Doctors Must Lead or Lose Privilege – Bill 210

doctors strike

Calm, thoughtful advocacy works with reasonable people. The Wynne Liberals are not reasonable.

In the face of Bill 210, the so-called Patients First Act, Ontario doctors must lead action. We need to lead a protest that the public can see.

Not a strike. Doctors cannot strike.

Bill 210 is not about income. Bill 210 fundamentally redefines the doctor-patient relationship. It goes far beyond anything ever seen in Canada before.

This is a bigger change than the start of Medicare. Patients will remember our response.

Doctors Must Lead

In Bill 210, the Ministry of Health creates its own standard of care and enforces it.

The MOH will determine the kinds of services doctors must provide.

Low level bureaucrats – “investigators” – will have power to enter “without a warrant”, search private doctors’ offices, and examine all personal health records.

In section 21.1 (6)(a), investigators will access doctors’ private:

  • books of account,
  • documents,
  • bank accounts,
  • vouchers,
  • correspondence and payroll records,
  • records of staff hours worked and records of personal health information;

Note: Even if investigators can only search the clinics in which doctors work, there is no difference between clinic and personal MD information for many doctors.

Doctors will be forced to report how they spend each hour of the day.

Doctors shall report holidays and schedule changes to local bureaucrats for approval.

Contracts with local LHIN handlers must be signed or enforced unilaterally.

Family Doctors will take orders from appointed, local government officials, not patients.

Doctors Must Lead

Bill 210 is not about money. Doctors own the moral high ground in attacking this legislation.

Doctors have many options to respond. As a non-expert, here are some ideas:

  1. Doctors need to inform their colleagues and patients ASAP.
  2. Docs should flood social media.
  3. We need a broad range of articles in major news outlets about government failures in healthcare. Things like:
    1. uncoordinated care
    2. lack of IT connectivity
    3. waste in PACS, repeated imaging
    4. waits for surgery
    5. lack of spine surgeons
    6. inadequate home care
    7. overcrowded hospitals
    8. overcrowded emergency departments
    9. high cost of NP led clinics
  4. Doctors should hire expert advisers to lead this activism (not Liberal-supporting ‘experts’).
  5. Consider renting buses for a few thousand doctors to demonstrate at Queen’s Park every lunch hour for 1 week. Different doctors could attend each day.
  6. Organize a week of picketing in front of local MPP offices. Keep the picket times short.

A few thousand doctors attending a short demonstration will not adversely impact patients.

Bill 210 needs action. Now.

Doctors must go out and fight. The Wynne Liberals are not reasonable. They ram bills through the legislature with impunity. Doctors must lead a fight, or fail trying.

Privately Owned Clinics: Naked Nonsense

emperors new clothesMost people say you are naked, if you go out wearing only a hat. Sunbathers wear less fabric than found in a toque, yet we do not call them naked.

Naked looks different to nudists and sunbathers.

Most people say you are self-employed, if you run Molly’s Housecleaning Service. You might even say you are self-employed, if you run a Molly Maid franchise.  But you are not self-employed just because you buy a mop and gloves to work at Molly’s Shopping Centre.

Private vs. Government Care

Medicare covers all medically necessary care in Canada: it is illegal to pay for care privately.

A few provinces allow doctors to opt out of Medicare, as long as they bill patients at the fixed prices set by the government insurance plan.

In Ontario, doctors cannot opt out anymore (Future of Medicare Act).

Governments and regulators dictate:
  • # of MDs allowed to work Family Health Teams
  • # of after-hours service family doctors must provide
  • # of X-ray licenses, with strict rules on locations
  • # of ultrasound licenses, with strict rules on location
  • Laboratory licenses and locations
  • Out of hospital surgical facilities
  • Hospitals: pretty much everything about them
  • MD training, continuing medical education, change in scope of practice
  • Blood-testing for exposure-prone procedures
  • Rules around consent and competency, charting, maintenance of records
  • Rules around completion of death certificates, immunization
  • Mandatory public reporting of diseases, reporting of gunshots
  • Etc., etc., etc.

Every year legislators, who are eager to direct how doctors care for patients, write new legislation with dozens of statutes.

Regulatory oversight and clinical guidelines add piles of rules to help doctors behave. Well-meaning elites believe that patient safety improves, if they leave less to clinical judgment.

After programers feed all the rules and regulations into electronic medical records, patient care turns into a cacophony of clicks in dozens of tick boxes.

And physicians shall tick boxes or risk a failed review by the College.

Privately Owned Clinics

An expert, from a major healthcare stakeholder organization, lectured us on system sustainability. Someone asked how to innovate while under government control. He said,

“Remember…. All doctors’ offices are privately owned and privately run.”

What did he mean by saying privately owned and privately run?

Either he made a trivial statement of obvious fact, like saying, “Remember… You are alive”. Or he meant to remind us of something more.

Did he mean that private ownership indicates freedom; some sort of market economy? Was he implying that government has not taken control of clinical care?

I can only imagine that he meant to say there is something very private going on in the provision of medical services.

Not only that, he seemed to imply support for this kind of so-called private care. Or perhaps, he just meant that doctors should appreciate that they still get to pay for offices out of private billings?

The only non-trivial reason for reminding us about privately owned and privately run doctors’ offices is to say that private care exists in Canada.

But private enterprises exist to earn profits.

Ergo, Canada has a blended delivery of universal care; the government does not control everything.

Ta dah! We are more like Europe than you realized.

Only supporters of government controlled healthcare say things like that, and many do so at every opportunity. Those who support government controlling the means of production of medical services – a nationalized medical industry – want you to believe that Canada has private medical care now.

Two Separate Debates

  1. We have (too much) private care in Canada.
  2. Doctors’ offices represent private care in Canada.

For those interested in the first argument, check out an article by Colleen Flood about private care, and Yanick Labrie’s response. Also, look at Bacchus Barua’s article on private care. But argument #1 is a separate debate.

For now, we are only discussing #2.

Side Bar: Independent Contractor vs. Employee

Self-employed, or independent contractor, means something to the taxman. Employees get benefits, and employers pay EI and CPP. Independent contractors (ICs) avoid these deductions.

The courts opined (as they do on every social issue):

In a landmark case, they birthed the Weibe Door Test to determine if you are self-employed. Basically, ICs must have an agreement, control of their work, must buy their own tools, and need to assume the risk of business losses. (See the Power Point part way down this link: Independent Contractor and the Weibe Door test for more.)

Until the taxman says otherwise, most physicians are still independent contractors in Canada.

Too Much Private Care

Social planners see doctors’ offices in need of government help.  Inefficiencies need to be trimmed, regularity enforced, and the public protected, with help from the top down. Private offices should be as safe as a government building.

Others think society is stronger, when built from the bottom up, by people and not governments. They want to decrease government ‘help’ in front-line patient care.

What is a Private Business?

Business firm in the private (non-public) sector of an economy, controlled and operated by private individuals (and not by civil servants or government-employees). Used also as an alternative term for private limited company.

private sector

n.

The part of the economy that is controlled by individuals or private organizations and is not funded by the government.

Nationalized Lemonade Stands

Picture a child starting out in a nationalized lemonade system.

The child can only sell lemonade on a certain block, at fixed prices billed to the government, made with government stamped lemons.

The child cannot give ice with the lemonade: customers must get ice at another regulated venue, at a specific location.

The child cannot serve ice cream with lemonade. That requires another licence.

And so on…

Is this a private refreshment service? Does the nationalized lemonade stand look more like the post office or more like a traditional lemonade stand?

Stating that the child owns the table and jug is just sour condescension.

Private Care Myth

There is very little private about doctors’ offices beyond the sign on the door.

Government sets the prices and determines the services allowed. Regulators dictate which customers must be seen.

Guidelines prescribe investigations and treatment. Inspectors ensure compliance with entries, exits, storage, privacy, and much more.

Government dictates hours of service: including evenings and weekends, holidays, and locum coverage. In many cases, the government owns the facilities and hires the staff, too.

Physicians own or lease their offices and equipment, hire staff, and assume the profits/losses of their efforts.

But they can only work for the government.

Prices are fixed and unilaterally slashed by the government.

Conduct is dictated and directed by the regulatory colleges, educational colleges, public health, and politicians’ whims.

Privately Owned and Privately Run

Experts, who talk about care in privately owned clinics, trick us with equivocation: they say private but mean something different.

Reminding us that doctors own and run their offices just distracts from government control in every aspect of medical care. Until Canada allows truly private clinics, like every country in Europe, reminders about privately owned clinics mean nothing; they are naked nonsense.

 

Doctors Vilified in Medicare History

Protesting Medicare 1962Great tales start with, Once upon a time…

Academics tell the story of Medicare like this:

Once upon a time, in the dark days before universal healthcare, patients lay at home suffering in pain. Wealthy patients went to shining hospitals with all the modern specialists they needed.

Everyone else traded potatoes and chickens for medicine offered by the rare doctor who would stoop to see them.

Patients died in pain. Or they sold their farms to pay for treatment, declared bankruptcy, and then died in pain from curable diseases.

In these dark days of pre-civilized Canada, one person started to campaign for the poor and oppressed. From the wilderness of Saskatchewan, someone finally stood up for patients.

When no one else cared, Tommy Douglas, champion of the poor and oppressed, dared to challenge the medical establishment. Mr. Douglas single-handedly attacked organized medicine.

He shamed doctors’ selfishness.

He demanded Canadians do what was right: provide free care for all, without consideration for patients’ ability to pay.

Mr. Douglas demanded that doctors put aside their greed for the sake of their patients. He forced doctors to put patients before income.

Doctors fought back. They went to war with Tommy Douglas and refused to see patients.

After a 23-day strike, doctors surrendered. They lost the war and submitted to Douglas’ plan of care for all, not just the rich and well connected.

Tommy Douglas gave Canadians Medicare.

Finally, no one would ever lose their farm to pay for medical bills. Now, people could take out business loans and invest in the economy. Mr. Douglas civilized medical care in Canada.

It was the dawn of a new age.

Doctors Vilified (Again)

But just when people started to celebrate, the doctors took a dying stab at Douglas’ dream. Doctors said they would agree to Medicare only if they could work ‘fee for service’ (FFS).

FFS was the condition of their truce.

Mr. Douglas desperately wanted to help the poor. So he compromised at the last minute. He gave doctors what they wanted: to be paid for each service they provided.

Poor Tommy did not know what he allowed. He let the fee-for-service virus infect Medicare.

Evil Fee for Service

Fee for service (FFS) paid doctors for services they performed. FFS drove doctors to invent procedures and to dream up new services to provide patients, whether patients needed them or not.

FFS drove up the cost of care.

It created run-away spending.

Doctors, ravenous for more and more income, worked and worked and worked. They toiled around the clock just to make more money, to bill more services.

Patients have suffered ever since.

Finally, the government said, Enough! FFS must go. We will put doctors on capitation.

And the golden age of primary care reform began. Now doctors work in teams, where patients get only as much care as they need.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

Reality

Theatrics aside, most people see doctors and government as reluctant partners for the last 40 years in Canada.

Every schoolboy knows that doctors have caused the situation we now find ourselves in: provinces unable to pay for care, and patients dying on wait lists.

In reality, before Tommy Douglas rescued Canada from doctors, there were insurance companies that covered the costs of acute care. Patients who could not afford to pay the premiums had the premiums covered by the government (see Setting the Record Straight: A Doctor’s Memoir Of The 1962 Medicare Crisis).

The few people who refused insurance, and still could not afford care, saw doctors for free. Doctors believed their professional duty demanded that they treat people who could not pay. Either way, patients had coverage, if they wanted it.

Governments could choose to cover the insurance premiums for the poor. The option existed. If government did not, it was not for lack of ability to do so.

Greed vs. Freedom

Doctors’ incomes were not at stake in the strike in 1962. Doctors actually enjoyed a huge boost in pay under Medicare.

Finally, all their bills were paid. They could stop charity work and spend more time on things that paid.

Purely selfish motives should have led doctors to support Medicare from the start.

But they did not.

Tommy Douglas campaigned on a government takeover of healthcare. Doctors resisted government takeover on the belief that government cannot care for patients. Many doctors had fled the UK after seeing what government does, when they take command and control a whole industry.

Politicians, who control healthcare, end up treating it as a bauble to win support. They throw handouts to win votes; care to win elections.

Governments meddle and ration.

Politicians fund popular procedures, like sex reassignment surgery, and leave patients who need less popular treatment, like cancer care, to die on wait lists.

Politics

Tommy Douglas wanted to nationalize an industry because it fit with his political convictions.

He believed government could do a better job than anything designed by the citizens themselves. He believed a group of highly trained, super-smart elites, who worked for government, could serve patients better than a patchwork of doctors in communities across Canada.

Douglas passionately believed in the state – the government – as the most trusted force for good in society. He saw bureaucrats and politicians disinterestedly working for the ‘public good’ as the best way to provide care.

He fundamentally disagreed with Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations: businessmen do not try to serve their customers; they try to exploit customers at every turn.

Wringing Our Hands Over Access

Today, we hear about desperate attempts for patients to see doctors on evenings and weekends.

Why won’t doctors see patients outside of office hours?

How selfish and insensitive!

No one in academia dares to tell the truth about this. Research grants and university tenure depend on government support for their institution.

The truth is this:

Government fixes the price for services as low as possible. It pays $33 for diagnosing pneumonia during the daytime, and a couple dollars more to see the same patient in the evening.

After paying a pittance for evening work, government castigates physicians for not providing access to patients in the evenings and on weekends.

Academics never mention this. They just wring their hands about how doctors do not seem to care about seeing patients after hours.

Doctors would LOVE to see their patients in the evenings! But billings must cover the cost of hiring staff willing to work after hours, or doctors work for free.

Government knows that if they pay an appropriate premium for doctors to work after-hours, and on weekends, like patients want, then doctors will provide ALL their services after-hours.

Doctors want to provide services that patients need, in a way that patients want them delivered. 

But costs go up when doctors work to serve patients. Utilization, the amount of medical services delivered, increases.

So instead, government rations care by refusing to cover the cost of after-hours care and blames doctors for the lack of access.

Doctors Need to Speak Up

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

G. Orwell

Doctors need to speak truth to power. They need to write, speak, publish, and do whatever they can to peacefully protest. Patients need to know.

Government has failed to deliver on its promise to provide care.

Canadians are under-insured.

Government took over a whole industry and then blames underperformance on doctors. Enough is enough.

When will people stop telling fairytales to feed political agendas?

Photo Credit: Encylopedia of Saskatchewan