Fraser Institute
Australia’s universal health-care system outperforms Canada on key measures including wait times, costs less and includes large role for private hospitals
The Role of Private Hospitals in Australia’s Universal Health Care System
From the Fraser Institute
by Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, provincial governments across Canada relied on private
clinics in order to deliver a limited number of publicly funded surgeries in a bid to clear unprecedented
surgical backlogs. Subsequently, surveys indicated that 78% of Canadians support allowing more
surgeries and tests performed in private clinics while 40% only support this policy to clear the
surgical backlog. While a majority of Canadians are either supportive (or at the very least curious)
about these arrangements, the use of private clinics continues to be controversial and raise questions
around their compatibility with the provision of universal care.
The reality is that private hospitals play a key role in delivering care to patients in other countries with universal health care. Canada is only one of 30 high-income countries with universal care and many of these countries involve the private-sector in their health-care systems to a wide extent while performing better than Canada.
Australia is one of these countries and routinely outperforms Canada on key indicators of health-care performance while spending at a similar or lower level. Like Canada, Australia ranked
in the top ten for health-care spending (as a percentage of GDP and per capita) in 2020. However, after adjusting for the age of the population, it outperforms Canada on 33 (of 36) measures of performance.
Importantly, Australia outperformed Canada on a number of key measures such as the availability of physicians, nurses, hospital beds, CT scanners, and MRI machines. Australia also outperformed
Canada on every indicator of timely access to care, including ease of access to after-hours care, same-day primary care appointments, and, crucially, timely access to elective surgical care and specialist appointments.
Australia’s universal system is also characterized by a deep integration between the public and private sectors in the financing and delivery of care. Universal health-insurance coverage is provided through its public system known as Medicare. However, Australia also has a large private health-care sector that also finances and delivers medical services. Around half of the Australian population (55.2% in 2021/22) benefit from private health-insurance coverage provided by 33 registered not-for-profit and for-profit private insurance companies.
Private hospitals (for profit and not for profit) made up nearly half (48.5%) of all Australian hospitals in 2016 and contain a third of all care beds. These hospitals are a major partner in the delivery of care in Australia. For example, in 2021/22 41% of all recorded episodes of hospital care occurred in private hospitals. While delivering a small minority of emergency care (8.2%), private hospitals delivered the majority of recorded elective care (58.6%) and 70.3% of elective admissions involving surgery.
Private hospitals primarily deliver care to fully funded public patients in two ways. The first is contracted
care, either through ad hoc inter-hospital contracts or formal programs. Fully publicly funded episodes of care occurring in private hospitals made up 6.4% of all care in private hospitals, while representing 2.6% of all recorded care. The second way is privately delivered care paid for through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. A full 73.5% of care paid for by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs occurred in private hospitals.
It would be easy, however, to underestimate the significance of this public-private partnership by examining only the delivery of care that is fully publicly funded. Privately insured care is also partially subsidized by the government, at a rate of 75% of the public fee. Therefore, in order to understand the full extent of publicly funded or subsidized care in private hospitals, it is helpful to examine private hospital expenditures by the source of funds. In 2019/20, 32.8% of private hospital expenditures came from government sources, 18.2% of which came from private health-insurance rebates. This means that a full
third of private hospital expenditure comes from a range of public sources, including the federal government.
Overall, private hospitals are important partners in the delivery of care within the Australian universal healthcare system. The Australian system outranks Canada’s on a range of performance indicators, while spending less as a percentage of GDP. Further, the integration of private hospitals into the delivery of care, including public care, occurs while maintaining universal access for residents.
Authors:
More from this study
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.
According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.
Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.
While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.
The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.
Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.
Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.
Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.
Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.
Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.
Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.
With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.
Matthew Lau
Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
From the Fraser Institute
Mark Carney, who wants to be your next prime minister, recently released his plan for Canada’s climate policies through 2035. It’s a sprawling plan (climate plans always are), encompassing industrial and manufacturing emissions, vehicle emissions, building emissions, appliance emissions, cross-border emissions, more “green” energy, more “heat pumps” replacing HVAC, more electric vehicle (EV) subsidies, more subsidies to consumers, more subsidies to companies, and more charging stations for the EV revolution that does not seem to be happening. And while the plan seeks to eliminate the “consumer carbon tax” on “fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, diesel, home heating oil, etc.” it’s basically Trudeau’s climate plans on steroids.
Consider this. Instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly, under the Carney plan Canadians will pay more—but less visibly. The plan would “tighten” (i.e. raise) the carbon tax on “large industrial emitters” (you know, the people who make the stuff you buy) who will undoubtedly pass some or all of that cost to consumers. Second, the plan wants to force those same large emitters to somehow fund subsidy programs for consumer purchases to offset the losses to Canadians currently profiting from consumer carbon tax rebates. No doubt the costs of those subsidy programs will also be folded into the costs of the products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters,” but the cause of rising prices will be less visible to the general public. And the plan wants more consumer home energy audits and retrofit programs, some of the most notoriously wasteful climate policies ever developed.
But the ironic icing on this plan’s climate cake is the desire to implement tariffs (excuse me, a “carbon border adjustment mechanism”) on U.S. products in association with “key stakeholders and international partners to ensure fairness for Canadian industries.” Yes, you read that right, the plan seeks to kick off a carbon-emission tariff war with the United States, not only for Canada’s trade, but to bring in European allies to pile on. And this, all while posturing in high dudgeon over Donald Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Canadian products based on perceived injustices in the U.S./Canada trade relationship.
To recap, while grudgingly admitting that the “consumer carbon tax” is wildly unpopular, poorly designed and easily dispensable in Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the Carney plan intends to double down on all of the economically damaging climate policies of the last 10 years.
But that doubling down will be more out of sight and out of mind to Canadians. Instead of directly seeing how they pay for Canada’s climate crusade, Canadians will see prices rise for goods and services as government stamps climate mandates on Canada’s largest manufacturers and producers, and those costs trickle down onto consumer pocketbooks.
In this regard, the plan is truly old school—historically, governments and bureaucrats preferred to hide their taxes inside of obscure regulations and programs invisible to the public. Canadians will also see prices rise as tariffs imposed on imported American goods (and potentially services) force American businesses to raise prices on goods that Canadians purchase.
The Carney climate plan is a return to the hidden European-style technocratic/bureaucratic/administrative mindset that has led Canada’s economy into record underperformance. Hopefully, whether Carney becomes our next prime minister or not, this plan becomes another dead letter pack of political promises.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
Trump gains ground in war against DEI
Quebecers starting to understand the need for Canadian pipelines
Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?
U.S. Conditionally Approves Avian Flu Vaccine for Poultry
Are We Winning the Patient-to-Doctor Ratio War?
-
Business2 days agoGovernment debt burden increasing across Canada
-
Alberta1 day agoOpen letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor
-
Addictions1 day agoBC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
International22 hours agoJihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Health2 days agoTrudeau government buys 500k bird flu vaccines to be ‘ready’ for potential ‘health threats’
-
Health2 days agoTrump HHS officially declares only two sexes: ‘Back to science and common sense’
-
Business2 days ago
New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoBipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It