seven who were appointed to lead that team, I’m talking about the multiple bureaucrats who give them supporting data and have influenced their position.

The only rational explanation I can think of for those bureaucrats promoting a position of “no concern” about physician supply, and saying doctors are not working hard enough, is that they hate doctors. Many of them were likely hired at a time when it was fashionable to bash doctors for billing “too much”. (BTW how did that attitude work out for the people of Ontario?) They’ve clearly carried on with that belief in the arbitration proposals.

I get that in arbitration, there will be some posturing. If your Negotiations Team had said “we’ll pay you $50 a month as a retention bonus” or “admin work doesn’t involve seeing patients, so we’ll pay you $20 an hour” – I honestly would have shrugged my shoulders, recognized it was part of the arbitration “game” and said nothing.

But to say retention and recruitment of physicians is not a major concern, when people line up for hours on end just for the faint chance of getting a family doctor?? That thought process can only be due to a pathologic hatred of physicians, or a delusional mindset totally divorced from reality. Either is a cause for termination. Can the whole team now.

A long line forms outside CDK Family Medicine and Walk-In Clinic in Kingston, Ont.. It was the first day of ‘rostering’ at the clinic, where four doctors will take as many as 4,000 new patients. (Jamie Corbett) – from CBC News

But what of negotiations with the OMA you may ask?

Actually, that’s not hard either. Your ministry has an appointee to the Arbitration Board, just like the OMA does. I believe your appointee is one Kevin Smith. The job of the appointee is to tell you and your team what the lead arbitrator, William Kaplan is thinking and how he is leaning. How they do that is beyond me. When I met Kaplan it was like talking to a Vulcan. There was absolutely no emotion or hint of what he was thinking – but apparently Kevin Smith is better than I am at figuring this out.

One of the above is William Kaplan, Arbitrator, and even after meeting him I’m not sure which is which.

What your appointee will tell you, and what the OMA appointee to the Board will tell the OMA is – Kaplan is wondering “this” or thinking “that” or leaning towards “X percent”. Find out what that X per cent is, offer it to the Doctors for the first year of the new Physicians Services Agreement (PSA). That solves things for one year, which gives you time to pick a brand new negotiations team for year 2-4 for the PSA.

Note to my three loyal readers, yes, this arbitration is ONLY for the percentage increase of the first year of the four year agreement. Worse, while the OMA and Ministry have generally agreed to a 70/30 split of whatever the amount is with 70% allotted to raises, and 30% to be given to targeted programs, they haven’t been able to agree on how the 30% is to be targeted. This means…..more arbitration for that piece. Then, it begins again next year for years 2-4 of the PSA. In essence, we appear to be locked in a perpetual, never ending antagonistic arbitration process (which is still better than unilateral government actions but really frustrating nonetheless).

As I told Premier Ford recently- if health care doesn’t get fixed – I don’t care what the polls say now, or how many by-elections you seem to have won, this is going to be a real problem in 2026. With health care in the crisis it is in now, you need all hands working together and co-operatively. Locking Ontario’s doctors into two more years of extremely adversarial arbitration shows that we are not co-operating and not working together. This is why graduates are leaving the province. And we can’t afford that.

It’s time for you to do the right thing for Ontario, and cut bait with your current negotiations team.

Yours sincerely,

An Old Country Doctor.

Perspectives on Ontario Health Care by a Recent Graduate

NB: My thanks to Dr. Tristan Brownrigg for guest blogging for me today. By his own admission, he never planned to be political, or seek out the limelight. But the situation in Ontario is such that he felt his perspective should be heard. I have a great deal of respect for people like Dr. Brownrigg, who are willing to step out of their comfort zone when necessary, and I commend him for doing so.

Dr. Tristan Brownrigg: I am a family physician, outdoorsman, and rural generalist currently working a mix of clinic, ER and inpatient care in the East Kootenays of British Columbia. I graduated from the University of Toronto Medical School, and did my Residency at Queen’s University (Kawartha site).

I completed family medicine residency in Ontario in 2022 and worked there for 6 months. Prior to this I completed medical school in Ontario, completed my undergraduate in Ontario, and had called Ontario home. Over the years I had watched my goal of working as a comprehensive rural family physician slowly become unsustainable amidst a collapsing system, decades of funding stagnation and poor planning, with a patchwork of good people on the ground trying to do their best in a system that doesn’t seem to value their input. Day after day the insidious march of the family medicine crisis grew closer to the forefront of peoples’ lives and garnered wider media attention, while the government either denied its existence or made no substantive changes that would realistically address it. This has not been the time for band-aids, let alone denial. 

Last year I moved to rural British Columbia to try something different for a year, cautiously optimistic about the significant changes to family practice on the back of the LFP model implementation in early 2023. The Longitudinal Family Physician (LFP) model significantly changed how family physicians billed and were compensated in BC, including the ability to bill for the many hours family physicians typically spend on previously unpaid administrative tasks.

My experience has been night and day. For the first time in my medical career I have felt hopeful about the future of family medicine and find my day to day life to be sustainable. These changes have been received positively amongst all other family physicians I have discussed it with. It is not perfect and there are still kinks to be ironed out, but I at least believe my provincial medical association and government are trying to improve things for family physicians. I am not left questioning if government actions are purely incompetent or malicious with the intent to drive privatization.  

I had retained my Ontario medical license until now, awaiting the May 2024 renewal deadline unsure if I would return home after a year of trying on a different life out west. Reading the recent government positions and negotiation briefs has been the final nail in the coffin for me. The disdain the Ontario government shows towards the hardworking family physicians who hold up the medical system is nothing short of repugnant. After more than a decade of training and education here, I will now be relinquishing my license to practice medicine in Ontario and stay in British Columbia.  

The minister of health thinks recruitment and retention is “not a major concern.” That’s the problem; it should be. If I am not a prime example of this, I don’t know what is. 

I wish all of my colleagues still in Ontario who do not have the luxury to vote with their feet the best of luck. If not this government, then I hope the next one learns to value your work and dedication.