#ONpoli – Page 3 – justanoldcountrydoctor

Open Letter to All Family Practice Residents

The following letter was jointly written by the three of us and published in the Toronto Star on February 20, 2024. It is being reproduced below so that we can share the letter on Facebook as we believe it will be of interest to physicians across Canada.

To All Family Medicine Residents,

We are writing to say congratulations! You are nearly at the end of a decade of hard work, perseverance and sacrifice; ready to start your career and “real life”. You have joined a beautiful and unique specialty. You will be the key to the healthcare system. You will find answers when patients arrive with ambiguous symptoms. Others will tag in and out of a patient’s health journey. You will stay and be an essential part of the beginning, middle and end of every patient’s story. You will save lives.

Your skill and knowledge are unparalleled, and there is no substitute for your expertise.

Which is why with heavy hearts, we, the undersigned, recommend that you do not start your own family medicine practice in Ontario. Not right now.

Family medicine is in crisis. Family doctors in Ontario are unable to provide the care they could and should. We face unprecedented levels of administrative burden, unsustainable business expenses, lack of healthcare resources, lack of social and cultural support for our patients and ourselves and finally, a lack of respect. This has led to widespread burnout and exhaustion.

In short, it is becoming frankly unsafe to run a family practice in Ontario, especially for those just starting.

We are family doctors with decades of experience. We are also physician leaders, past-presidents and board directors of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), academic faculty, and health policy experts. We understand the situation well.

Do not sign that contract. Do not sign a lease, hire staff, buy equipment, contract with an EMR or any of the million things that must be done so that you can start a comprehensive care family practice.

Starting a practice at this time will require you to continue to sacrifice everything else in your life. If you have debt, you may not be able to pay it down, let alone start living the life you and many others have postponed for so long. You will struggle to spend time with your family, buy a home, care for vulnerable loved ones and more. You will continue to work at a non-stop pace, this time with no end in sight.

You will burn out and like many others, leave family medicine for good. This is why millions of Ontarians no longer have a family doctor.

The Ontario Ministry of Health can solve this crisis.

Governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have done so. This past year, they made family medicine a priority – and backed their words with targeted funding toward key programs to support both new and established doctors. It comes as no surprise that they have welcomed hundreds of new family doctors into their communities.

If they can do it, so can Ontario.

What can you do in the meantime? Work in hospitals, hospices, operating rooms and long-term care. Work in obstetrics, anesthesia, as a hospitalist, in emergency or palliative care, oncology, sports medicine etc. Be a locum. Bide your time.

You are skilled, smart, and adaptable. Your knowledge is extensive, demonstrating an unmatched depth and breadth of training. Use it.

When people leave comprehensive care family medicine, they almost never come back.

We don’t want that to happen to you. When the government of Ontario recognizes family doctors as the foundation of medical care, negotiates a fair contract and improves health policies to reflect patient needs in 2024… well, when that happens, we will write a different letter and welcome you to the world you were meant to be in.

We hope by then it is not too late.

Sincerely,

Dr. Nadia Alam, comprehensive care family physician and anesthetist, past-president of the OMA

Dr. Sohail Gandhi, comprehensive care family physician and hospitalist, past-president of the OMA

Dr. Silvy Mathew, comprehensive care family physician and long-term care, past-board director of the OMA

Dr. Soni Reflects on the Delays in Emergency Rooms

Dr. Deepa Soni, and Emergency Room physician for over twenty years, reflects on the case of a young woman with appendicitis, and the delays in getting her care.

NB: Recently, Julia Malott spoke out on X (formerly known as Twitter) about how terrified she was about Canada’s health care crisis. She wrote how her daughter had not eaten in 18 hours as she continued to wait for surgery for appendicitis. She expressed concern about the lack of the beds and wondered if her daughter would get surgery before the appendix ruptured.

My friend Dr. Soni, who has worked in an Emergency Department for over 20 years, had, as usual, a very thoughtful and well spoken X thread of her own. (Dr. Soni was NOT involved in the care of this young woman). I thank her for allowing me to reproduce her thoughts here.

The only way these stories (about long delays in Emergency rooms) will stop being the norm, is when patients start sharing their experience like this mother did. Only voters can make federal and provincial governments change because votes are the only currency that matter. Doctors and nurses have been raising alarm bells for years without success.

Canada has one of the lowest number of hospital beds of all the OECD countries, around 2.3/1000 people. In comparison countries like Japan, Korea and Germany are around 13/1000.

Graph showing how Canada fourth from the bottom (!) in hospital beds per capita.

Why does this matter? Having low hospital bed numbers means that words like “flu surge“, and “winter surge” — which have been used for decades to explain away long wait times and hallway medicine, are actually not “surges.” Rather, they are the expected backlog in a system that lacks adequate beds and resources.

The population of Canada is increasing and aging. We are about to enter a silver tsunami where a large cohort of our population will be over the age of 65 and many over the age of 85. This will place unprecedented pressures on our health care system.

What happens when the hospital bed capacity is outstripped by the numbers of patients needing care? It means that the elderly patient who needs admission to a hospital bed to recover from a heart attack has no bed to go to and spends days “admitted” in the emergency department. Bureaucrats call these “unconventional spaces.” What they really are, are stretchers.

Photo of admitted patients lying in stretchers in a hallway as no beds available (found on X)

When the vast majority of the emergency department beds are being used to take care of hospital patients, that means that patients that are waiting in the emergency department waiting room, will wait for hours for care, much like this story is describing.

Media needs to scratch beyond the surface and hold government to account. Real solutions are going to require thinking beyond the four-year election cycle. What will our system look like in 20 years? How do you plan for that?

It’s going to require recognizing the backbone of our healthcare system is primary care. Family doctors are overwhelmed by administrative burden, trying to run their offices and taking care of large practises in the community without adequate resources.

Build community infrastructure with resources like palliative care so that people can remain in their homes comfortably in their last days; and sufficient homecare services so that patients can receive antibiotics and other intravenous treatments at home to ease the pressure on hospitals. These services are vastly underfunded and do not have enough staff to properly provide care for everyone that needs it in the community.

It’s going to require building more nursing homes, retirement homes, seniors services and dementia care programs, as our elderly population will be the largest it’s ever been in this country.

Incentivize and properly pay hospital nurses so that we can recruit and retain them to be able to run departments and programs properly. Currently, agency nurses make at least two times as much as a hospital nurse, and this has created instability in the workforce. Governments need to show that they value nurses and the important work that they do.

Creative solutions like interprovincial licensing of doctors and nurses and a National Pharmacare program will help. While the idea of recruiting from other countries sounds like an easy quick fix, it will not solve anything if those newly obtained doctors and nurses find themselves overworked and burning out soon after arriving to Canada. The system problems are going to impact them just as they have impacted those who are already working in the system. This type of strain is what contributes to moral distress and burn out.

The backlog in the emergency department is a reflection of multiple failing areas that create an overall system that is strained beyond capacity. With each passing year, Canada’s healthcare system has become more and more stretched, trying to provide more care to more people, with fewer resources. Throwing Band-Aids at it is like trying to mop up the floor under an overflowing sink instead of trying to figure out how to turn off the tap.

Stories like this one are happening every day in Ontario and all of Canada. Most patients and families are too busy dealing with the acute health problem to take the time to write to their MP/MPP or to go to the media. But when people take the time to bring these stories to light, a critical tipping point will eventually occur where they can no longer be ignored by government. Because votes matter.

No one who went into healthcare wants to work in a system that makes patients feel like this story illuminated. But we need more voices bringing their stories out in the open. It will improve the system for the people working in it, and for the people receiving care within it. And that is better for everyone.

Dear OMA Board Member, About That Mandate for Negotiations

Dear OMA Board Member,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor.

RePost: Inside Ontario’s Bloated Health Care Bureaucracy

NB: This is a copy of a column I originally wrote for Postmedia in October of 2015. It’s copied here so that I can access it easily in the future. And a sad reminder that as of 2023, things haven’t changed for the better. If anything, they are worse.

Ontario’s health-care bureaucracy has exploded over the past 12 years, mostly because the government has set up a series of arm’s-length agencies it can scapegoat.

I’ve experienced this bureaucratic mess first-hand.

From 2013 to early 2015, I was the lead physician for the South Georgian Bay Health Links. I took the position because I was told the goal was to co-ordinate care between various health-care agencies to better help patients with the most complex illnesses.

Then-health minister Deb Matthews said there were too many “silos” in the health-care system and anointed her then-associate deputy minister the “silo-buster.” The ADM told us to develop a local solution — because each area is different — and focus on our strengths to help these patients.

Our area is very fortunate to have an advanced IT infrastructure. Virtually all 60,000 residents have an electronic medical record (EMR) in a joint database. We are also one of only two regions in Ontario with electronic prescriptions. This process requires the pharmacy to have a portal that allows it to communicate securely, in real time, with the physician to discuss issues of clinical importance.

My patients have benefitted significantly from this technology, so our thought was to set it up with other allied health-care providers (home-care nurses, retirement and nursing homes, community support workers, etc).

The Ministry of Health funded Health Links through the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). So we put a proposal together and took it to the LHIN. The LHIN’s IT department liked the idea, but wanted to get input from the ministry. The ministry liked the idea, but wanted us to get the input of eHealth Ontario, the independent agency trying to create electronic health records. eHealth told us to come to a “regional network meeting.”

At the meeting, they thought the idea was good, but asked for the ministry’s eHealth liaison to comment. The liaison referred it to the ministry’s IT group (yes, the ministry has both an eHealth liaison group and an IT group) who wanted to ensure compatibility with a “provincial solution” — even though we were told to develop a local one — and suggested we review with the LHIN IT department.

After a year of “circling back” (a phrase I learned from these guys that I came to detest) we finally gave up, funded the project ourselves for $70,000 — less than a salary on the province’s Sunshine List — and my complex patients are now starting to see the benefits.

As I have come to appreciate, the government set up these various arm’s-length agencies, such as the LHINs, eHealth, Health Quality Ontario, Community Care Access Centres and so on, rather than simply have the ministry accept responsibility for these tasks. From a politician’s point of view, this gives them the ability to deflect criticism by saying such and such agency is “independent.” For the most part, this has worked for the Liberals. They’ve won four elections in a row. But it certainly hasn’t helped the patients any.

My colleague, Dr. Shawn Whatley, posted a superb blog piece that looks at how many bureaucrats work in Canada’s health-care system. It shows Canada has three times as many bureaucrats as other countries with advanced universal-care systems. Even worse, Ontario has only 1.7 acute-care hospital beds per 1,000 people, which is about HALF the average for other OECD countries. Ontario got to this number by closing 17,000 acute-care beds — and laying off the nurses needed to staff them — between 1990 and 2013.

But at least the bureaucrats are producing meaningful reports and are happy to be helping with moving health system transformation forward, right? Not so, according to a recent survey of health leaders conducted by Quantum Transformation Technologies. Most respondents said they aren’t happy with Hoskins or the LHINs.

It’s dramatic just how badly health leaders feel the system is working. The comments at the bottom of the survey are equally telling. There are repeated calls to cut the number of LHINs and reduce the size of the bureaucracy.

So in summary, Ontario is burdened with a bloated, ineffective, and demoralized health-care bureaucracy.

Wynne and Hoskins’ solution to this? Lay off nurses and start a fight with doctors over their fees.

Franz Kafka couldn’t have come up with something this convoluted.

— Mohammad Gandhi, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is an assistant clinical professor at McMaster and Queens universities.

* More than 1,000 doctors recently joined a Facebook group to complain about how the Ontario Medical Association, which represents them, isn’t sticking up for them in their fee fight with the province.

Earlier this month, the province cut funding for doctor services by $235 million, chopping doctor fees by 1.3%.

******************************

GROWING HEALTH-CARE BUREAUCRACY

* There are 0.9 health-care bureaucrats per 1,000 people in Canada, compared to 0.4 per 1,000 in Sweden; 0.255 in Australia and 0.23 in Japan. Germany has 0.06 bureaucrats per 1,000 people.

* Ontario has only 1.7 acute-care hospital beds per 1,000 people, which is about half the average for other OECD countries.

*****************************

A recent Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) report — the one Premier Kathleen Wynne and Health Minister Eric Hoskins say shows “Ontario has the best paid doctors in the country” — also says 12,000 Ontario nurses left the profession this past year.

* It also shows Ontario has only 176 physicians per 100,000 people (ranking 7th in Canada).

* Ontario has the fewest family doctors per 100,000 people out of all the provinces. Only 10% of family doctors in the province are accepting new patients.

* A recent Quantum Transformation Technologies survey of Ontario health leaders found 55% think Hoskins is doing a poor to fair job, 62% think the LHINs are doing a poor to fair job, and 50% feel the government has a poor track record of helping those with mental health issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly, and the amazing Dr. Saadia Hameed Jan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Systems and High Performance Operations Executive, Matthew Lister

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

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

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

Dear CFPC Board, Provide Business Training to Family Physician Residents

Dear Board of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC),

There’s a whole lot of talk about the crisis in family medicine. Even the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario felt compelled to do a cover story on this issue. I’m just a (not very) humble ordinary member of the CFPC, so I don’t need point out the ramifications to the health system to such learned members as yourselves.

I fully respect that it will take a multi-lateral approach to fix this. However, the impression one gets is that the CFPC is focusing on extending the family medicine residency to three years, from the current two. This expansion has even been presented as a possible solution to recruitment woes.

Nancy Fowler, executive director of the CFPC, states that the current program is “way too compressed” to deal with increasing complexity of health needs in Canada, changing technologies, and greater awareness of the health impacts of racism. In the same article, she also notes that residents have told her they would like more opportunities in different kinds of practices and settings (basically that they want the extra year).

I think these arguments are weak. The most learning I ever got was in my first year of practice. There is simply no substitute for being out on your own. Join a supportive group like I did, and you will be fine.

I do respect that the current training program may not be adequate. I’ve taught many residents myself over the past 25+ years. The amount of useless “clinic day backs” and forums, research days and “behavioural science modules” that the residents are asked to do has increased to the point where I wonder when the residents actually, you know, see a patient in real life. No wonder they may feel unprepared for having their own practice.

University of Toronto and McMaster – I’m looking at you.

But the solution to that is, you know, fix the residency program. Not extend it with a year of the doing exactly the same nonsense that made residents feel inadequate to practice comprehensive family medicine to begin with. All that would mean is that after three years the residents will still feel unprepared.

Also, have you considered that if you do increase the residency by a year, you will have one year where NO family medicine residents graduate into practice? Would you care to explain to everyone how that will help the current shortage of family docs?

Anyway, if you do increase the CFPC residency to three years, would you at least add some practical training for our younger colleagues to the residency? I believe they would benefit from two months of their third year being dedicated to learning about the business of running a practice. How to hire people. Employment standards. Performance appraisals for staff. Negotiating leases. Finding the best prices for supplies. And yes, how to maximize your billings.

All of those above tasks (and more) are absolutely essential to running a comprehensive family practice. Yet NONE of those are taught in medical school or residency. In fact, in many universities, the feeling one gets when one brings up the idea that we should teach something as simple as billing is that you have spoken of that which shall not be spoken of, lest the appearance be created that your desire to practice medicine might even in the smallest part be less than altruistic and rather more about a hedonistic desire to generate a fair income.

The horror, the horror!

And yes, McMaster and U of T, I’m looking at you (again).

These are practical business skills all of us absolutely need to run a practice and isn’t the point of residency to, you know, make the residents comfortable running an actual practice in real life? Additionally, the reality is that we now face the existential threat of corporatization in family medicine.

This is how it works. A corporate clinic, let’s call them The Haleness Infirmary goes to a young family doc. They whisper siren like inducements like “Let us do the business of medicine for you”. “We do all the admin work so you can practice the medicine.” “We believe in high quality patient centred health care you can trust” and other alluring catch phrases. These clinics are almost always owned by some large corporation. Let’s say in this case, a pharmaceutical chain called Buyers Pharmaceutical Bazaar. All to entice the young, business naive family doctor so sign up with their chain.

The Haleness Infirmary could care less about the doctor they hire, or the patients they serve. What they want is the gold mine of patient data. It allows them to create a digital profile of the patient to target you with ads to sell products, because, the patient is nothing more than a commodity to them to be exploited.

It’s absolutely true that there are privacy laws that prevent individuals from collecting your personal information. Funnily enough, those laws don’t apply to software or AI. Software can figure out a lot about you based on your spending habits (it’s why if you look up say mattresses on a website once, you get ads for mattress stores on your social media feeds for a week).

If you go to Haleness Infirmary, the software would identify you as someone who needs cholesterol pills, and therefore you would see targeted ads for cholesterol lowering products (all sold at a special discount at Buyers Pharmaceutical Bazaar) so you can buy more products (and get extra points if you enrol in their Choicest points program which collects even more of your personal data). Nice ecosystem.

Don’t believe this is their goal? When I was OMA President, one of the pressing issues for OMA Legal was the fact that doctors who left (or were asked to leave) these fancy corporate owned clinics– suddenly found they no longer had any access to their notes or patients’ charts (“owned by us and only for use by our employees – and you are no longer one”).

The holier than thou types that haughtily profess that they are better than us for not teaching basic business skills of course would be the first to be horrified that patient data was being used for marketing (gasp!) and making money (double gasp!). The irony that their own belligerent refusal to teach basic business skills drives physicians to these corporate clinics is, of course completely lost on them. It’s hard to see irony why your head is constantly tilted upwards befitting your lofty altruistic ideals.

Extend the CFPC residency to three years if you must. But for the love of Allah/God/Yahweh/insert deity of your choice, at least give our future colleagues an appropriate education that teaches all aspects of running a comprehensive family practice. You will be doing them, and patients, a huge service, whether you realize it or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•