Surgical backlog must not be fixed at the expense of the healthcare system


Leave a Comment

Enter the debate: reply to an existing comment
7 comments

  1. Linda Jurick

    Canadian medical centers and Canadian University Health Centers are politically heavy and they have a poor understanding of the financial / operational realities of the peri-operative event. This event begins when a person is alerted by a health problem and ends when his health problem is resolved. It is not a simple event or an inexpensive one. However, a well managed peri-operative event is significantly less costly than a badly managed one.

    For decades now, the debates have been about public vs private. Wash, rinse, repeat – obviously, this is not the debate – if it were we would not be in the situation that we are in, the one that looks the same or worse as the one Canadians were in, in 1991. Neither public or private surgery centers will excel at comprehensive, accessible and sustainable peri-operative care without mastering the market.

    It is time that Canadians discussed the surgery market. After all, surgeons are private corporations (for profit inc), suppliers are private corporations (technology, infrastructure, pharma, supplies/materials, prosthetic devices and implants) and referring physicians are private corporations. Furthermore, insurance companies are also stakeholders, as they are expected to support employees and employers during the recovery and rehab phases of healing. Insurance Companies are very profitable corporations. The only publicly run component is the hospital. Yes, Yes…I feel you – the above private inc. examples are paid with public funds…indeed, they are – still, they are for profit corporations, the ones listed in your mutual funds, ex: GE, Merk Frosst, Telus, Philips, Medtronic, Power Corporation, Johnson & Johnson to name a few. Research, Faculties, Foundations and patients are beneficiaries.

    So, lets have a debate about How to do healthcare well in Canada. For profit organizations are not the problem. They are not the ones causing long wait times and budget deficits. Poor management and politics in our public institutions are the cause of these.

    Public funding of Healthcare is desired. Government oversight of facilities providing care is desired. As for the choice of providers, let’s give that to the consumers. The persons that benefits from the intervention.

    What do you think?

    • Nikos Christodoulou

      Yes the for profit organisations are the problem. The best example is the one south of the border. When profit is the motivator the patient never receives the best care. It receives what is best for the investor who owns the health care center. The deaths in the long term care facilities in Ontario were overwhelmingly in for profit units. What is needed is the Feds to increase their share of money they transfer to provinces for medical care. It used be 50% now it is in the order of 15 or 16% if I am not wrong. So the main burden is on the provinces to come up with most of the money and obviously it is leading many of them to resort to private care options.

  2. Nikos Christodoulou

    Thank you for this excellent article. I did my part and posted on my FB page and send it as an email to friends.
    I hate to see our public health care system slowly eroded by conservative/republican type efforts and make it look like that huge mess south of the border. In the US the insurance companies have made billions during the pandemic by collecting premiums but not actually spending on any treatments because people are afraid to go to the doctor or the hospital.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/14/us-health-insurers-coronavirus-pandemic-profit

    • LYsanne

      Nikos- agreed. I added a comment – not sure if they will posted .

  3. Muriel Smith

    I absolutely agree with you. One of the problems is that mdical personnel are educated with a large input of public funds. The number of trained professionals is limited. If many are lured to work for the private system who can afford to charge more, they will disproportionately service those with greater means, and leaving the public system to serve the less fortunate, with fewer staff. This will inevitably lead to a two-tiered health system.

  4. Muriel Smith

    I absolutely agree with you. One of the problems is that mdical personnel are educated with a large input of public funds. The number of trained professionals is limited. If many are lured to work for the private system who can afford to charge more, they will disproportionately service those with greater means, and leaving the public system to serve the less fortunate, with fewer staff. This will inevitably lead to a two-tiered health system.

    • Lysanne

      Excellent point Muriel. And why choose a long term/infrastructure type solution to a short term problem. There is another agenda indeed. As Nikos – let’s be smarter than our neighbor below and stick with our society’s vision of fundamental right to medical care for all regardless of your income.

Submit a comment