Connect with us

Health

B.C. government sends patients to U.S. while fighting private options in B.C.

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua

Among universal health-care countries, after adjusting for age, Canada ranked highest for health-care spending as a percentage of the economy in 2021 (the latest year of available comparable data). The problem is how we do universal health care

The recent ordeal of Allison Ducluzeau, a wife and mother from Victoria who spent more than $200,000 out of pocket to seek life-saving cancer treatment in the United States, has been widely shared on social media. Unfortunately, Ducluzeau’s story is not unique.

According to Second Street, a Canadian research organization, Canadians made approximately 217,500 trips abroad to seek health care in 2017, long before the pandemic (and related health-care backlogs and delays). To understand why this happens within our universal system, simply look at the data. In 2023, Canadians could expect a median wait of 27.7 weeks between referral to treatment across 12 medically-necessary specialities. In B.C., patients had to wait four weeks to see an oncologist, and another 5.9 weeks for treatment. In fact, the total wait between referral to treatment for oncology in B.C. (9.9 weeks) is now about twice as long as the Canadian average (4.8 weeks).

Moreover, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported last year that, among provinces, B.C. was the second-worst performer in the country in meeting the national benchmark for radiation therapy (that is, receiving treatment within four weeks after seeing a specialist).

Why is this happening? Why do B.C. patients face such daunting wait times for potentially life-saving treatment?

For starters, compared to its universal health-care peers, Canada has fewer medical resources available. After adjusting for population age differences among high-income universal health-care countries, Canada ranked 28th (out of 30 countries) for the availability of doctors, 23rd (of 29) for hospital beds, 26th (of 30) for CT scanners and 19th (of 26) for PET scanner availability.

In response to B.C.’s long delays for cancer care, the Eby government recently instituted a cross-border initiative that sends patients to Washington State for treatment. Although this is good news for some patients, it’s not a long-term solution to our health-care woes. And this selective and short-term initiative is cold comfort to patients suffering from other medical conditions and who remain without local options as they endure long delays for medically-necessary care. Indeed, Allison Ducluzeau needed chemotherapy and could not take advantage of this initiative.

To be clear, Canada’s relative dearth of resources and long wait times are not due to inadequate funding. Among universal health-care countries, after adjusting for age, Canada ranked highest for health-care spending as a percentage of the economy in 2021 (the latest year of available comparable data). The problem is how we do universal health care. Unlike Canada, most other universal health-care countries fund their hospitals according to activity levels to incentivize treatment. And they understand that the private sector is a valuable partner in their universal health-care frameworks.

For defenders of the status quo, private involvement in the financing and delivery of health care within our borders remains out of the question. In fact, the same Eby government that sends B.C. patients across the border for care has fought against private options in B.C. And you can be sure that PeaceHealth St. Joseph Cancer Center and the North Cascade Cancer Center in Washington State—where the Eby government is sending cancer patients—will not be subject to the same limitations the Eby government imposes on private clinics in B.C.

If the provincial government is unable to deliver timely access to care through our publicly-funded health-care system, it should allow patients to pay privately for alternatives within our borders. By forcing patients such as Allison Ducluzeau to leave their loved ones and travel abroad to receive life-saving treatment, our policymakers yet again cling to a stubborn and failed approach to universal health care.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Health

All 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier

Published on

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

I joined Del Bigtree in studio on The HighWire to discuss what the data now make unavoidable: the CDC’s 81-dose hyper-vaccination schedule is driving the modern epidemics of chronic disease and autism.

This was not a philosophical debate or a clash of opinions. We walked through irrefutable, peer-reviewed evidence showing that whenever vaccinated and unvaccinated children are compared directly, the unvaccinated group is far healthier—every single time.


Click here to see the video

Reanalyzing the Largest Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Birth-Cohort Study Ever Conducted

At the center of our discussion was our peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford Health System vaccinated vs. unvaccinated birth-cohort study (Lamerato et al.)—the largest and most rigorous comparison of its kind ever conducted.

The original authors relied heavily on Cox proportional hazards models, a time-adjusted approach that can soften absolute disease burden. Even so, nearly all chronic disease outcomes were higher in vaccinated children.

Our reanalysis used direct proportional comparisons, stripping away the smoothing and revealing the full magnitude of the signal.

  • All 22 chronic disease categories favored the unvaccinated cohort when proportional disease burden was examined
  • Cancer incidence was 54% higher in vaccinated children (0.0102 vs. 0.0066)
  • When autism-associated conditions were grouped appropriately—including autism, ADHD, developmental delay, learning disability, speech disorder, neurologic impairment, seizures, and related diagnoses—the vaccinated cohort showed a 549% higher odds of autism-spectrum–associated clinical outcomes

The findings are internally consistent, biologically coherent, and concordant with every prior vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, all of which show drastically poorer health outcomes among vaccinated children


The 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Regulators Ignore

In the McCullough Foundation Autism Report, we compiled all 12 vaccinated vs. unvaccinated pediatric studies currently available. These studies span different populations, countries, study designs, and data sources.

Every single one reports the same overall pattern. Across all 12 studies, unvaccinated children consistently exhibit substantially lower rates of chronic disease, including:

  • Autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders
  • ADHD, tics, learning and speech disorders
  • Asthma, allergies, eczema, and autoimmune conditions
  • Chronic ear infections, skin disorders, and gastrointestinal illness

This level of consistency across independent datasets is precisely what epidemiology looks for when assessing causality. It also explains why no federal agency has ever conducted—or endorsed—a fully vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated safety study.


Flu Shot Failure

We also addressed the persistent failure of seasonal influenza vaccination.

A large Cleveland Clinic cohort study of 53,402 employees followed participants during the 2024–2025 respiratory viral season and found:

  • 82.1% of employees were vaccinated against influenza
  • Vaccinated individuals had a 27% higher adjusted risk of influenza compared with the unvaccinated state (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.07–1.51; p = 0.007)
  • This corresponded to a negative vaccine effectiveness of −26.9% (95% CI −55.0 to −6.6%), meaning vaccination was associated with increased—not reduced—risk of influenza

When vaccination exposure increases, chronic disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, and inflammatory illness increase with it. When children are unvaccinated, they are measurably healthier across virtually every outcome that matters.

The science needed to confront the chronic disease and autism epidemics already exists. What remains is the willingness to acknowledge it.


Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Continue Reading

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.

Continue Reading

Trending

X