Healthy Debate
  • Search
  • Health topics
  • Debates
  • Special Series
  • All topics
  • All articles
Most popular today
  • COVID-19 (567)
  • Vaccines (140)
  • Opioids (52)
  • Cancer (162)
  • Addiction (174)
  • Racism (39)
  • Alcohol (23)
  • Infectious Disease (685)
  • Marijuana (23)
  • Tobacco (22)
  • Aging (213)
  • Dementia (46)
  • Long-Term Care (84)
  • Children and Youth (277)
  • Education (384)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Depression (26)
  • Misinformation (110)
  • Nursing (29)
  • End of Life (183)
  • In Memoriam (5)
  • MAiD (33)
  • Environment (69)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • About
  • Subscribe
Opinion
Aug 10, 2012
by Irfan Dhalla

Thanks for paying to have my teeth cleaned

7 Comments
Share on:

So far this year, I’ve visited my dentist and optometrist once each for routine checkups. As most people know, the Ontario government does not pay for routine dentistry and optometry for most people. Or at least this is what we think. Indirectly, the government shoulders a significant portion of the cost. In other words, most of you chipped in to pay for my teeth to be cleaned.

How did you end up paying? My private health insurance plan reimburses me for dentistry and optometry, as well as prescription drugs and other health care services. But health insurance premiums aren’t taxed the way the rest of income is. In Canada, when a partnership or corporation pays for health insurance, the contributions are taxed neither in the employer’s hands nor in the beneficiary’s hands.

Consider this scenario. If an employee in the highest tax bracket purchases a health insurance policy that costs $2000, that premium would represent about $3700 in pre-tax income. In other words, this employee would pay $1700 in income tax and have $2000 left to buy health insurance. But if the employer pays the $2000 premium and gives the employee $1700 in cash, the employee pays only about $800 in income tax. This means the government has to collect $900 more from everyone else.

Several economists have told me that this is very bad tax policy. First of all, it results in people receiving private health insurance for things they don’t really need (e.g., chiropractic, naturopathy, massage, etc.) because it is cheaper for employers to provide bloated private health insurance than it is to pay higher wages. Second, the “tax expenditure” is bigger for those with high incomes than it is for people with low incomes. If the government decided to make income tax rates 40% for the poor and 10% for the rich, most people would feel that was very unfair. But “tax expenditures” such as the private health insurance subsidy have a very similar effect.

People without private health insurance – most taxi drivers, house cleaners and nannies, for example – are disadvantaged the most by the private health insurance subsidy. They have no private health insurance themselves, yet they still end up subsidizing everyone else’s coverage.

Of course, the private health insurance subsidy does result in more people being covered for prescription drugs and other health care than would otherwise be the case. This is undoubtedly a good thing. But the cost is high – the federal government alone left more than $3 billion on the table in 2011 by not taxing private health insurance contributions made by employers.

I have brought this issue up, in passing, in both a newspaper article and in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Many others have discussed the private health insurance subsidy too. Yet the issue doesn’t seem to get much attention. I am not sure why, but I have two theories. The first is that it is too complicated. Even writing about it makes my head spin, and I always wonder whether I’m getting some of the details wrong. The second is that there are no powerful interest groups with an interest in eliminating the private health insurance subsidy.

But that doesn’t change the fact that subsidizing private health insurance the way we do in Canada is almost certainly not good public policy.

Share on:
Author

Irfan Dhalla

Contributor

Irfan is a Staff Physician in the of Department of Medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital and Vice President, Physician Quality and Director, Care Experience Institute at Unity Health Toronto. Irfan also continues to practice general internal medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital.

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more

The comments section is closed.

7 Comments
  • Ann Silversides says:
    December 3, 2016 at 11:30 am

    I seem to recall (UBC health economist) Bob Evans (also) talking about this very issue about 30 years ago (or more). His ground breaking book Strained Mercy was a primer on so many of these issues. Now, An Undisciplined Economist is waiting at home for me to read. …..

  • Andrew Leach says:
    December 3, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Well done for making a complex subject (almost) comprehensible to Mr. Average, and, in doing so, exposing the inequity of the hidden tax/ subsidy.Is it surprising that this benefits a silent rich(er) group?

  • Barry says:
    August 12, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    I’ve been trying to tell my patients for years to buy Aleve for $5 instead of a script for identical naproxen for $50. They always say “but the prescription is covered” and I try in vain to explain that in the end we all pay… They never listen. Thx Irfan for the ammo

  • Ryan Herriot says:
    August 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Nice teeth.

  • James Elliott says:
    August 10, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I think one issue here is that if governments can afford to indirectly subsidize mid-to-high income earners on services that treat problems that are not “life and death” serious, it cannot turn around and say there is no money for…

    – Addiction services
    – Mental health
    – Chiropody and podiatry for people with diabetes
    – Food security
    – Drugs

    And many other services which are often paid out of pocket by the most vulnerable citizens and are much more necessary than a twice a year dental cleaning. That’s my read anyways.

    • TapOff says:
      August 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm

      James Elliot:
      Do you have a proposal to make changes?
      My read is that if the private CORPORATE Insurance subsidies are withdrawn, there will be a large amount of push back very similar (only worse) to what happened in Ontario when the recent changes to drug plans occurred and the Pharmacies began to withdraw delivery services, surcharged anything they legally could, manipulated supply for whatever they could and launched the nastiest most COSTLY counter attack NEGATIVE ADVERTISING campaign against the province and the health providers it could. THEN it would change all the HEALTH COVERAGE policies to look a lot more AMERICAN. After all insurance companies are the fastest growing financial institutions in this country **now**.
      Maybe those who have the support of the subsidized insurance policies or should begin to make ***very regular contributions*** to funds to help the more marginalized get what the others who DO NOT have those …..” problems that are not “life and death” serious ” … issues and perhaps the odd massage and physio appointment for the strains of mopping floors, hoisting heavy equipment or dealing with violent -abusive individuals/bosses…”

  • Marella says:
    August 10, 2012 at 11:21 am

    Very interesting…although I think suggesting that chiropractic, naturopathy and massage and things that people don’t need is a little short sighted. These treatments are used effectively to heal as well as prevent disease and pain, in the long term costing our public health system less in amounts of joint related surgeries, heart disease, diabetes and evidence is starting to suggest cancer and other chronic illnesses. All of the above treatments that can be covered by extended health care plans have ample scientific research to support their method and the benefits physiological as well as economically.

Author

Irfan Dhalla

Contributor

Irfan is a Staff Physician in the of Department of Medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital and Vice President, Physician Quality and Director, Care Experience Institute at Unity Health Toronto. Irfan also continues to practice general internal medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital.

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more

Donate to Healthy Debate

Your support allows us to publish journalism about healthcare in Canada that is free to read and free to republish. Donations are tax-deductible.

Donate

Join the mailing list

Sign up below to receive our newsletter every Thursday morning.

You can republish our articles online or in print for free. Read more.

Republish us
  • About
  • Contribute
  • Contact
  • Community Guidelines
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Republish this article

  1. Please use the invisible republishing code below on the page where you republish this article.
  2. Please give credit to Healthy Debate and include a link back to our home page or the article URL . Our preference is a credit at the top of the article and that you include our logo  (available by clicking the link below).

Please read the full set of instructions for republication here.