Medicine – justanoldcountrydoctor

The Shrinkflation of Family Medicine

Dr. Julie Wilson (pictured inset) had a superb post on LinkedIN that she has kindly allowed me to reproduce here as a guest blog. A much smarter person than I, she is a family doctor,has been named one of Canada’s 100 Most Powerful Women, Top 40 under 40, 3 x Business award winner and much much more. I encourage you to follow her for more of her excellent insights.

There is a word for when the packaging stays the same but there is less inside. In groceries, we call it shrinkflation. In family medicine, the same process has been underway for years and we still do not have a proper name for it. The phenomenon is real, the consequences are significant, and the cause is structural rather than professional.

It deserves to be examined plainly.

What Family Medicine Was Designed to Do

When I completed my family medicine residency, the expectations were unambiguous. A graduating family physician needed to be able to deliver their own patients’ babies, follow them in hospital, suture lacerations in the office, perform biopsies and joint injections, insert IUDs, provide prenatal care, administer pediatric vaccines, conduct children’s wellness visits, and manage mental health from assessment through to ongoing treatment. You were trained to treat and manage every condition as though there were no specialists present, because in Canada, there often are not.

This was not an aspirational standard. It was the functional design of the role. Family medicine in Canada was conceived as the foundation of a system in which primary care would carry the load that specialist infrastructure could not be expected to cover across a country of this geographic scale and population distribution. Broad scope was not a luxury. It was a requirement.

What Has Changed Since the Pandemic

The erosion of that scope has been incremental and largely unremarked upon in public discourse. Since the pandemic, a substantial number of family physicians, including those whose practice is confined entirely to clinic-based work, have stopped performing procedures and providing services that were previously considered core to the role. Biopsies, suturing, contraceptive management, prenatal care, pediatric immunisation, children’s wellness visits, mental health assessments, and ongoing counselling have migrated out of the family practice setting into referral queues, specialist offices, and in many cases, emergency departments.

It would be tempting to attribute this to shifting training norms or changing physician preferences, and those factors are not entirely irrelevant. But they are not the primary explanation. Family physicians did not collectively decide to de-skill because they lost interest in comprehensive practice. The more accurate explanation is that the financial and structural conditions required to sustain comprehensive practice have deteriorated to the point where, for many clinics, broad scope is no longer economically viable.

The Economics of Comprehensive Care

Comprehensive care costs more to deliver than narrow care. It requires longer appointment slots, better equipment, more qualified support staff, more expansive insurance coverage, and considerably more time spent on coordination and documentation that does not generate a separate billing code. These are real costs that the clinic model must absorb, and for a significant proportion of BC primary care clinics, the current overhead structure cannot absorb them.

The 2025 Financial Review of Primary Care Clinics in Vancouver, produced by the Vancouver Division of Family Practice, provides useful context. Average operating expenses per physician run approximately $110,000 per year. A clinic operating at 25% overhead on a physician billing $450,000 generates $112,500 in revenue, leaving almost nothing above the average expense threshold and no margin whatsoever for the additional infrastructure that comprehensive practice requires. At overhead rates of 20% or below, which are increasingly common in recruitment conversations driven by alternative-revenue clinic models, the arithmetic becomes impossible well before extended scope enters the picture.

The result is a rational economic response to an irrational structural situation. Clinics on constrained margins contract their service offering to the minimum sustainable model. Services that require additional time, equipment, or staff are referred out. The physician’s role narrows not because of a change in values or training, but because the financial model of the clinic cannot support anything broader.

The Systemic Consequences

The consequences of this contraction do not remain contained within the family practice setting. They redistribute across the health system in ways that are cumulative, expensive, and in many cases preventable.

Canada operates on the stated premise of a primary care-based health system. The logic of that model is that a robust and comprehensive primary care foundation reduces the demand on specialist services, emergency departments, and acute care capacity. When the foundation contracts, the load it was carrying does not disappear. It transfers.

Every laceration that is no longer sutured in a family physician’s office becomes an emergency department visit. Every mental health presentation that no longer has a landing place in primary care adds to the demand on crisis services and inpatient psychiatric capacity that is already stretched beyond its design parameters. Every biopsy that moves from a family physician’s office into a specialist referral queue adds weeks or months to the interval between a patient’s first concern and a clinical diagnosis. Every prenatal patient who cannot access continuity of care through their family physician adds complexity to obstetric and hospital-based maternity services.

Specialty wait times lengthen not only because of specialist supply constraints but because specialists are now managing presentations that a well-resourced primary care system would have handled earlier and closer to home. Emergency departments are not simply overwhelmed by volume. They are absorbing a category of care that primary care has progressively stopped providing, without any corresponding expansion of emergency capacity to meet that transferred demand.

The diagnostic lag that results from this redistribution carries its own clinical cost. The interval between a patient identifying a concern and receiving a diagnosis has extended from days to months for an increasing range of conditions. In oncology, in cardiology, in neurology, earlier diagnosis consistently correlates with better outcomes. The compression of primary care scope is not a neutral administrative adjustment. It has clinical consequences that are difficult to measure at the individual encounter level but become visible at the population level in outcomes data.

Patients who have only ever experienced the contracted version of family medicine do not recognise what is absent, because they have no baseline for comparison. They do not know that the referral they received could have been managed in the same appointment by a physician who is fully trained and willing to do the work. The shrinkflation is invisible to those who have never seen the full product.

The Path Back

Restoring comprehensive family medicine will not happen through exhortation. Physicians who have adapted their practice to the structural constraints of their clinic model will not re-expand their scope because the profession asks them to. The conditions that made contraction rational need to change before expansion becomes possible.

Several directions are worth pursuing seriously. Funding models need to reflect the genuine cost of delivering comprehensive primary care, including the additional infrastructure, time, and staff that broad scope requires. The LFP billing model in BC represents progress in recognising longitudinal value, but it does not yet fully account for the procedural and extended scope work that a comprehensive practice involves.

Training culture matters as well. If residents observe that the physicians they are learning from no longer perform the procedures they are being taught, the implicit message is that those skills are aspirational rather than practical. Preserving broad scope in residency training requires that the training environment model it, which requires that the clinics where training occurs are financially equipped to sustain it.

Record transfer and cross-clinic infrastructure also warrant attention. A physician who might otherwise take on complex procedural or prenatal care is significantly less likely to do so if the clinical history required to do it safely is inaccessible because of the fragmented and non-interoperable state of EMR systems across BC. The administrative friction of comprehensive practice needs to be reduced, not compounded.

Finally, the conversation about what is being lost needs to happen at a scale and with a directness that it has not yet achieved. Policymakers, health system planners, and the public are not well positioned to advocate for the restoration of something whose disappearance they have not been clearly shown. Making the shrinkflation visible, naming it, costing it, and tracing its consequences through the system is a necessary precondition for addressing it.

The physicians are still trained. The capability is present. What is required now is a serious, sustained effort to rebuild the structural conditions that make comprehensive family medicine not only possible, but financially sustainable for the clinics and physicians who want to practice it properly.

Dr. Julie Wilson, MD, CCFP, FCFP

Use AI NOW to Reduce Bureaucratic Bloat in Health Care

On the heels of my last blog on the Auditor General’s report on AI systems in Ontario, I was asked “how then can AI help in health care?” Certainly policy makers often talk a LOT about how AI can help. Better diagnoses! Faster assessments! Better prediction of which patient is more likely to “crash”! Reduced admin time with the use of AI Scribes! Etc.

These are all valid uses for AI technology. I use an AI scribe myself (following the principle of “trust but verify”in signing off on the notes). I access some evidence based AI software to help me with challenging cases. I always have the final word on what to do next of course, but I would be lying if I said that the tools didn’t help me look after my patients.

However, in a health care system as byzantine as the one in Ontario, there is one area where AI can help almost immediately that is not talked about nearly enough. Given the topic, I get why the many government health care planners/bureaucrats/managers don’t mention this. I’m talking of course, about reducing the number of bureaucrats in health care in Ontario.

I’ve talked about Ontario’s health care system being over bureaucratized many times in the past. But there’s never been a better opportunity to meaningfully cut the bloat. It would be impossible for me to search the entire Ontario government data base to find out how many bureaucrats we have. So………I used an AI search on ChatGPT and Claude AI to review how many managers/bureaucrats we have across all government funded health care agencies in Ontario. (I will put the prompt at the end of the blog for those interested).

Both searches suggested the total size of the health care workforce in Ontario was about 500,000 people. Of that, astounding 90,000-130,000 were non-clinical employees (mostly administrative/support staff). The actual management/bureaucratic layer varied between 25,000-45,000. A precise number was difficult to define, because, in the words of ChatGPT:

“……Ontario’s healthcare system is fragmented across hundreds of entities with inconsistent titles and reporting structures.”

However, given all of that, I think Claude’s estimate of having 85,000 admin/management personnel across all Ontario Health care agencies is defensible. Heck, it’s lower than ChatGPTs 90,000 – 130,000. Claude AI further broke this down and suggested 52,000 of these were in Ontario’s 154 hospitals.

Can AI replace some of these jobs? Replace is probably not the right phrase. There can certainly be a consolidation of the actual tasks required from different jobs, and AI can do those tasks much more efficiently and accurately.

For example, AI can, as of today, help with information movement, repetitive analysis, scheduling, policy retrieval, document generation, compliance monitoring, coordination, coding, and referrals to name but a few examples. All of these tasks are currently being performed by bureaucrats, and it’s virtually certain that there is tremendous duplication in the work being done. There is plenty of software than can do these tasks right now (LeanTaas, Qventus, Nuance DAX to name a few). Yes they are mostly American, but surely can be modified to meet Canadian needs.

The cost savings from reducing the number of bureaucrats can be significant immediately, and frankly enormous as AI continues to evolve over the next five years.

For a case study, let’s look at the University Health Network (I’m not picking on them for any other reason then they are huge!). They have approximately 24,500 employees of which an estimated 4,200 are Admin/management of some sort. Many of these positions are people on Ontario’s Sunshine List (i.e. they make over $100,000 a year). Reducing the number of these positions by 10% should be easily do-able if you have the right AI software.

Then the hospital would save the money right? Especially since Ontario’s hospitals are facing massive deficits? I would say no to that. I would instead say if UHN could cut their admin staff by 420 (which should easily be done), then maybe they could hire 210 clinical staff in return (nurses, physio, rehab, RT, Xray techs etc). Instead they just fired nurses. They would still have 210 fewer positions (so some money saved) but they would have 210 more people who would actually, you know – look at a patient. People who could provide compassionate, front line care and assessments to patients and be an invaluable part of the health care team.

Looking forward five years as AI software continues to evolve, I genuinely believe UHN should set its goal for reducing Admin/Management staff by half (at a minimum). This would allow them hire over a thousand (if not more) nurses to provide that front line care that is so essential to patients well being.

From a system wide perspective, the numbers would be even more dramatic. Currently, Ontario has 38% less inpatient staffing than the Canadian average. In order to just meet the average, about 34,000 more nurses need to be hired. The money for that has to come from somewhere, and I can think of no better place than reducing the admin staffing to find those funds.

I get why the bureaucrats have not talked about these uses for AI. Bureaucracy by its very nature is self perpetuating. But we are facing a serious fiscal calamity in health care with our aging population. While it’s nice to have tools that can help physicians like myself make better diagnoses and provide safer care, the blunt reality is we desperately need more front line staff. No matter how good the tool, it will never be a substitute for the compassion or a real human being providing care. The emotional wellness we experience from having real people look after us at the bedside cannot be understated. We need to adopt bureaucracy replacing AI tools now, and put the money saved in front of patients.

For those interested, this is the AI Prompt I used to get this data: “Review the number of bureaucrats/managers in the health care system in Ontario, Canada. Include ALL health care agencies that are government funded like hospitals, Ontario Health at Home, hospitals, community health centres and more – all government funded health care agencies. Get an approximate number of bureaucrats. Then show where AI can result in cuts to management/bureaucrat jobs right now, and in five years. Use the University Health Network in Toronto Canada as an example to show how many bureaucrat/management jobs could be trimmed, allowing them to funnel resources to hiring front line clinical personnel like nurses.”

Why Does The Old Country Doctor Hate Non-Physician OMA Board Members?

My last blog supported Dr. Paul Conte’s four motions that he is presenting at the upcoming Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Annual General Meeting (AGM). At the heart of the motions is a strong desire to course correct the governance changes at the OMA that have gone too far. The OMA is taking physicians authority to govern themselves away. Dr. Conte’s motions are excellent and I am very proud to be the seconder on all four of them.

However, the questions I keep getting asked about in that blog all pertain to the non-physician Board Directors. What exactly do I have against the non-physician Board Directors? Why do I not like them? Is there a grudge of some sort? Do I not recognize that they can contribute skills to the Board that most physicians just don’t have?

I guess that’s a symptom of some of the “spin” that is likely quietly being put out there about the motions and the blog. It’s easier to portray this as someone with an axe to grind rather than encouraging people to read the blog. My previous blog clearly stated that as the founding Chair of my local Family Health Team – I absolutely ensured and supported having non-physician members on our Board. They really provided some valuable guidance during the formative years of the FHT.

To be completely fair, a casual look at the resumes of the current three non-physician Board Directors, suggest some very impressive backgrounds. I’m obviously not on the Board, but on paper it sounds like they could contribute to many of the discussions there and bring different, but important perspectives.

Here’s the thing. The OMA Board ALWAYS has had experts in areas where physicians didn’t naturally have proficiency. The best example would be the negotiations counsel. They are experts in their field. They frequently present to the Board on how things are going with the negotiations process. At the Board level they inform the discussions and yes, they do try to persuade the Board to make certain decisions. All of which is fine as far as I’m concerned. That’s they way things should work and this applies not just to the negotiations counsel, but to a whole host of other experts who present at the Board.

But.

The one extremely important distinction is that at the end of the day, the negotiations counsel does not have a vote at the OMA Board (nor does any other external expert). They can persuade, cajole, entice and coax all they want. But the Board will ultimately have the final authority on whether to accept their recommendation (which is also as it should be). There were times when I was on the OMA Board where we did reject their advice (much to their chagrin).

This to me is the BIG difference. Currently, all three of the non-physician Board Members will not only provide advice based on their expertise, but will then vote, and thus, have a degree of authority and control over physicians.

The OMA Board is currently comprised of seven elected physician Board Directors, the OMA President, and the three non-physician Directors. The manner of how the three non-physician Directors have been chosen has evolved far away from what was intended. Initially there was an election for the position. Then last year we were told that one wasn’t needed for a non-physician Director if it was just a term renewal. Then this year a preferred candidate (preferred by whom??) was presented to the membership for “approval”.

These three NON-physicians, selected and recruited by the OMA as an organization, and NOT by the members, can effectively hold the balance of power in decisions that determine how the OMA advocates for physicians livelihoods. Having been on the Board and seeing diverse opinions amongst physicians, it is not at all hard for me to envision a scenario where 5 physicians oppose a staff recommendation, 3 are in favour, and then the 3 non-physicians would line up as a block to support a staff recommendation. In essence, despite a MAJORITY of physicians on the Board opposing something, it would still get passed.

This is just wrong, and was why I had advocated (and lost) from the start that non-physicians should not vote on the Board. Dr. Conte’s first two motions will correct this mistake.

What Dr. Conte’s Motions will NOT do

Just as important to realize is what Dr. Conte’s motions do NOT do. There is an argument to be made that having non-physicians on the Board on an ongoing level is a good thing. It will allow them to see the full dynamics of what goes on at the Board, and provide ongoing advice. Fair enough. The Georgian Bay FHT that I chaired certainly benefitted significantly from just that same concept. And there is nothing in Dr. Conte’s motions that will prevent the OMA from enacting a similar structure for their own Board.

At the Georgian Bay FHT, we called those Directors “ex-officio”. For some reason that I never understood that term was frowned upon by OMA Legal and the consultants that we hired during the governance transformation. Fine. Create a new position. Call it “Board Advisor”. Call it “Board Mentor”. Call it whatever you want. Have three of those positions available. Bind the candidates to Board confidentiality rules. Let them talk at the Board.

But do not let them vote.

Only physicians should have voting authority over matters at an organization whose main goal is to advance the interests of physicians. Only physicians inherently and intuitively understand the challenges faced by physicians. Yes, they should hear out external voices and weigh their opinions thoughtfully. But only they should be making decisions.

Since proxy voting is not allowed, I once again encourage all Ontario physicians to attend the OMA General Meeting and support Dr. Conte’s motions. You can attend virtually. Just click here to register, and let’s correct this mistake and bring voting authority at the OMA back where it belongs.

Local Medical Schools Will Help Address Doctor Shortages

Old Country Doctors Note: I was a teacher with the Rural Ontario Medical Program for three decades. It was founded by Dr. Peter Wells, and based on the principle that putting trainee doctors in smaller communities will enhance the chance of them working there. It’s been wildly successful. On that same note, Dr. Butt feels that putting a Medical School in Barrie will help increase recruitment to smaller centres, and I think he’s right. His Letter to the Editor appeared in the local press, and he’s given me permission to reproduce as a guest blog here.

Dr. Atif Butt (pictured inset) guest blogs for me today. He’s one of these ultra smart characters who not only has and MBA (McMaster 2003) but also and MD (McMaster, 2011) and a CCFP (EM). He’s retired from the Military (Major) and works in ER in Alliston, and Urgent Care in Barrie and does sedations in an endoscopy clinic in Innisfil. Apparently he’s quite the dancer too.

Barrie has been home to my family and I since the fall of 2013. It is a wonderful area to raise a family and offers everything that a mid-size community requires but also the peace and quiet lacking in larger urban areas. It is also the gateway to cottage country.

I am surprised at how fast the city is expanding as demonstrated by the numerous condo buildings and townhouses being erected, especially on the Barrie/Innisfil border. A growing city will result in many consequences, some positive (e.g., more cultural diversity, more revenues for local businesses, etc.) but also some negatives (e.g., traffic headaches). It will also mean a growing population that will place greater demand on local health-care resources.

I have been practising medicine in several health-care organizations in the Barrie/Innisifil/Alliston area since 2013. I am impressed by how much demand is placed on local health-care organizations, yet they continue to persevere through. The success is fundamentally thanks to the heroic work of the health-care workers including physicians, nurses, and other allied health-care workers who band together to serve patients, often sacrificing their own nights and weekends. But we all have our limits and simply cannot do more.

Currently, almost six million Canadians (out of which over two million are in Ontario) do not have a family doctor. More specifically, it is estimated that over 55,000 people in the Simcoe County area do not have a family doctor. Almost every day, there are news reports of lengthy wait times in the ERs, which are frankly longer than plane flights from Canada to Pakistan. Attempts have been made to address such shortfalls by the use of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists and I am grateful for the work they provide. Nonetheless, physicians cannot simply be replaced by non-physicians and more are needed. That is why I am proposing that either a new medical school be created in the Barrie/Innisfil area or, preferably and more cost-effectively, seats from an existing Ontario medical school be expanded to our area.

I am encouraged to see that some efforts have already been made to expand medical school seats in Ontario. Examples include the 2025 opening of the Toronto Metropolitan University medical school and the upcoming opening of the York University medical school in 2028. I appreciate that such endeavours can be costly. For example, the federal government just announced almost $2 million to expand medical seats and services for the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. While this will greatly support the north, sadly, Barrie and the surrounding area seemed to be left out.

Despite investments in new medical schools, the demand far exceeds supply. For example, the newest medical school at TMU had 6,416 applications in 2025 but total projected class size in 2026 is 94. That means 1.5 per cent of applicants got accepted. Most medical schools in Ontario roughly seem to have on average about a three- to five-per-cent acceptance rate. While adding medical seats in Barrie/Innisfil maybe a drop in the bucket, it will hopefully lead to an ongoing pool of locally trained physicians that will want to practice in our area. Return of service contracts, where physicians have to practice locally for four to five years after training, can be a condition for acceptance into a medical school here.

Canada in general and Ontario in particular have a lot of talent, yet we are losing out. On a regular basis, I come across undergraduate students who have high GPAs/marks, extraordinary extra-curriculars and experiences, scored high on their MCATs, have applied multiple times to Canadian medical schools, yet are unable to even get an interview (let alone acceptance) into a Canadian medical school. Their families are often spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (in U.S. dollars) to send them abroad to the U.S./Caribbean/Europe so that they can pursue their dreams of becoming a physician. Even after they graduate from an international medical school, there is no guarantee that they will obtain a residency spot in Canada since preference is given to Canadian-trained grads. Hence, they may be forced to practise elsewhere like the U.S. Would it not be better if we could retain and train such talent who invested their tuition locally and then stayed to practise?

Intuitively, when medical trainees train in a particular geographical area, many will choose to stay and practise in that area. While in Barrie we have the Family Medicine Teaching Unit for training family medicine residents and the expansion of some ER residency spots at Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre, I believe that the next logical step is to have medical school seats in the Barrie/Innisifil area. This will allow us to recruit and retain future physicians in the local area.

I find that the simplest goals are often the most achievable and realistic. A brand-new expensive medical school with new infrastructure may be a costly pill for any government to swallow. Thus, simply expanding, say, a dozen seats, from an existing Ontario medical school to our area using existing hospitals or other health-care facilities may be much more palatable. Students will be able to virtually watch online any didactic lectures that are delivered at main campuses to obtain theoretical knowledge. Any practical knowledge and skills can be completed with assigned preceptors and through core rotations (e.g., ER, family medicine, obstetrics, general surgery) and elective (e.g., plastics, radiology, etc.) at several of the amazing and existing local hospitals and health-care facilities from Orillia to Barrie and Alliston to Newmarket. After doing three to four years of medical school and assuming they do a two-year family medicine residency in the Barrie/Innisfil area, I suspect many will choose to stay and practise in our wonderful area.

I have already reached out to several governing officials including the Office of the Premier of Ontario and the provincial minister of health to share my proposal. While their offices have provided some appreciative yet general responses of their broader investments, I truly believe that it is through greater and ongoing public support and engagement that expansion of a medical school in Barrie can be achieved. In other words, while I as a physician can write a prescription and explain the risks and benefits of the medicine, it is up to the patient to actually take the prescription. In this case, my prescription is the expansion of medical school seats to the Barrie/Innisfil area and I am asking you, the patient, to engage the government in filling this prescription.

About Dr. Elaine Ma: We’ve Been Here Before, and Didn’t Fix It…

My thanks to Dr. Mike Goodwin (pictured inset) for guest blogging for me today. Dr. Goodwin is a retired family physician who held numerous roles in medical politics including (but not limited to) being a member of the Coalition of Family Physicians, a member of the Section of General and Family Practice Executive and an OMA Board Director. He brings a historical perspective regarding medical audits to this blog, and I am grateful for his contribution.

I admire our courageous young colleague Dr. Elaine Ma, she of the seemingly never-ending OHIP billing/auditing dispute with a media savvy beyond her years. Dr. Ma’s impeccable sense of public health propriety during COVID has earned her a growing band of supporters. It has hopefully gained her financial support from both the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and the Canadian Medical Protective Association.

But what Dr. Ma and younger colleagues may not appreciate is that OHIP’s abuse of doctors, utilizing its antiquated billing payment and auditing processes, has been ongoing for a long time. Between the years 2000 through 2005, a hundred odd doctors every year in Ontario were being subjected to the same sort of unfair retroactive audit, which Dr. Ma is currently experiencing.

Back then, just like now, we had a Schedule of Benefits (SOB) badly in need of an update, a pettifogging bureaucracy unwilling to interpret said schedule with any modicum of common sense… vague auditing rules which conferred the burden of proof upon the accused rather than the province, and the same one-sided authority to claw back payments or garnish future accounts receivable. OHIP even had computers back then, almost certainly the same ancient models they still use today (which they claim can’t possibly be configured to pay doctors in a timely manner after the award of binding arbitrated pay increases).

Administrative abuse of the profession in the very early aughts was rampant. OHIP had enlisted the help of the CPSO, because the College had administrative and regulatory authority, beyond criminal law, over all physicians pertaining to the practice of medicine. Actual auditing and enforcement of decisions was done by an entity of the College called the Medical Review Committee (MRC). It apparently escaped everyone’s notice at the time, and still today, that medical billing to OHIP was and is based upon definitions contained within an official MOH document called the OHIP SOB. The OHIP SOB is, at least in theory, derived from agreements negotiated between the province and the OMA, not the College! One might argue, logically, that any dispute concerning rules and definitions documented within the SOB should always be addressed in the first instance between the Ministry and the OMA.

At any rate, anger and despair over the medical billing and auditing system in that far away time came to a head when a gentle Welland paediatrician, Dr. Tony Hsu, committed suicide. I suspect that Tony felt he had lost face by going public with his own particular auditing horror story. The concept of “face” is important in the Chinese diaspora, and Tony, who worked a one in three (sometimes one in two) on call rota at the Welland County General Hospital (without any on-call stipends in those days), in addition to maintaining a community practice, was forced to repay $96,000. He had to take that out of his retirement savings.

Public and political outrage at Tony’s death, particularly in the Niagara region, was immediate and intense. Then Health Minister George Smitherman was pressed to call for a “public inquiry” into medical billing and auditing. By happy accident, retired Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory was available and appointed to the task. Those of us acquainted with Mr. Cory’s reputation silently cheered.

Former Health Minister George Smitherman

And when Cory’s very comprehensive report was published, nine months later in April 2005, the indecent OHIP billing auditing system finally came to an end.

Or so we thought!

In his report “Study, Conclusions, and Recommendations Into Medical Audit Practice in Ontario,” Mr. Cory did not mince words. “The medical audit system in Ontario has had a debilitating, and in some cases, devastating effect on physicians and their families,” he said. “It has had a negative effect on the delivery of services, and has undermined Ontario’s attractiveness as a place to practice.”

Also, and very pointedly, the honourable Cory recommended the appointment of a new independent audit board, while declining to take up an offer from the College to continue auditing medical billings as they had been doing prior to his inquiry. In all, Justice Cory made 118 separate recommendations, and I reproduce only the first four, below, since they were (possibly) the most important:

Jurisdiction and structure: the responsibility for conducting the audits of physicians fee claims should be conferred on a new and independent board. See recommendations (1) to (4).
Purpose of the audit process: The audit process must be employed only for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of physician fee claims. The audit system itself must be accountable. A biennial stakeholders forum should be established to receive reports on the operation of the new audit process and to receive and consider proposals for its improvement. See recommendations (5) to (7).
A new emphasis on assisting physicians to comply with billing requirements: The primary goals of the new audit system should be (1) education to facilitate compliance with billing requirements, and (2) identification and elimination of false, fraudulent, and egregiously erroneous billing in a fair and effective manner. See recommendations (8) to (9).
Schedule of benefits: The schedule of benefits must be revised and adapted. It must also be interpreted flexibly so that a physician is not deprived of payment for a service that is medically appropriate and that complies substantially with the requirements of the fee code. See recommendations (10) to (14).

(NB – as the report cannot be found online, Dr. Goodwin used his own personal copy of the report as a reference – Old Country Doctor)

In the wake of the Cory report, Minister Smitherman ceased audits immediately and promised changes. But no one at the MOH or College lost a job. And ministries or bureaucracies (like the CPSO) are resistant to any change from age-old ways of doing things. That’s particularly true when change might reduce influence, or even more important, authority and funding.

So when I joined the OMA board in 2005 as a newbie director, the ministry was already flooding the zone, as they did, with multiple new issues demanding our attention. Promises made didn’t materialize, and almost none of Mr. Cory’s recommendations, especially the most important, to “confer responsibility for conducting billing audits on a new and independent board,” were implemented. Months became years, and “the Cory report” gradually disappeared from sight, consigned to death by inattention. You can’t find it anywhere today, even with a Google search. Not even on the OMA website: for shame!

I’m convinced that if a significant part of Mr. Cory’s report had been adopted in 2005, much of the shoddy bureaucratic shenanigans from OHIP would have been fixed (including, maybe even their ancient computers). Dr. Elaine Ma would not be undergoing her current marathon persecution. Nor would we be seeing those cases where OHIP seems to let grifters get away with corrupt billing over multiple years before it (OHIP) picks up on the scam. How does that work, by the way?

It’s not every day you get support from a retired Supreme Court justice at your back… particularly such clear, sensible, workable recommendations from arguably the most influential liberal justice of the post-constitutional era in Canada. Peter Cory was famous for his kindness, and for his defence of human dignity at every opportunity…though he definitely had an iron fist in a velvet glove when the need arose. For anyone (like me) who ever had the good fortune to meet him, he was just an unforgettably decent man.

Memo to the OMA:

If you really want to fix this auditing problem, something which I and my colleagues failed to do, Peter Cory’s report from 2005 would still be a great place to start. Dr. Elaine Ma has provided you a good crisis: let’s not waste it.

Lettre ouverte au premier ministre François Legault

L’honorable François Legault, député
Premier ministre du Québec
Édifice Honoré-Mercier, 3e étage
835, boul. René-Lévesque Est
Québec (Québec) G1A 1B4

Monsieur le Premier Ministre,

Vous ne me connaissez probablement pas, et vous vous demandez sans doute ce qui m’a poussé à vous écrire une lettre ouverte. J’ai pris cette décision après avoir fait une entrevue à la radio avec Greg Brady, dans son émission Toronto Today. Durant l’entrevue, Greg m’a demandé de commenter la chicane entre vous et les médecins de votre province. Il a mentionné que, dans les dernières semaines, 263 médecins québécois ont fait une demande de permis pour pratiquer en Ontario.

Je ne prétends certainement pas être un expert du fonctionnement du système de santé au Québec. Je ne me permettrais pas non plus de dire que je comprends toutes les subtilités du projet de loi 2, la législation que vous avez déposée et qui met vos médecins en colère. Et non, je vais le dire d’emblée : je ne sais pas comment se déroulent vos négociations avec les organismes représentant les médecins du Québec (la FMSQ et la FMOQ).

Mais je peux vous dire que mon tout premier billet de blogue (dans le Huffington Post) était une lettre ouverte adressée à l’ancien ministre de la Santé de l’Ontario, le Dr Eric Hoskins. J’avais écrit ce billet parce que son gouvernement parlait d’imposer des mesures unilatérales contre les médecins (ça vous rappelle quelque chose?). Dans ce texte, j’avertissais le Dr Hoskins que des actions unilatérales allaient engendrer le chaos dans notre système de santé :

On ne peut pas retourner à un système où trois millions de personnes et plus n’ont pas de médecin de famille, ou encore à des délais pour consulter un spécialiste (déjà trop longs chez nous) qui deviennent carrément intenables.

J’avais aussi prévenu qu’il y aurait un prix politique à payer en allant de l’avant de façon unilatérale, et que cela nuirait aux libéraux lors de l’élection de 2018. Vous savez peut-être qu’ils ont été complètement anéantis à cette élection-là. Même si une bonne partie de leur défaite s’explique par l’impopularité de la première ministre Kathleen Wynne, je maintiens encore aujourd’hui que les libéraux auraient au moins pu conserver leur statut de parti officiel s’ils n’avaient pas magané le système de santé à ce point.

La raison pour laquelle j’ai pu écrire ces avertissements avec autant d’assurance — et avoir raison au final — ce n’était pas de la clairvoyance de ma part. C’est simplement que j’ai suivi le conseil de Santayana :

A picture of George Santayana, Spanish American philosopher with his famous quote "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Ceux qui ne peuvent apprendre de l’histoire sont condamnés à la répéter.

Regardez : je comprends que les détails précis des politiques et du projet de loi que vous déposez ne sont pas identiques à ce que le Dr Hoskins tentait de faire. Mais au bout du compte, le message est le même : votre gouvernement affirme qu’il sait mieux que tout le monde comment gérer le système de santé. Vous n’avez pas besoin de l’avis ni de la collaboration des médecins. Vous allez imposer les changements que vous voulez.

Je vous encourage à retourner lire la lettre que j’avais envoyée au Dr Hoskins. Je lui avais souligné qu’il répétait les erreurs (les gestes unilatéraux) du gouvernement néo-démocrate de Bob Rae dans les années 1990. Ils ont détruit le système de santé avec ces actions-là et ont été balayés lors de l’élection de 1995, sans jamais reprendre le pouvoir depuis.

Jetez un œil au gouvernement progressiste-conservateur de Jason Kenney en Alberta, en 2019. Ils se sont mis en guerre avec l’Alberta Medical Association en 2020. La seule façon pour eux d’éviter une défaite à l’élection suivante a été de sacrifier leur chef, Jason Kenney. (Oui, c’est vrai que le mécontentement lié à sa gestion de la pandémie a joué — mais l’essentiel, c’est qu’il n’y avait rien pour le sauver. S’il avait gardé un système de santé fonctionnel…)

Vous en voulez d’autres? Regardez le gouvernement de Gordon Campbell, en Colombie-Britannique. En 2001-2002, ils ont unilatéralement déchiré une entente d’arbitrage conclue entre le gouvernement et les médecins. Cela a été suivi par des années de conflit, un recours fondé sur la Charte (que le gouvernement a perdu), du tumulte politique, un vote de grève des médecins et une majorité gouvernementale passablement réduite. Finalement, devant un système de santé en déroute — un échec dû à leur propre arrogance — le gouvernement a dû conclure une entente avec les médecins en 2002, puis en 2006, rétablissant l’arbitrage exécutoire dans des conditions jugées très généreuses à l’époque.

Comme je l’avais dit au Dr Hoskins, le message est simple :

Tout gouvernement qui agit unilatéralement court le risque de perdre des médecins.

Et quand ça arrive, le système de santé en souffre. Les patients en souffrent. Les délais augmentent. Les soins se détériorent. Et dans ces situations-là, les gens ne blâment pas les médecins. Ils blâment les politiciens.

En bref, un gouvernement qui impose des mesures unilatérales aux médecins fait du tort aux patients de sa province et paie toujours un prix politique. Au final, il finit toujours par payer plus cher que s’il avait tout simplement négocié de façon juste avec ses médecins dès le départ.

Écoutez : je n’ai pas d’intérêt particulier pour vous ou votre gouvernement. Ça m’est complètement égal que vous gagniez ou non la prochaine élection. Mais mes collègues médecins, je m’en soucie. Et je sais qu’ils sont très, très fâchés (et avec raison). Je me soucie aussi des citoyens du Québec, et je sais qu’ils vont énormément souffrir de vos décisions. En ce moment, 28 % de la population n’a pas de médecin de famille. Imaginez ce qui va arriver si 263 quittent. Et pensez-vous vraiment qu’un médecin sensé voudra venir pratiquer au Québec quand votre gouvernement agit de cette façon?

Croyez-moi : si vous ne changez pas de cap immédiatement et si vous ne recommencez pas à travailler avec vos médecins, les dommages causés à votre système de santé — et aux gens que vous êtes censé servir — seront immenses.

Et si vous ne me croyez pas, relisez la citation de Santayana.

Cordialement,

Un vieux médecin de campagne

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 “

“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

Expanded Scope of Practice Will Ultimately Hurt Patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Appears Family Doctors are Giving Up…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s hope that message gets across.

Never Ending Arbitration Seems to Be Our Fate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawyers are gonna get really really rich……

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh…