Group items tagged

The penalties are assessed on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning they are equal to the amounts patients complained about paying for procedures. B.C. and Newfoundland were the only provinces assessed penalties for the last three years. When the 2013-14 annual report comes out soon, B.C. will once again be penalized, this time $224,000, said provincial Health Ministry spokesman Ryan Jabs.

Since 1994, the federal government has docked B.C. $3.2 million, slightly lower than the record-holder Alberta ($3.6 million). Since 1994, provinces have been assessed nearly $10 million in penalties for extra billing charges. A Health Canada spokesman could not explain why Quebec has never been penalized, even though it reportedly has a thriving private medicine sector. Ontario has also not faced any penalties.

Accordingly, a deduction of $4,610 was made to the March 2003 federal transfer payment. 2004: A $126,775 deduction was taken from B.C.'s March 2004 Canada Health Act payment, based on the amount of extra billing estimated to have been charged during the 2001-2002 fiscal year. Since 2005: $786,940 in cash transfer deductions have been taken from B.C.'s federal health transfer payments on the basis of charges reported by the province to Health Canada. January 2011: Vancouver General Hospital begins charging patients a fee when they elect to have robot-assisted surgery versus the conventional surgical alternative for certain medically necessary procedures. 2013: Deductions in the amount of $280,019 are taken from the March 2013 federal transfer payments of B.C. in respect to extra billing and user charges for insured health services at private clinics. Source: Canada Health Act Annual Report 2012-2013

In 2005, the B.C. government did not submit a dollar value to the federal government for such extra billing, so Health Canada bureaucrats based the penalty sum on news releases from anti-privatization unions and newspaper clippings about patients who accessed the private system. The Sun learned about that through a Freedom of Information request. The story detailed how discretionary the penalties appear to be and that they are based on "guesstimates" of user fees. Provincial Health Ministry officials often base their reports submitted to the federal government on complaints from patients who go to private clinics for expedited care and then try to collect the fees paid from government. One such patient is Mariel Schoof, who had sinus surgery at a private clinic in 2003. She paid $6,150 for the "facility fee" and then tried to recover the fee from the provincial government or the clinic. She is now one of the interveners in a private versus public medicine trial starting March 2 between Dr. Brian Day and the provincial government. Timeline of Canada Health transfer compliance in B.C.

Early 1990s: As a result of a dispute between the British Columbia Medical Association and the B.C. government over compensation, several doctors opt out of the provincial health insurance plan and began billing their patients directly, some at a rate greater than the amount the patients could recover from the provincial health insurance plan. May 1994: Canada Health deductions began and continue until extra-billing by physicians is banned when changes to B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act come into effect in September 1995. In total, $2,025,000 was deducted from B.C.'s cash contribution for extra billing that occurred in the province between 1992-1993 and 1995-1996. These deductions were non-refundable, as were all subsequent deductions. January 2003: B.C. provides a financial statement in accordance with the Canada Health Act Extra-billing and User Charges Information Regulations, indicating aggregate amounts charged with respect to extra billing and user charges during fiscal 2000-2001 totalling $4,610.

The penalty to B.C. is paltry in relation to the province's $20-billion health budget announced Tuesday. It is also insignificant relative to the federal transfer payments B.C. will collect this year ($4.4 billion) and next ($4.7 billion). In 2006, the then-deputy health minister of B.C., Penny Ballem (now Vancouver city manager) questioned whether B.C. was really the only province where extra billing and private sector queue jumping was taking place. Jabs said Wednesday he can't comment on what happens elsewhere.

The branch investigates about 30 cases a year of extra billing, usually related to private surgical facilities or expedited visits to specialists. The government is not sure whether it will be penalized in the future for allowing Vancouver General Hospital to charge patients fees for robotic surgery. VGH spokesman Gavin Wilson says since 2012 patients choosing to have surgeons remove their prostates using the robot have been charged on a partialcost-recovery basis. The B.C. government allows the extra billing because robotic surgery is discretionary, not medically necessary, and there are higher costs associated with it. In 2012, however, Health Canada began examining the Canada Health Act implications of patient charges for robotassisted surgeries. The process convinced the health minister that VGH should stop charging for robot-assisted surgeries as of Jan. 1, 2015. Vancouver Coastal Health collected $345,000 a year for the procedures; most recently, the patient fee was $5,700. Sun health issues reporter pfayerman@vancouversun.com

Auditor Calls Quebec Extra Billing Out of Control Doctors Call on Health Minister Jane Philpott to Illegal Billing Practices in Quebec TORONTO (May 12, 2016) – Extra-billing in Quebec medical clinics are “excessive” says Auditor General Guylaine Leclerc, but Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott has yet to act on calls to enforce the Canada Health Act and bring them under control.

However, until now no federal government has had the nerve to take on serial offender Quebec. Quebec has been allowing its doctors and clinics to charge extra user fees since 1979. The province's current health minister, Gaetan Barrette, freely acknowledges this. In some cases, these fees were truly exorbitant. The Montreal Gazette reported last year that some colonoscopy clinics were charging patients an extra $600 for medications - on top of the publicly paid medicare fee. Many Quebecers were outraged. The provincial Liberal government's somewhat peculiar response was to pass a bill codifying the practice of extra-billing but giving itself the authority to regulate it. In March 2015, the then-Conservative government in Ottawa formally notified Quebec that it would be looking into the issue. This March, Liberal Philpott sat down with Barrette to discuss the practice. On Sept. 6, she sent her provincial counterpart a letter threatening cutbacks to Quebec's health transfer. A few days later, Barrette announced that extra billing will end as of next January.

It is hard to gauge the importance of Philpott's threat. User fees have become widely unpopular in Quebec. That alone may have been enough to drive the provincial government to disavow them. Still, it was bracing to see a federal health minister publicly standing up for the principles of medicare. It is not an everyday occurrence. It is particularly interesting that she targeted a province that is notoriously touchy about what it sees as federal interference. Perhaps she will do more. Certainly, more needs to be done. The latest annual report on the Canada Health Act filed with Parliament notes that private MRI clinics in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are charging user fees to patients. It says some hospitals are avoiding the ban on charging for drugs by routing the sick through outpatient clinics - which do charge. It also notes that the portability requirement of medicare, which allows Canadians to receive care outside their home provinces, is routinely ignored.

Quebec routinely refuses to fully reimburse other provinces that provide health services to Quebec residents. Yet it has never been penalized by Ottawa for this. Nor have an unspecified number of other provinces that, at one time or another, did the same. Except for Prince Edward Island, the report says, no province appropriately reimburses residents who obtain medical care outside Canada. Such patients aren't necessarily entitled to the full cost of their out-of-country care. But they are entitled to be reimbursed for the amount it would have cost them to be treated in their home province. To work as a national program, Canadian medicare needs two things. First, the federal government must put up enough money to give it a real financial role in the system. The 2002 Romanow royal commission suggested that Ottawa provide at least 25 per cent of medicare funding. That figure still makes sense. Second, Ottawa has to use its financial clout to enforce those few national standards that do exist. A former Liberal health minister, Diane Marleau, tried to do this back in the 1990s. She was sandbagged by Jean Chrétien, the prime minister of the day. Let's hope Philpott has better luck.

It was bracing to see a federal health minister stand up for medicare principles, writes Thomas Walkom.

According to the registry, 527 patients were billed a total of $40,775 between Feb. 15 and Aug. 2015. Respondents noted feeling indignant about the injustice of having to pay amounts they considered exorbitant for medical care. Some said they couldn't afford to pay - they needed the money for groceries or rent. User fees for insured medical services covered by the provincial health insurance board are illegal. But there's a grey zone, and for years many physicians and clinics have quietly been applying extra, arbitrary or excessive fees for exams and medications covered in hospitals. Led by the clinic's Comité de lutte en santé, the registry also showed that rates for medical services levied on patients varied among professionals, the clinic's co-ordinator Luc Leblanc said Sunday.

"It's a two-tiered system. One for those who can pay and one for those who can't," he said. Data analysis shows the average amount demanded by family doctors was $63, and the average for specialists was $91. The biggest category is medications or anaesthetics, followed by administrative charges like photocopies or filling forms. Adopted last week, Quebec Health Minister Gaétan Barrette's Bill 20 included a set of amendments to legalize fees charged to patients in clinics for insured services, commonly called "accessory fees." The list of regulated ancillary fees will come later, after the government hires an independent accounting firm to determine real costs.

But Leblanc noted the public wasn't consulted because "initially Bill 20 made no mention of the possibility of accessory fees," Leblanc said. And there are no prior government studies or surveys to determine the scope or impact of current fees on patients, he added. The introduction of user fees is a serious threat to universal care, critics said, including the Canadian Medical Association, Quebec Medical Association, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, and Médecins québécois pour le régime publique (MQRP), who asked Barrette to hold offon regulating fees in October.

Charging patients at doctors offices and clinics for medically necessary care isn't acceptable, said Isabelle Leblanc, president of the pro-medicare group, Médécins québécois pour le régime publique. It strikes at the heart of the principle that access to health care should be based on need rather than ability to pay, she added. The clinic's health committee is calling on Barrette to suspend extra fees and on the new federal Health Minister Jane Philpott "to act immediately to force Quebec to respect the Canada Health Act," said Louis Blouin of the committee. The committee is continuing to document billing in its online registry. It can be found on the Pointe-Saint-Charles clinic website cfidelman@montrealgazette.com twitter.com/HealthIssues

When the Canada Health Act passed in the House of Commons in 1984 with unanimous support from all political parties, its primary purpose was to put an end to extra billing like this. Charging patients at the point of care for medically necessary services strikes at the heart of the principle that access to health care should be based on need rather than ability to pay. It undermines equity, increases system costs and reduces commitment to the public health care system. It's also illegal.

Why are we not hearing resounding denunciations of Barrette's plan from our federal politicians? Research has consistently demonstrated that forcing people with less money to pay a fee to access care means they might not seek out medical attention until later in the course of their illness. This means patient outcomes are likely to be worse and treatment more complicated and costly. Given higher levels of illness among people in poverty, these fees also shift costs to those who use the system most but can least afford to pay.

Doctors in Quebec and across the country have expressed alarm at Barrette's amendment to Bill 20, which regulates extra billing rather than prohibiting it. The Canadian Medical Association, Quebec Medical Association, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, Médecins Québécois pour le Régime Publique, and the Quebec College of Family Physicians have all come out against this decision, joining patient groups, all of Quebec's opposition parties, and Raymonde Saint-Germain, the independent Quebec Ombudsman. The measure was passed on Oct. 7, with no public debate. Bill 20 is currently before the National Assembly and is expected to become law this fall.

Barrette is effectively bringing user fees in through the back door. Rather than introducing user fees charged by government, he would let clinics do so. This further fragments care and makes access even more inequitable.

In this federal election campaign, the talk has been around reducing barriers to access by improving coverage of prescription medicines, home care and mental health care. Yet at the same time that our federal parties are committing to such muchneeded expansion, they are silent on protecting the core of medicare: publicly funded doctor and hospital services.

Any party that claims to be committed to the Canada Health Act should immediately state its position on the amendments to Bill 20 in Quebec. To do less is to skirt the core federal responsibility for medicare in Canada. Ryan Meili is a family physician in Saskatoon and an expert adviser with the Evidence Network. Danielle Martin is a family physician and vice-president Medical Affairs and Health System Solutions at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. Both are members of the board of Canadian Doctors for Medicare.

JACQUES BOISSINOT, THE CANADIAN PRESS / Health Minister Gaétan Barrette has put forward a measure that would regulate extra billing rather than prohibit it. It will become law when Bill 20 is adopted.

QUEBEC — Extra fees charged in private clinics for procedures covered by medicare are not being controlled and may be abusive, the province’s auditor general said in a report Tuesday. Extra billing has been in dispute ever since the government of Quebec adopted Bill 20 in November. The bill aimed, among other things, to regulate add-on fees by creating a standardized price list. The situation remains ambiguous, confusing and misunderstood, auditor general Guylaine Leclerc wrote in her report. Neither the health department nor Quebec’s health insurance board (RAMQ) has a firm grip on these add-on fees, which are estimated at $50 million a year, she noted. For example, the report said, Quebecers are charged between $300 and $400 for a colonoscopy, $125 to $225 for a vasectomy, $51 to $100 for a biopsy and $5 to $50 for an excision, depending on the clinic. 

Lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard insisted last week Quebec is the worst offender when it comes to over-billing patients, and that the fees are creating a two-tier health-care system that may violate the Canada Health Act. With Ménard’s help, various patients’-rights groups have come together to launch legal action against the federal government to make sure the Canada Health Act is applied in Quebec and other provinces. Reacting to the report Tuesday, Health Minister Gaétan Barrette reiterated his recent promise to abolish add-on fees by possibly rolling them into doctors’ salaries. “For care that is medically required, there won’t be any fees,” he told reporters.

Parti Québécois MNA Diane Lamarre said Barrette’s “about-face” is the result of relentless criticisms by her and the PQ. “When we started studying Bill 20, we were fighting the fact that the minister introduced an amendment that authorized accessory fees,” Lamarre said. “It was a new opportunity to charge, legally, new medical fees. … We asked the minister many times to (scrap) his amendment and he refused. “(It) was a way to introduce accessory fees and make some patients with no money unable to have access to medical services, which is completely against the law. Now we’re proud that he changed his mind,” she said. Both Lamarre and Coalition Avenir Québec MNA François Paradis said they are concerned Barrette will not be able to convince doctors’ associations to include the fees in their remuneration. If doctors’ salaries are boosted by an additional $50 million in the next contract agreement, for example, it will mean that collectively we will all be paying the fees indirectly, Paradis said.

Reportedly, Dr. Philpott wrote to her counterpart earlier this month, intimating Ottawa would start withholding transfer payments if extra-billing is not addressed. Now Dr. Barrette is making the typical spluttering noises about Ottawa invading provincial jurisdiction and claiming credit. In recent years, the provinces have tended to treat the federal Health Department as a cash machine; the extra-billing skirmish may end up being part of a broader negotiation over a likely reduction in federal transfers.

Let's hope Quebec's decision, and Dr. Philpott's role in it, signal a new era of robust federal defence of publicly funded medicare. With the British Columbia Supreme Court hearing arguments this week in a case that challenges some key pillars of the Canada Health Act, such robustness is needed.

Of the 19 tests and assessments Copeman set out in its 2012 schedule for standard patient testing, 16 are covered by Alberta Health. On an initial visit for men over aged 50, for example, the cost absorbed by the province for lab analysis alone reached $347 per patient.

Patients are also billed for the tests, allowing them to claim the costs against health spending accounts, or, in some cases, as tax deductions in their personal tax filings. A patient bill shows tests administered at the Copeman private medical clinic in Calgary. (Tracy Johnson/CBC) More than a dozen patient receipts obtained by CBC News show lump sum charges of over $1,000 for the lab and diagnostic work, all of which is cited as "physician prescribed." That language means the cost of eligible analysis work would be borne by the province.

CBC News also obtained a patient bill that shows a $1,283 charge for a "physician consultation, assessment, interpretation and report. Physician follow-up consultation(s). Continual care."

Legal precedent: Whatever way the case is decided at trial, it is likely to be appealed and eventually reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada. A decision from this level will mean all provincial and territorial governments will have to revisit equivalent laws. The foundational pillars of Canadian medicare - equitable access and preventing twotier care - could well be vanquished in the process. Wait times: Day will likely argue that Canada performs poorly on wait times compared to other countries, and that other countries allow two-tier care; thus, if Canada is allowed two-tier care, our wait times would improve. But this approach is too simplistic. Comparisons to the British health system, fail to recall that, despite having two-tiers, it has in the past suffered horrendously long-wait times. Recent efforts to tackle wait times have come from within the public system, with initiatives like wait time guarantees and tying payment for public officials to wait times targets.

By looking to Britain, we are comparing apples to oranges. British doctors are generally full-time salaried employees while most Canadian physicians bill medicare on a fee-forservice basis. Consequently, the repercussions of permitting extra billing in Canada could eviscerate our publiclyfunded system, whereas this is not the case in Britain. Imagine if most doctors in Canada could bill, as those at the Cambie clinic have done, whatever they want in addition to what they are paid by governments?

Conflict-of-interest incentives: Evidence suggests there is a danger in providing a perverse incentive for physicians who are permitted to work in both public and private health systems at the same time. Wait times may grow for patients left in the public system as specialists drive traffic to their more lucrative private practice. Sound improbable? Academic studies have noted this trend in specific clinics that permit simultaneous private-public practice. And recent U.K. news reports have profiled a case where a surgeon bumped a public patient in need of a transplant for his private-pay patient.

Competition: Proponents of privatized health services often claim it would add a healthy dose of competition, jolting the "monopoly" of public health care from its apathy. But free markets don't work well in health care. Why? Because public providers and private providers won't truly compete if the laws Day challenges are struck down. Instead, those with means and/or private insurance will buy their way to the front of queues. Public coverage for the poor will likely suffer, as is clearly evident in the U.S., with doctors refusing to provide care to low-income patients in preference for those covered by higher-paying private insurance.

Of course, this is all based on an outcome that is not yet known. It may be that the charter challenge in B.C. will be unsuccessful, but clearly the stakes for ordinary Canadians are high. Sadly Dr. Day is not bringing a challenge for all Canadians. Isn't it past time our governments and doctors work to ensure all Canadians - and not just those who can afford to pay - receive timely care? Colleen Flood is Professor and University Research Chair in Health Law Policy at the University of Ottawa. Kathleen O'Grady is a Research Associate at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University and Managing Editor of EvidenceNetwork. ca

"In order to protect patients, the B.C. government must hold private clinic owners and operators accountable when they break the laws prohibiting extra-billing and user fees," said lawyer Steven Shrybman, a partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell who is acting for the B.C. Health Coalition and Canadian Doctors for Medicare, intervenors in the court challenge. Shrybman is well-known for his successful Supreme Court challenge against Ontario's attempted sale of Hydro One and the recent election fraud cases in Federal Court. "Though the challenge was launched in British Columbia, it has the potential to bring two-tier care to Canadians across the country," he warned. "Advocates of public health care from Ontario and across the country are calling on the B.C. government to take a tough stand in these negotiations. These are the laws that uphold Medicare and defend patients," said Dr. Ryan Meili, Vice-Chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare. "A simple slap on the wrist encourages more violations in provinces from coast to coast."

The problem is already creeping into Ontario, according to Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition, where the government is proposing to expand private clinics. "Patients are being confused by private clinic operators who are manipulating them into paying thousands of dollars for health care services that they have already paid for in their taxes," she warned. "The public should know that you cannot be charged by a doctor or private clinic operator for surgery, diagnostic tests or any other medically necessary hospital or physician service. Extra user fees charged to sick and elderly patients are unlawful and immoral and governments should be delivering that message." Advocates warned that this court case should also raise alarm bells in Ontario's government about the dangers of private clinics. At risk is our public health system in which access to health care is based on need, not wealth. SOURCE Ontario Health Coalition

The trial was set to begin on Monday but now has been postponed as both sides examine the newly found ministry files. NDP health critic Judy Darcy says she hopes the government will throw everything it can at Dr. Day, because if he wins, she believes, British Columbia will be opening the door to a new twotiered health-care system for the country. She isn't convinced the B.C. Liberals wanted to fight this battle. "I think the government is under tremendous pressure to defend the Canada Health Act," she said in an interview. But at least at the outset, the province needed some prodding to engage.

The B.C. Nurses' Union led the charge in 2003, challenging the provincial government to enforce the law and stop private clinics from treading on publichealth turf. It was 2008 when the province finally sought an audit of the books of Dr. Day's two clinics. The two sides then spent four years arguing about the scope of the audit. Finally, in 2012, the Medical Services Commission concluded the clinics were extra billing patients and threatened an injunction, which is still up in the air. The audit was limited to a small sampling of a few hundred cases. "The only thing we saw was a one spot-check audit and it showed $150,000 worth of extra billing in a single month," Ms. Darcy said.

"So we are talking about millions of dollars over the years, and nothing has been done about that." The B.C. Health Coalition is an intervenor in the case. While the province may have been slow to get started, Steven Shrybman, a member of the group's legal team, says he is impressed with B.C.'s case as it stands now. "The province has demonstrated a very serious commitment to this case," he said. "I can't fault them for the job they have done in defending the validity of our medicare model under the Charter." Dr. Day has been angling for this day in court for many years, and all the while he says his case has grown stronger as the province's surgical waiting lists have grown.

"This is a case about patients being able to care for their own health when the government won't provide it," he said. The B.C. Supreme Court will hear, possibly later this spring, his argument that Canadians have a right, under the Charter, to access necessary and appropriate health care within a reasonable time - something he says does not exist in B.C. "The only way the government can win, in my view, is if they can show that wait lists are not a problem." Health Minister Terry Lake told reporters last week that the reason some waiting lists are growing is because the healthcare system is doing more surgeries. "But I have asked our provincial surgical advisory committee to look at the situation, because I think we can do better ... One of my real desires is to reduce those wait times."

That's why those freshly discovered Health Ministry files may be revealing, and if nothing else, Dr. Day's battle may drive the provincial government to find not just the desire, but the means, to take aim at surgical waiting lists.

NHS Gloucestershire had not put this work out to tender, nor explored in-house/NHS options which, campaigners say, would have made tendering unnecessary in the first place

only reduced staff terms and conditions upon the service leaving the NHS, would offer a key cost saving

any cost gain would be significantly reduced by the new social enterprise VAT bill

which would not have applied under the internal NHS model

the Lansley edict of July 2011, that £1 billion of NHS services would be opened up to competition.

Lansley’s ‘do it quick never mind the risk’ stick, the underbelly of which we highlighted last week

the Hull example, where aside from the one-off transfer costs, when NHS Hull morphed into a social enterprise, they found the need to build an entire new wing to house the extra administrative staff – those who had been ‘cut loose’ from the NHS – because the new enterprises are required to have their own duplicate back office functions where previously they could draw on NHS central resources.

as long as matters are kept within the NHS there is no contract on which EU procurement law ‘actually bites’,

this result at the High Court also begs the question: now the Bill is passed, exactly how far are our current NHS providers obliged to put existing services out to competitive tender?

The Gloucestershire example seems to demonstrate there are more angles to take than even the government themselves had considered in their own search for profiteering loopholes.

Will it really be possible, as Professor Allyson Pollock advises, to “stop all commercial contracts”, citing the danger of the government continuing to claim commercial confidentiality trumps the public’s right to know about contract decisions.

The PCT is legally obliged to: 1). Involve public; 2). Consider NHS options; 3). Invite ‘expressions of interest’ (in bidding) – crucially, not the same as ‘inviting bids’; before 4). Deciding what to do, which may or may not involve ‘inviting bids’, depending on whether NHS bodies come forward, which would mean they didn’t need to go to stage of open tender, i.e. inviting bids.

Much of the rhetoric thrown around today in scuffles between governments and physicians might ring a bell for students of medical history. More than 50 years ago, doctors were also accused of being too stubborn to accept changes to pay structure, and a provincial government was also charged with putting fiscal concerns before patient needs. Of course, if that old saying holds any merit — “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” — perhaps a refresher is in order. There seems, after all, to be a little bit of history repeating itself.

The origin of conflict between provincial governments and physicians can be summed up in one word: medicare. It therefore dates back to midnight of July 1, 1962, when the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act passed into law, introducing the first universal, government-run, single-payer health system to North America. All of one minute later, most of Saskatchewan’s doctors went on strike.

tually, to be precise, the fighting between the government and doctors in Saskatchewan began a couple of years earlier, during the 1960 provincial election. Premier Tommy Douglas had made universal health care the main peg of his re-election campaign. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan fiercely opposed the idea, contending that government interference in medicine would do far more harm than good.

A public battle ensued, pitting doctors against politicians. Debates were held, pamphlets were circulated, pledges were signed. Did the whole affair stay civil and free of propaganda? Well, you could say that. But only if you enjoy being wrong.

Let’s start with some of the literature circulated by opponents of medicare. One pamphlet, Political Medicine is Bad Medicine, was chockablock with scary warnings and seasoned with a liberal sprinkling of words in all-caps for emphasis. Red Tape! Skyrocketing costs! Inferior care! The premier’s plan “proposes a PERMANENT INFLEXIBLE GOVERNMENT SCHEME at a high cost” that would subject medicine “to POLITICAL considerations bearing no relation to your NEEDS.”

Then there was the infamous flyer — later used by Premier Douglas to shame his opponents, according to Saturday Night magazine — that suggested many doctors would flee the province if the medicare bill passed. “They’ll have to fill up the profession with the garbage of Europe,” read one excerpt, a quote from an anonymous doctor taken from the Toronto Telegram. “Some of the European doctors who come out here are so bad we wonder if they ever practised medicine.”

Later, some in the anti-medicare camp acknowledged that mistakes were made, passion had trumped reason, and the medical profession had suffered for engaging in political mudslinging. “Many doctors concede privately that they went too far, that the campaign lost them prestige in their communities,” reported Saturday Night magazine.

Part II: Today’s contentious negotiations echo those from the battle over medicare a half-century ago Doctors refuse to compromise, says one side. The government cares more about its budget than patients, says the other side. Doctors have rejected a “very fair offer,” says a provincial health minister. Patients can’t wait for the government to balance its books, says a medical association. You know, this all sounds mighty familiar.

In the end, Douglas and his party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, won the election and pushed ahead with their health system plan. The doctors and government set aside their differences and all lived happily ever after. Yeah, right.

Medicare was coming to Saskatchewan — that battle was over — but physicians still weren’t cooperating with the government. They focused their efforts on changing sections of the proposed medicare act, specifically those that granted the government almost unlimited power to control the practice of medicine.

There was no provision for negotiation. The doctors would simply have to do what the government told them to do, and be paid what the government said they would be paid,” Dr. Marc Baltzan (1929–2005), a Saskatoon nephrologist and former president of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote in a 1984 article in Canadian Family Physician entitled, “Doctor/Government Fee Negotiations in Canada.”

After the act became law, unchanged, the province’s physicians closed their offices, though they still provided emergency services in hospitals. The standoff lasted 23 days, ending only after both sides compromised and signed the Saskatoon Agreement. The deal amended the act to ensure doctors would maintain their independence and could, if they wanted, opt out of medicare and bill patients directly.

The deal was brokered by Lord Stephen Taylor, a British doctor and politician who helped implement the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. Later, reflecting on his Saskatchewan adventure, Taylor wrote that much of the animosity between the two parties arose because they did not understand each other at all. The government did not anticipate how much their plan would threaten the autonomy of a proud profession. Physicians “could not believe that the government was composed of honest and responsible people.”

Taylor, a man of both medicine and government, chose to take a dispassionate view of the conflict. “I see honest men on both sides, well motivated but mystified by the actions of their opponents.”

Decades later, debate over another act — the Canada Health Act, federal legislation adopted in 1984 — again showed just how differently government and physicians can view a change to how doctors are paid. This time, the government was putting an end to extra billing by physicians. But according to Baltzan, as mentioned in his Canada Family Physician article cited above, this was merely a “political euphemism” for banning a patient’s right to be reimbursed by the government when billed directly by a doctor.

In his lament over the passing of the “deceitful bill,” Baltzan suggested that it was important to revisit the original fight over medicare in Saskatchewan because “it shows that there is nothing new under the sun: it contains all the elements of physician–government confrontation that have been replayed again and again during the Canada Health Act debate.”

Now, more than 30 years later, it might not be a stretch to say there is still nothing new under the sun regarding negotiations between doctors and government. When things go bad, as they have in Ontario, both sides sometimes resort to a little time-tested rhetoric. Then again, though some of the messages sound familiar, other elements of physician–government showdowns have changed since 1962. For one, doctors back then didn’t have Twitter accounts.

"It's now up to the government to act and decide whether it will cover the cost of certain services and the use of medical equipment in private practice, or if it wants to revise the agreement on the accessory fees with the medical federations." Under the Quebec Health and Social Services Act, doctors who work in hospitals cannot bill patients for medically necessary services. These same physicians must abide by certain conditions in their private practice, since they have not opted out of medicare. They can only charge for "medications and anesthesia agents" in private, and they are not allowed to bill patients for the use of medical equipment. However, there is one exception to the rule: private radiology clinics in Quebec can bill patients for MRI scans - a sore point with Health Canada, which has argued that the exception violates the accessibility provisions of the Canada Health Act. In addition, Quebec did negotiate with the medical federations a list of fees that are permitted, such as the use of liquid nitrogen to remove moles ($10) or the use of a topical anesthetic for a minor eye wound (also $10). Over the years, many physicians in private practice have started billing for many more items and services, sometimes prompting investigations by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ).