#negotiations – justanoldcountrydoctor

AGM Shows That Front Line Physicians HAVE Power Over the OMA

This year’s Ontario Medical Association Annual General Meeting (OMA AGM) was more exciting than usual. There’s much to talk about. But to my mind, it appears that members have once again exerted a degree of control over their association. That is a good thing.

The meeting got off to a very inauspicious start when both Board Chair Cathy Faulds, and CEO Kim Moran blatantly misled (at best), or at worst, lied to the members. Both of them repeated how the OMA secured agreements with the government to provide significant funding increases for physicians. This is, of course, patently false. An independent third-party arbitrator imposed an award that the OMA and government have to abide by.

It is true that after the money was awarded, some aspects of the byzantine physician services contract were negotiated. Many others, including the much-hyped FHO+ program for family physician, were arbitrated. To suggest this represents an agreement with the government that was acceptable to everyone is insulting to members and outright false.

The highlights of the meeting were two speeches. First, by outgoing president, Doctor Zainab Abdurrahman (whose last name Dr. Faulds still couldn’t pronounce properly). I think she’s done a very good job as being spokesperson for the profession, no more so in her advocacy around trying to fix the outdated and incompetent OHIP billing system. Doctor Rebecca Hicks, the incoming President also gave what I thought was a truly inspiring speech. This bodes well for how she’s going to represent the profession in the future. And, it’s the first time the OMA has had two female presidents in a row – which is well overdue.

OMA Past President Dr. Zainab Abdurrahman

Unfortunately, the meeting went downhill from there. I will not blame the technology. I’ve attended many virtual meetings for many different organizations. The technology for the software is expanding much faster than the server resources are allowing, and so there are always going to be significant glitches. I also need to point out that the parliamentarian who was hired to run the meeting did an excellent job given all the limitations that he was facing. And I want to give a shout out to the frontline OMA staff who diligently tried to keep the technology moving.

Sadly, my criticism is going to be directed at many of the physicians who did their best to obstruct motions that were duly presented, met all the timelines, and followed the bylaws. Unfortunately, we physicians are sometimes done in by a small number of our colleagues who seem to think they know better than the rest of us, and can’t have us expressing our contrarian views. This was never more evident than last night.

Immediately after Dr. Conte’s first motion (to change the bylaws to remove non-physician Board Directors) came up, there was a motion to defer for one year. This was to let the Board create committees to “study the implications” of the motions. This is, of course, nonsense. One of the things the OMA did do fairly well is they put out a package on the implications of what would happen if these motions passed and if they failed. It was very thorough. It was available to every member who attended the meeting. The fact that some people chose not to read it is a reflection on them.

More suspiciously, the people who spoke out for the motions to defer were the usual suspects (double entendre intended for a couple of select friends of mine). The type that sign up for every committee and collect their stipends from members dues. Thankfully, the majority of attendees were going to have none of this, and deferral failed.

Unfortunately, this did not stop more shenanigans. There were all sorts of attempts to block this motion, questions about process, points of order – too many to remember really. But eventually, fifty-three percent of members at the meeting supported his first motion. However, the motion needed 67% to pass as it was a bylaw change.

This brings back shades of the motion of nonconfidence in the then Ontario Board Executive in 2017. That motion also required sixty-seven percent, but got fifty-five percent at council. The Executive eventually did the right thing and resigned. One hopes that the non-physician Board Directors, who by all descriptions are decent people with integrity, will see the writing on the wall and resign.

The fact that this motion actually had majority support sent supporters of the current leadership structure into a state of panic. The next motion, which would have removed the non-physician Board Directors, but at the end of their terms, only required fifty percent plus one to pass. This meant that this glorious structure that had been put together where the OMA chose candidates for board and not the members themselves, and the OMA could manipulate the elections to satisfy a select few was in danger. More motions to delay, more procedural gimmicks. More “we haven’t had time to study this.”

Eventually, as the meeting was running over time, the decision was made to defer the rest of these motions to another meeting that will occur within six weeks. This puts the OMA in the same kind of limbo that it was in after the board executive of 2017 was rejected but refused to resign. Not a good place for an organization to be.

More importantly, however, despite what I’m sure is being said about people like Drs. Conte, Hacker and yes myself, these events actually show the true power of the governance transformation. As the guy who was tasked with giving the speech to the then OMA Council to convince them to go down this path, let me state clearly that the driving force behind the transformation was always to give front line physicians power to control the organization if they felt it was not serving their interests. It has not been easy, or quick, and will drag on due to the shenanigans at the AGM, but members are exerting a level of control, and pressure over the OMA that they have every right to do. It may very well be painful for those in charge (they didn’t get their way) and it may very well require members to invest more time (yet another meeting), but it is a very good thing.

Ontario physicians deserve a strong and responsive OMA. This year’s AGM, as messy and complicated as it was, is a step in the right direction.

If you have any questions about the meeting, and what happens next, I encourage you to sign up for the OMA Webinar on May 13th at this link.

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.

Why the OMA Annual General Meeting Matters This Year

I was thinking about what to say about this years OMA Annual General (AGM) meeting. As a die hard Star Trek fan, my thoughts went back to the excellent Next Generation episode, “The Drumhead“. After foiling the ambitions of a Federation official to twist things for her own benefit, Captain Jean Luc Picard reflects that “vigilance is the price we continually have to pay.”

It’s the same for the OMA. Things go off the rails IF members don’t pay attention. Given how big, complex and convoluted the OMA is, well, members do tend to ignore some of the goings on (I am just as guilty of this as other people).

The governance changes at the OMA are a great example. What started out as well intentioned (and badly needed) changes to modernize the organization, in the aftermath of the debacle of the mid-2010s, has been turned into something worse than what was intended. For a bunch of reasons, I personally continue to think that it is still better than the previous structure – but a course correction is needed. We’re now in a situation where the staff seemingly control everything, regardless of what members want. Because, let’s face it, as a whole, we physicians didn’t pay enough attention to the OMA. Thus, the organization was able to repeatedly put changes in place that benefited the organization, ahead of the rights of front line physicians.

It’s gotten so bad that two OMA Board members, Drs. Paul Conte and Paul Hacker, resigned their roles early. These are not just ordinary Board Members. Dr. Conte is a former Board Chair, and also Chaired the Governance and Nominations Committee of the Board. Dr Hacker Co-Chaired the Governance Transformation Committee when all of these changes were put in place . They are absolute experts in the field, and if they say something is wrong with what’s going on, well, you can bet it is.

This is why you should all virtually attend the OMA’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). Dr. Paul Conte has come up with four motions (which I am seconding) to present to try and get the organization back to where it should be. There is some wordy legal jargon in the full motions so I’m only going to list what each motion hopes to accomplish and why. The full motions should be in the meeting package you receive when you register.

Motion 1 and 2: Removal of references to non-physician members and increase physician directors to 10

Some background. I was the founding Chair of the Georgian Bay Family Health Team. When we put the team together we knew that there were some skill sets, information and knowledge that physicians just didn’t have. Finances, negotiations, business plans and so on. So we had non-physicians on the Board of the team to help provide those insights. But we also realized that you cannot have a situation where non-physicians governed physicians . As a result, those non-physicians were what we called ex-officio Board Members. They could contribute and offer suggestions at the Board level, but they were not able to directly make decisions.

When the OMA began the necessary governance transformation process, I begged the staff of the OMA and the consultants to do the same thing with non-physician directors. They refused. I was told “Board Members had to vote” under ONCA (Ontario Not for Profit Act). This is twisting things. If you really want a non-voting person on the Board you can create a separate category – say “Board Advisor”. But the staff and consultants just didn’t want to, regardless of what the duly elected representative of the profession said. Then Covid got in the way, and ……….

By passing these motions we will eliminate non-physicians from having voting authority at the Board Level. The OMA can still have them there as consultants if they want – but non-physicians will not have the ability to govern physicians anymore.

Motion 3: Removal of the Screening Process for Board Directors

This year’s election process was an absolute travesty. Not only did the OMA unilaterally screen and short list candidates for Board Director, and only allow members to vote for the candidates THEY felt appropriate, they impugned the reputation of one of the President Elect candidates, by putting up a subjective opinion of their social media posts. It’s up to each individual physician to judge a candidate, NOT the OMA.

By doing so, not only did they harm a reputation, they’ve bastardized the whole election process and by default have tainted the victory of Dr. Haroon Yousuf.

This motion will put a stop to this nonsense.

Motion 4: An end to the Nadia Alam Rule

When I was on the OMA Board, it was quite obvious to me that many of the Board Members were extremely jealous of the popularity of Dr. Nadia Alam, who pretty well skyrocketed to fame because she spoke up and inspired others (including a certain grumpy curmudgeon who was going to sit the dispute with the government out). As a result they forced the implementation of a rule that says that anyone who held the role of President can no longer run for Board, even if they have less than 6 years on the Board (the current term limit).

Dr. Nadia Alam

The stated rationale for this goes something like “we give our presidents all sorts of publicity and it’s an unfair advantage if they run.” This is, of course, a load of cow manure. There are a whole lot of Past-Presidents who got lauded by the OMA and would get exactly one vote if they ran for anything ever again. This rule assumes the membership is too stupid to recognize who can inspire them and who can’t – and really is telling the membership they aren’t smart enough to know who to vote for.

Furthermore, Ontario is THE ONLY Provincial Medical Association that has this rule. (For that matter, no other Provincial Association screens Board candidates like this or puts subjective comments on election packages.)

Time to end this rule as well.

What happens if members don’t show up and the Motions Fail?

As members, we have a choice. We can spend a couple of our hard earned hours investing in and attending the AGM, hearing arguments both pro and con, and voting in the best interests of physicians. Or we can sit passively by, in which case the motions will likely fail, and the OMA will be emboldened, and continue to make choices for us, rather than the other way around.

Since my friend Paul Conte prefers the other, far inferior space franchise, this will be akin to the end of Revenge of the Sith, where Padme Amidala realizes:

Let’s not let that happen

If you are an Ontario Physician, I urge you to register for the AGM here:

https://web.cvent.com/event/c17ccc6c-d186-4ab8-985f-2e48127b4ffb/summary?sfmc_id=7563168

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.

OMA Manipulates Board Elections and Weakens Members Voices

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

Current Past President of the OMA, Dr. Dominik Nowak

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

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

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

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

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

Colleagues, we have a big problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physicians will truly be hurt by this short sighted decision.

Open Letter to Premier Francois Legault

The Honourable François Legault, M.L.A.
Premier of the Province of Quebec
Édifice Honoré-Mercier, 3e étage
835, boul. René-Lévesque Est
Quebec QC G1A 1B4

Dear Premier Legault,

You probably don’t know who I am, and are wondering what propelled me to write an open letter to you. I decided to write to you after doing a radio interview with Greg Brady on his show Toronto Today. During the interview, Greg asked me to comment on the strife between you and the physicians in your province. He brought up the fact that in the past couple of weeks, 263 physicians from Quebec have applied for a licence to practice medicine in Ontario.

Now, I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert in how the health system functions in Quebec. Nor would I assume to know all of the intricacies of Bill 2, the legislation that you’ve introduced that has your physicians so angry. And no, I’ll say right off the bat, I don’t know what negotiations between you and the representative bodies of physicians in Quebec (FMSQ and FMOQ)have been like.

But I will tell you that my very first blog ever (in the Huffington Post) was an open letter to Ontario’s then health minister, Dr. Eric Hoskins. I wrote that blog because his government was talking unilateral actions against physicians (sound familiar?) In it, I warned Dr. Hoskins that acting in a unilateral manner would result in chaos for our health system:

“We cannot return to a system where there are three million or more people without a family doctor, or wait times to see specialists (already too long in my area) get prohibitively longer.”

I also warned of the political consequences of proceeding with unilateral actions and how this would hurt Liberals in the 2018 election. You perhaps know they were absolutely decimated in that election. While its true a large part of that defeat was because the feckless Premier Kathleen Wynne was so widely disliked, I maintain to this day the Liberals could at least have maintained official party status had they not botched health care so badly.

The reason I could make those statements in my blog with such absolute certainty, and have them proven right in the end was not because of any prescience on my part. It’s because I followed the advice of Santayana:

Look, I understand that some of the specifics of the policies and legislation that you are bringing in are different from what Dr. Hoskins tried to do. But at the end of the day, it amounts to you as a government saying that you know how to run healthcare. You don’t need advice or co-operation from doctors. You’re going to impose the changes you want.

I’d encourage you to go back and read the letter I wrote to Dr. Hoskins. I pointed out to him that he was repeating the mistakes (unilateral actions) of the Bob Rae NDP government in the 1990s. They destroyed health care by those actions and were wiped out in the 1995 election, never to see power again.

Take a look at the Jason Kenney PC government of 2019. The went to war with Alberta Medical Association in 2020. The only way they were able to salvage a victory in the next election after that, was to dump their leader, Jason Kenney. (It’s true unhappiness with how he handled the Covid pandemic played a role – but again, the point is there was no saving grace for him – if he had kept health care functioning…..)

Want more? Look at the actions of the Gordon Campbell British Columbia government. Between 2001-2002 they unilaterally tore up an arbitration agreement between the BC government and their doctors. Years of discord including a Charter Challenge (that the BC Government eventually lost), political strife, a strike vote by physicians and a vastly reduced majority followed. Eventually, given a failing health system caused by their own arrogance, the BC government had to come to an agreement with their doctors in 2002, and again in 2006 that restored binding arbitration and was viewed as extremely generous at the time.

As I pointed out to Dr. Hoskins the message is simple. Any government that takes on unilateral action will run the risk of losing doctors from that province. When that happens, the healthcare system suffers. When that happens patients suffer, wait times go up, care deteriorates. When that happens, people don’t blame the doctors, they blame the politicians.

In short, a government that imposes unilateral actions on physicians not only hurts the patients of their province, they always pays a political price. They always have to pay more in the long run than if they just worked fairly with their physicians in the first place.

Look, I don’t particularly care about you or your government. I could not care less whether you win or lose your next election. But I happen to care a lot about my physician colleagues and I know that they are very very angry (and rightfully so). I also care about the residents of Quebec, and I know that they are going to suffer a lot because of your actions. As of now, 28% of your population does not have a family doctor. Can you imagine what will happen if 263 leave? And do you really think any doctor with half a brain will actually come to Quebec when your government behaves like this?

Trust me on this one, if you don’t immediately reverse course, and start to work with your doctors – the harm done to your health system and the people you are supposed to serve will be enormous.

And if you don’t believe me – go read that quote from Santayana again.

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor

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

Never Ending Arbitration Seems to Be Our Fate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawyers are gonna get really really rich……

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Increase to FHG premium

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

– MOH submission: No change

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

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

– OMA submission: Newly proposed by OMA

– MOH: No response

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

The bottom line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. How will rural medicine fare?

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

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

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

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

3. What exactly will the Accountability Metric be?

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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