Group items tagged

And if any of this gets especially heated and you're feeling especially cheeky, just whip out your smartphone and play Canadian doctor Danielle Martin's excellent deposition on medicare to the U.S. Senate.

In Canada, the top six determinants of health include income, social status, education, working conditions and physical and social environments. We don't need diet tips. We need guaranteed incomes and safe housing. We need social infrastructure that values people as people.

A team of doctors at St. Michael's hospital in Toronto have launched a project that approaches health this way. The team is finding that supporting people through concrete initiatives aimed at improving incomes and job security improves the health of their patients. And, I would argue, it does so far more effectively than the traditional methods employed by doctors who lecture us about lifestyle choices.

Julie Devaney is a health, patient and disability activist based in Toronto.

In his book, Down to the Wire, David Orr explains the difference between optimism and hope, an important distinction when we try to balance our pride in the Canadian health system with our frustrations about its challenges.

Dr. Michael Rachlis's book, Prescription for Excellence,

Monica Dutt is the chairwoman of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, a public-health and family physician, and is based in Cape Breton, N.S. Vanessa Brcic is a board member with the Canadian Doctors for Medicare, a family physician and a clinician scholar in the department of family practice at the University of B.C.

Minister Boudreau's comments after was, there are 22 hospitals in NB for a population of less and 700,000; do we need 22 hospitals?  The need to look at what is the best model; centers of excellence verses community health centers.  Looking at nursing home beds; could hospitals be converted to nursing homes?  He made comments regarding the average wages in NB was $50,000.00 per year and the attendance management; use of sick time and savings.  He made reference to the wage bills varying across department to department; is there savings there?  There is 4-5 million dollars to be cut and it will be challenging to find it.

I fully believe the decisions on health care have been made; made by the previous government and will be carried out by this government.  I believe they know exactly what they will do; which hospitals will close/convert to health centers/convert to nursing homes.When the Minister stated 22 hospitals for the population of NB; do we need that many, tells me they have been comparing our numbers to other provinces of the same size.   It's obvious to me based on what was said, reading between the lines and what was not said, health care and education will be hammered in this strategic review.   To wrap up, we walked away with a lot of questions; concerns as to what was not said. In Solidarity Norma Robinson,President NBCHU CUPE Local 1252

Prescription drug spending in Canada's private sector has increased nearly fivefold in 20 years, from $3.6 billion in 1993 to $15.9 billion in 2013 [3x[3]Express Script Canada. 2013 Drug trend report. ESI, Mississauga; 2014 (http://www.express-scripts.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/FINAL_executive%20summary_FINAL.pdf [accessed 01.06.14])See all References][3].

Private drug plans in Canada are often considered wasteful because they accept paying for higher priced drugs that do not improve health outcomes for users and use costly sub-optimal dispensing intervals for maintenance medications. As a consequence, it is estimated that private drug plans in Canada wasted $5.1 billion in 2012, which is money spent without receiving therapeutic benefits in return [4x[4]Express Scripts Canada. Poor patient decisions waste up to $5.1 billion annually, according to express script Canada. (June)Press release, ; 2013 (http://www.express-scripts.ca/about/canadian-press/poor-patient-decisions-waste-51-billion-annually-according-express-scripts [accessed 01.06.14])See all References][4]. This amount represented 52% of the total expenditures of $9.8 billion by private insurers on prescription drugs for that year [5x[5]Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985 to 2012. CIHI, Ottawa; 2013See all References][5].

Respondents from all categories mentioned that, in contrast to employers, the over-riding objective of unions is to maximize their benefits with minimal co-payments for their employees.

The study focused on large unionized workplaces that had Administrative Services Only (ASO) plans, where the employer is responsible for the costs of benefit plans and bears the risks associated with it, while insurers are just hired to manage claims.

This study focused on ASO arrangements because they are the most common insurance option chosen by large private-sector firms [16x[16]Sanofi. Sanofi Canada healthcare survey. Rogers Publishing, Laval; 2012See all References][16]. Those organizations whose activities resided solely in the province of Québec, where the regulation of private drug plans differs [17x[17]Commissaire de la santé et du bien être du, Québec., Les médicaments d’ordonnance: État de la situation au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, Québec; 2014See all References][17], were excluded.

Respondents from all categories indicated that consistency of benefits with other market players is of significance to employers.

Sean O’BradyxSean O’BradySearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsÉcole de relations industrielles, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaInteruniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Marc-André GagnonxMarc-André GagnonSearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsSchool of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondenceCorresponding author at: School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University (RB 5224), 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tel.: +1 613 520 2600.xMarc-André GagnonSearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsSchool of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondenceCorresponding author at: School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University (RB 5224), 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tel.: +1 613 520 2600., Alan Cassels

Finally, employers were most concerned with the government's role in distributing the costs associated with drug coverage among public and private players in the system. In fact, each employer expressed concern over this. Three of the four employers expressed concern over the government's role as a plan sponsor and how governments shift costs to the private sector. As described by one employer, “the government is a very big consumer of drugs” and if the drug companies “start losing money on the government side, they pass it on to private insurance”. Thus, government regulations that help employers contain costs are desired.

the employer always has the advantage in this stuff because they have all of the information with respect to the reports and the costs from the insurer or the advisor”

According to one consultant, “no one knows the cost of drug benefit plans.” This respondent was arguing that few involved in benefit design, either in private firms, unions, or insurers, are sufficiently competent to undertake proper analyses of claims data so they do not really know how proposed plan changes could affect them. This lack of expertise has ramifications for the education of stakeholders on the outcomes of benefit design.

However, when speaking of for-profit insurers, participants from all groups argued that insurers have no financial incentives to cut costs for employers, as indicated by one employer saying: “from my experience on the committees, I don’t get the impression that the insurers are there to save costs for the employers. I haven’t seen it. It's always been the other direction.” This claim was also corroborated by a benefits consultant, who argued that “there has been a fair bit of inertia, you know, amongst the providers out there in actually doing something too radical, too leading edge” because “there's no direct financial incentive for insurance companies or pharmacy benefit managers to actually help employers save money”.

Expanding on this, another consultant argued that an insurer's commission structure, which is based on volumes of claims expressed in a dollar value, may in fact discourage insurance companies from proposing plan designs that reduce the volumes of claims, as doing so would adversely affect company profits. Furthermore, another benefits consultant indicated that insurers are experts who calculate risk and thereby have no aptitude for the creation of formularies. According to this respondent, the impact is that insurance companies excel at managing risk, yet fare poorly in designing cost-effective plans that rely on the design and implementation of formularies.

An interesting finding from the interview data was that respondents from all interviewed groups declared being in favor of introducing some sort of arrangement for a national drug plan. Some favored having a universal pharmacare program which would apply to all drugs, while others favored programs tailored for catastrophic drug coverage. Two of the insurers that responded to this question explicitly favored some form of universal catastrophic drug coverage while the other favored universal pharmacare.

Each of the union representatives and one employer interviewed for this study expressed their support for universal pharmacare. Three out of five consultants argued in favor of a national pharmacare plan while the other two favored some other form of national risk pooling or formulary management to address costs.

While a majority of interviewees favored some form of universal coverage, a few respondents from the insurer and employer sides expressed concerns that universal pharmacare is not feasible.

The employers indicated that their over-riding strategy is to maintain cost-neutrality in providing drug benefits – in the context of overall compensation – to employees: any increases in the costs of a particular benefits area must be off-set by cost-savings elsewhere. Controlling knowledge was also frequently reported by the union-side respondents (and by one consultant that services employers) as a strategy to achieve greater control over negotiations and plan design by firms. According to one union representative, “

Marc-Andre Gagnon has received research funding by the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions for a different research project related to drug coverage in Canada. Alan Cassels is co-director of DECA (Drug Evaluation Consulting and Analysis). The authors would like to acknowledge the financial contribution of the Canadian Health Coalition in order to pay for the transcription of interviews.

"We've been managing our budgetary costs for years," she said, "but this is the first year we've considered staffing restructuring as a practice to balance the budget's bottom line." Since PSWs are trained for a smaller scope of work than RPNs, they are compensated at a lower rate. Wilson-Trider said it should be made clear that there will still be RPNs on the hospital's team. Though there will be fewer RPNs, the team of PSWs will work to lighten their workload by taking care of certain tasks. The restructuring of the care model for the hospital's Rosamond Unit is just one aspect of the changes made to the AGH's budget this year. During the winter months, AGH conducted an internal comprehensive review of the hospital's revenues and expenditures, looking for efficiencies and asking for suggestions from staff.

The review, Wilson-Trider said, had a target figure of a five per cent change to the budget's bottom line, either in increased revenue or decreased expenditures. The cuts to RPN positions will account for some of that five per cent change, but the review also found other areas to cut costs, such as supply cost savings and energy management practices. Also, the hospital reviewed their service costs and found that they were charging below the average for private rooms, something they've adjusted for 2015. "These changes are a way of living within our means from a budget standpoint while providing the least impact to current patient care and the patient experience," Wilson-Trider said.

Protest Anita Comfort, one of the RPNs whose job is being eliminated, has been working at AGH for 21 years. She's among one of many soon-to-be-laidoff RPNs who have been at the hospital for decades, and she says that level of dedication can't be replaced. "We know our hospital, we know our patients and we know how to care for them," she said. "There's simply not going to be the same level of care without us." Comfort was one of more than 30 demonstrators who marched the street in front of AGH on March 16, asking for honks of support from passing cars.

Affected RPNs, friends, family, union representatives and even patients came out to show their support, holding signs boasting messages such as "Cuts hurt everybody," and "My skills are vital to patient care." Linda Melbrew, president of the local chapter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents the RPNs, was present for the demonstration, showing the union's support for saving their jobs. "We're asking the hospital to reconsider their decision," she said, "and we're also asking for the province to provide better funding for our hospitals so something like this doesn't have to happen at all." Representatives from the Ontario Nurses Association also showed their support during the demonstration, holding signs and marching among the affected RPNs.

Cathy Porteous, another of the RPNs who will lose her job because of the cuts, also mentioned the hospital's appearance on the Sunshine List: a list of employees whose annual salary rates are $100,000 or more. She said she heard there are 10 such employees with the AGH. "Why can't they make cuts in that area," that's what we want to know," she said. "Instead of cutting from the front lines of patient care, maybe they should take a look at their own salaries." When asked about the Sunshine List later in an interview, Wilson-Trider said the hospital doesn't have 10 employees being paid more than $100,000 annually - instead, they have nine.

Those employees, she explained, are all high-level employees and not all of them are paid by AGH itself. Among those on the Sunshine List are the director of care for the hospital's Fairview Manor (FVM) and the manager for Lanark County Ambulance Services. "These managers are already stretched," she said. "Between managing the hospital and their accountability to the LHIN (Local Health Integration Network) and the ministry, they're stretched." Many of the demonstrators voiced another concern as well: that patients will not receive the same level of care with a team of PSWs than they would with RPNs. "The don't call it complex care for nothing," said Debbie Tipping, whose husband, like Marie Campbell's, receives care in the Rosamond Unit, also called the Complex Continuing Care Unit.

Since PSWs don't go through the same level of training as RPNs and therefore are not qualified to perform certain tasks, Tipping said she is concerned her husband's care could suffer. "We don't want to lose the nurses we've come to know and love," Campbell said. Patient care While Wilson-Trider said the AGH is appreciative of the work the affected RPNs have put in over the years, she also said that she thinks the new care model will benefit patient care. "I actually think that this will be good for patient care," she said. "The new PSWs will be there to support the RPNs, who will be working at their full scope of practice."

"Patient care," she added, "is of the utmost importance here, and we have taken every measure to ensure that that level of care is maintained." Over the next few months, as the new model of care is phased in and positions are jostled around, Wilson-Trider said that the AGH will be following the union's collective agreement and working with the union the whole way through. "We appreciate the commitment and high quality of care that all of our staff has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate," she said, "and we're also very appreciative of the care they've given to our patients." Illustration: • Kelly Kent, Metroland / On Monday, March 16, more than 30 demonstrators took to the street outside Almonte General Hospital (AGH) to protest the hospital's new model of care that will cut 10 registered practical nurse (RPN) positions from its team of sta . AGH's new model of care comes in light of budget challenges passed down from the province's freeze on funding. Some of the a ected RPNs, above, held signs reading "My skills are vital to patient care."

In Sweden, the pharmacy sector was a government monopoly from 1971 to 2009. Consequently, it was among the countries with the lowest number of pharmacies by population, with barely one outlet per 10,000 inhabitants, about a third as many as in most Canadian provinces. State pharmacies offered very limited opening hours: from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday. Not a single pharmacy was open on Sunday, and many closed down completely for the summer. Sweden has since profoundly liberalized this sector and the number of pharmacies has skyrocketed as a result, increasing more in the following four years than in the previous 30. In addition to the hundreds that were privatized, 374 new private pharmacies entered the market, thereby improving access for the inhabitants of all regions. The effectiveness and accessibility of the health services provided by the private sector result primarily from the market mechanisms that govern them, namely entrepreneurship, competition and patients' freedom of choice. We should not be surprised to find that these mechanisms are largely absent in the public healthcare system. Yet it is these mechanisms that ensure that patients remain at the centre of care-providers' concerns. We should keep that in mind when thinking of how to reform our ailing public system. Yanick Labrie is an economist at the Montreal Economic Institute (Iedm.org) and author of The Other Health Care System: Four Areas Where the Private Sector Answers Patients' Needs.

Fighting to improve Social Security and to expand Medicare to all is to benefit people of all ages. After all, what child or grandchild complains about the size of a grandparent’s Social Security check, and what grandparent wants to short change a child or grandchild? And expanding Medicare helps everyone.

the Boomer generation, once all at retirement age, will be a colossal force in defense of Social Security and Medicare, and that they will also be demanding an expansion of those programs, making them both more generous and also broader in reach.

That means we Americans, old and young, need to organize and fight like hell now to defend both programs, and to demand that they be expanded.

Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries — national pension systems provide people with benefits that replace 60 percent or more of final working income, allowing them to retire without taking a hit in their living standard (lower-income workers actually get even more in retirement and may actually see their living standards rise when they retire).

Compare this to the US, where the replacement rate is only about 37% of working income in retirement.

European countries all have excellent national health programs that make health care essentially free.

The US stands almost alone in the developed world in not having a national health program of one kind or another. Not incidentally, it also has the most expensive health care in the world, gobbling up almost 18 percent of GDP. No country approaches that level of resources spent on health care for its citizens.

Clearly, Obamacare (the so-called Affordable Care Act), is not the answer, as it costs a fortune and still leaves some 30 million without access to affordable health care.

Dr. Robert Zarr, the head of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) points out in an interview on PRN.fm’s “This Can’t Be Happening” program [1], the US could easily move to a national health program like what all these above countries have by simply lowering the age for being eligible for Medicare — currently at 65.

Why don’t we do this, creating what is essentially a Canadian-model health plan (it’s actually called Medicare in Canada, and has been working since the early 1970s, and has been backed by conservative national and provincial governments consistently through most of the intervening years because Canadian’s love it)?

Those negotiations have not yet begun. At last week's meeting of provincial health ministers, to which federal Health Minister Jane Philpott was invited, she shooed away any mention of money, which, at this stage of the game, is the correct approach. Meanwhile, the provincial health ministers said they would work on what a national prescription-drug plan would look like and cost - the cost having squelched the idea of national pharmacare in the past. Several academics, often quoted in the press, believe that national pharmacare would save money. Almost nobody else does, which is why the idea has never got off the ground. Quebec has discovered that its public plan, more elaborate than any other, costs a lot more than anyone had anticipated. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's instructions in Dr. Philpott's mandate letter are much more limited. Since Ottawa spends in the order of $1-billion on drugs for aboriginal people and the military, let Ottawa join the provinces in more bulk drug purchases to lower costs. She is also to "explore" the idea of a national formulary - an excellent idea since no logical reason exists for every province to have one. Again, though, this is far from national pharmacare.

What the Liberals do want is directed spending on home care. Here, the federal-provincial negotiations will be fascinating, and perhaps consequential for patients. The federal Liberals are always tempted to put strings around the health-care dollars Ottawa sends to the provinces. Ottawa doesn't deliver health care to Canadians (except the military and aboriginal people) and it's paying a smaller share of overall health-care spending than years ago.

Yet the Liberal itch to influence, if not direct, how federal transfers should be spent never dies. The trouble is that every time previous Liberal governments pulled out string to wrap around the transfers, at least some of the provinces said: Just give us the cash and stuff the strings away. We do health care; you write cheques. We set priorities; you help pay. This time, though, the provinces are aware of their burgeoning number of older citizens, an increasing share of whom need or prefer to be cared for at home rather than in institutions. Provinces need to save money, too, and care at home costs less than care in a hospital bed. Home care also keeps some patients from emergency rooms and reduces calls to paramedics.

The strategic health-care plans of almost every province underscore the importance of home care. So do provincial health-care budgets, which are giving new money to home care and little or none to hospitals. Now, along comes a federal government willing to hand over money - how much remains to be seen - in what the minister's mandate letter describes as a "long-term funding agreement" that would "support the delivery of more and better home-care services."

Beefing up home care is what Ottawa wants. It seems to be what the provinces want. But will the provinces sign an agreement that binds them to spend at least some of the federal money for this purpose only? Or will the provinces offer vague assurances that cannot be monitored? Perhaps some (hello, Quebec) will say: Give us the money to spend as we wish, health care being provincial jurisdiction. Maybe home care; maybe not. We'll decide. Home care is the correct priority in a health-care world with endless priorities and incessant demands. Can the often-disputatious Canadian governments pull together around this common objective?

"Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect health system and it certainly doesn't reside in any one country," Mark Britnell, global chairman for health at the consulting giant KPMG, writes in his new book, In Search of the Perfect Health System. "But there are fantastic examples of great health and health care from around the world which can offer inspiration."

As a consultant who has worked in 60 countries - and who receives in-depth briefings on the health systems of each before meeting clients - Mr. Britnell has a unique perspective and, in the book, offers up a subjective and insightful list of the traits that are important to creating good health systems. If the world had a perfect health system, he writes, it would have the following qualities: the values and universal access of the U.K.; the primary care of Israel; the community services of Brazil; the mentalhealth system of Australia; the health promotion philosophy of the Nordic countries; the patient and community empowerment in parts of Africa; the research and development infrastructure of the United States; the innovation, flair and speed of India; the information, communications and technology of Singapore; the choice offered to patients in France; the funding model of Switzerland; and the care for the aged of Japan.

In the book, Mr. Britnell elaborates on each of these examples of excellence and, in addition, provides a great precis of the strengths and weaknesses of health systems in 25 countries. The chapter on Canada is appropriately damning, noting that this country's outmoded health system has long been ripe for revolution, but the "revolution has not happened."

Why? Because this country has a penchant for doing high-level, in-depth reviews of the health system's problems, but puts all its effort into producing recommendations and none into implementing them. Ouch. "Canada stands at a crossroads," Mr. Britnell writes, "and needs to find the political will and managerial and clinical skills to establish a progressive coalition of the willing."

The book's strength is that it does not offer up simplistic solutions. Rather, it stresses that there is no single best approach because all health systems are the products of their societies, norms and cultures. One of the best parts of the book - and quite relevant to Canada - is the analysis of funding models. "The debate about universal health care is frequently confused with the ability to pay," Mr. Britnell writes. He notes that the high co-payments in the highly praised health systems of Asia would simply not be tolerated in the West.

But ultimately what matters is finding an approach that works, not a perfect one: "This is the fundamental point. There is no such thing as free health care; it is only a matter of who pays for it. Politics is the imperfect art of deciding 'who gets what, how and when.' " The book stresses that the challenges are the same everywhere: providing high-quality care to all at an affordable price, finding the work force to deliver that care and empowering patients. To do so effectively, you need vision and you need systems. Above all, you need the political will to learn from others and put in place a system that works.

The doctors' campaign has, however, prompted me to wonder how it is that paying doctors more will function to alleviate conditions of overwork?

Also concerning is that the doctors' recent efforts to link declining levels of government investment in health care come in the wake of both long-standing and ongoing efforts to standardize, regulate and privatize care in the sector. More than this, through their organization, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), physicians have long stood silently by and watched as other front-line workers have been forced to battle against the Dalton McGuinty and Wynne governments' efforts to freeze wages, cut hospital funding and otherwise undermine the working conditions of health-care workers, from cleaners to tradespeople to registered practical nurses and personal support workers.

To put matters into perspective, over the past five years, government spending on doctors has increased - in real terms - by an average of 2.5 per cent a year. Over the same period, government spending on other health-care staff has declined by an annual average of -0.5 per cent. In other words, whereas doctors have seen a 29 per cent increase to their pay over the past seven years, other health-care staff have seen their wages decline in real terms.

Of course, declining wages are not necessarily reflective of working conditions. In that regard, it is notable that Ontario hospitals now receive less funding per capita than hospitals in every other Canadian province. As a result, Ontario hospitals - often with the support of doctors and their representative associations - have worked to find "efficiencies" in ways that have frequently increased the workload of front-line staff, and thereby undermine the conditions these workers face and the quality of care they are able to provide patients.

A visit to any Ontario hospital will make clear that it's not just doctors who have been going above and beyond. Rather, workers throughout the hospital have been stretching, often under increasingly difficult circumstances, to provide excellent care with far fewer resources than are required. And like Ontario's doctors, they are failing; our hospitals are not as clean as they need to be in order to prevent the spread of hospital acquired infections, readmission rates are climbing and too many patients are forced to fend for themselves at home.

Ontario's doctors have nonetheless continued to push for the province to open more private surgery and procedures clinics, even as those clinics leach badly needed resources from our hospitals and undermine care in ways that have been well documented in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom.

Government-sponsored and doctor-supported programs that have aimed to increase the efficiency of the province's health-care system through, for example, jargon-laced policies like "continuous quality improvement" or the "health-based allocation model" have actually worked to undermine patient care. By ignoring the voices of front-line staff, many doctors and administrators have conspired to streamline and standardize care in ways that cut off key lines of communication and create a series of very predictable but nonetheless "unexpected consequences" that undermine patient care and frequently fail to generate the promised level of savings.

Nonetheless the OMA's recent efforts, like those of doctors throughout the province are both laudable and bang-on: there is a crisis in health care in Ontario, and the cuts that the Wynne government has imposed are having a serious and deleterious impact.

Those cuts, however, have hardly been focused on doctors' salaries, but have instead focused on other health-care workers and on hospitals. Ultimately, working conditions, wages and the quality of patient care have long been sacrificed at the altar of efficiency and austerity.

What the OMA should consider is the degree to which Ontario's doctors are now victim to the cold and careless logics of efficiency, standardization and privatization, which they both helped author and supported.

Until Ontario's doctors and the OMA find ways to bridge the divide that they have helped to open between themselves and other health-care workers, any improvement to their wages will not lead to long-term and sustainable improvements in our health system and the quality of care we provide patients together.

Michael Hurley is president of the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU), the hospital division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) in Ontario. CUPE represents more than 75,000 health care staff provincewide.

Doctors are campaigning against a pay cut imposed by Kathleen Wynne's government, but Michael Hurley writes that they have supported efficiencies and standardizations in other parts of the health-care system.Sean Kilpatrick, Canadian Press file photo

"The priority of the Medical Services Commission and the Ministry of Health is to uphold the Medicare Protection Act and the benefits it safeguards for patients in this province," B.C. Health Minister Terry Lake said in a statement on Tuesday. "We expect and require these clinics to come into full compliance with the law, and we remain fully committed to seeing out this case to its resolution." The ministry said it could not comment further because the case is before the courts. But the federal government is also watching the proceedings closely and has sought intervenor status in the case. In a statement from Ottawa, Health Canada said many provisions of the B.C. legislation mirror those of the Canada Health Act, "making this case of significant importance not only to British Columbians, but to all Canadians."

Given that Canadians "overwhelmingly" support universally accessible health care, "any challenge to a principle so fundamental to our health-care system is of significant concern to the Government of Canada." During a federal Liberal caucus retreat in Saguenay, Que., last week, Health Minister Jane Philpott said the case and the prospect of health-care privatization are a cause of "concern" for her. "I think I have made it very clear on repeated occasions that our government is committed to firmly upholding the Canada Health Act. The Cambie case deals specifically with that, with the provision of services," she told reporters. "It's fundamentally important to the health-care system in the entire country, not just in British Columbia, that we make sure that medically necessary services are universally insured and there are no barriers to access of those services." Ms. Philpott acknowledged that some health-care services in Canada are delivered privately, citing physiotherapy, which is largely carried out in private clinics because it is not included under the Canada Health Act.

But she said anything similar to a user fee is a barrier to people being able to receive medically necessary care. Ultimately, Dr. Day said, the law, facts and evidence are on the side of his argument that Canadians would best be served by a "hybrid" health-care system. "I kind of hope the judge doesn't hear that, and our lawyers would be nervous to hear that, but that's what I believe," he said. Within that system, public hospitals would offer private services and private hospitals would offer public services. He said he also wants to see competition between and within the systems. "Competition breeds excellence," Dr. Day said. © 2016 The Globe and Mail Inc. All Rights Reserved.