From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

“Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

Why is the Globe and Mail afraid of healthcare reform that works?

The Globe and Mail editorial board seems to find healthcare innovation “scary.”

On Sept. 3, it published an editorial called “Danielle Smith has a scary fix for healthcare,” criticizing the Alberta Premier’s idea to introduce competition in the province’s health system. Premier Smith’s plan involves third-party leasing of underperforming hospitals while the government retains ownership and continues funding.

Let’s be clear: the real problem isn’t Smith’s proposal – it’s the current state of healthcare across Alberta and Canada. Sticking with the status quo of underperformance is what should truly alarm us. Rather than attacking those trying to fix a broken system, we should focus on much-needed reforms.

So, what exactly is Smith proposing? Contrary to what you may have heard, she isn’t dismantling Alberta’s universal healthcare or introducing an American style system. Yet the public sector unions – and certain media outlets – seem to jump into hysterics any time innovation is proposed, particularly when it involves private-sector competition.

Predictably, groups like Friends of Medicare, with their union ties, are quick to raise the alarm. Yet media coverage often fails to disclose this affiliation, leaving readers with the impression that their views are impartial. Take Global News’ recent coverage, for example:

In late August, Global News reporter Jasmine King presented a story on potential changes to Alberta’s healthcare system. She featured a spokesperson from Friends of Medicare, who predicted that the changes would be detrimental to the province. However, the report failed to mention that Friends of Medicare is affiliated with public sector unions and has a history of opposing any private sector involvement in healthcare. The news segment also included a statement from the dean of a medical faculty, who was critical of the proposed changes. Missing from the report were any voices in favour of healthcare innovation.

Here’s the real issue: Canada is an outlier in its resistance to competition in healthcare. Many European countries, which also have universal healthcare systems, allow private and non-profit organizations to operate hospitals. These systems function effectively without the kind of fear-mongering that dominates the Canadian debate.

Instead of fear-based comparisons to the U.S., let’s acknowledge the success stories of countries that have embraced a mixed system of healthcare delivery. But lazy, fear-driven reporting means we keep hearing the same tired arguments against change, with little context or consideration of alternatives that are working elsewhere.

It’s ironic that The Globe and Mail editorial aims to generate fear about a health care policy proposal that could, contrary to the alarmist reaction, potentially improve efficiency and care in Alberta. The only thing we truly have to fear in healthcare is the stagnation and inefficiency of the current system.

Claude Castonguay, the architect of Quebec’s Medicare system, released a report in 2008 on that province’s health system, calling for increased competition and choice in healthcare.

“In almost every other public and private areas, monopolies are simply not accepted,” he wrote. “Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

The fear of competition is misguided, and Canadians are increasingly open to the idea of paying for private treatment when the public system falls short.

Let’s stop demonizing those who propose solutions and start addressing the real issue: a system that is no longer delivering the care Canadians need. The future of healthcare depends on embracing innovation, not clinging to outdated models and misplaced fears.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

News release from the Montreal Economic Institute and Second Street

450,000 European patients had surgery outside their country of residence in 2022

Allowing Canadian patients to get reimbursed from the government for care received outside the country – just like Europeans do – would help reduce waiting times, according to an economic note published jointly by the Montreal Economic Institute and SecondStreet.org this morning.

“Long waiting times for surgery in Canada have damaging effects on patients‘ health and quality of life,” says Frederik Cyrus Roeder, health economist and author of the study. “Allowing Canadian patients to seek treatment elsewhere would help them regain their health, while breaking the cycle of constant catching up in Canadian healthcare systems.”

Since 2011, European patients have been permitted to seek treatment in any EU member country and receive reimbursement of their medical expenses equivalent to what their national health insurance plan would have covered at home.

This mechanism is known as the “cross-border directive,” or the “patients’ rights directive.”

Thanks to this arrangement, 450,000 European patients were able to access elective surgery outside their country of residence in 2022. Nearly 80% of the requests submitted that year were approved.

The economist explains that a large part of the voluntary program’s success is due to the fact that it acts as a safety valve when healthcare systems are no longer delivering.

“Such a system is no more expensive for the public insurer, because the reimbursements provided cannot exceed the costs of delivering the same treatment in the local healthcare system,” explains Mr. Roeder. “Where this directive really comes into its own is when a healthcare system can no longer manage to treat patients within an acceptable timeframe.”

“Patients are then free to turn to other alternatives without having to pay a stiff price. It’s important to note that even patients who don’t want to travel for treatment still benefit from this as it helps shorten waiting lists.”

In 2023, more than four out of ten Canadian patients had to wait longer than the recommended time to obtain a knee replacement in Canada. For hip replacements, the figure was one in three.

The joint study by the MEI and SecondStreet.org is available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

SecondStreet.org launched in 2019 to focus on researching how government policies affect everyday Canadians. In addition to policy research, we tell short stories featuring Canadians from coast-to-coast explaining how they’re affected by government policies.