Connect with us

Alberta

Alberta government must further restrain spending to stabilize provincial finances

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

This year, program spending will reach a projected $14,334 per Albertan, which is $1,603 more per person (inflation-adjusted) than the Smith government originally planned to spend this year as outlined in the 2022 mid-year budget update.

Despite recording a $4.3 billion surplus last year, Premier Danielle Smith remains committed to a new approach to Alberta finances that relies less heavily on resource revenue, which includes restraining spending levels below the rate of inflation and population growth. That’s a big step forward, but is it enough to stabilize Alberta’s boom and bust rollercoaster?

First, some background.

After nearly a decade and a half of routine budget deficits, Alberta swung to a budget surplus when resource revenue (which includes includes oil and gas royalties) skyrocketed from $3.1 billion in 2020/21 to $16.2 billion in 2021/22. In 2022/23, the government enjoyed the highest level of resource revenue on record and relatively high levels have continued in recent years. Correspondingly, Alberta’s surpluses have continued.

Alberta governments have a habit of increasing spending during times of high resource revenue, such as the province is currently experiencing, to levels that are unsustainable without incurring deficits when resource revenue inevitably declines. That’s why the Smith government’s commitment to spending restraint is an important one.

Unfortunately, however, due to the Smith government’s spending increases in previous years, this restraint won’t go as far in stabilizing provincial finances. Moreover, there are a number of limitations and exceptions to these new spending rules that may impede their effectiveness.

Consider that this year, program spending will reach a projected $14,334 per Albertan, which is $1,603 more per person (inflation-adjusted) than the Smith government originally planned to spend this year as outlined in the 2022 mid-year budget update.

As shown above, program spending (inflation-adjusted) will reach a projected $14,041 per person in 2025/26 and a projected $13,750 per person in 2026/27, which is equivalent to per-person increases of $1,571 and $1,538, respectively, compared to the original plan in 2022.

So while per-person (inflation-adjusted) spending is set to decline, which aligns with the Smith government’s commitment, this restraint is starting from a higher base level due to spending decisions thus far. That means more work needs to be done to rein in spending.

Indeed, for perspective, if the Smith government had simply stuck to its original plan, spending would be closely aligned with stable, more predictable sources of revenue. And ultimately, that’s the way to avoid deficits.

There’s also several limitations and exceptions for the government’s new spending rule. For example, the spending limit applies only to “operating expense,” which does not include longer-term spending, disaster and emergency assistance, spending related to dedicated revenue, or contingencies. As a result of various limits and exceptions, total program spending growth in 2023/24 exceeds inflation and population growth by 1.8 percentage points. Put simply, these limitations and exceptions add to the risk of budget deficits.

Sustainable finances have been impeded by increases in per person spending since 2022. So while the Smith government deserves credit for its commitment to restrain spending moving forward, Alberta’s fiscal challenges aren’t over.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X