Connect with us

Fraser Institute

Australia’s universal health-care system outperforms Canada on key measures including wait times, costs less and includes large role for private hospitals

Published

5 minute read

The Role of Private Hospitals in Australia’s Universal Health Care System

From the Fraser Institute

by Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, provincial governments across Canada relied on private
clinics in order to deliver a limited number of publicly funded surgeries in a bid to clear unprecedented
surgical backlogs. Subsequently, surveys indicated that 78% of Canadians support allowing more
surgeries and tests performed in private clinics while 40% only support this policy to clear the
surgical backlog. While a majority of Canadians are either supportive (or at the very least curious)
about these arrangements, the use of private clinics continues to be controversial and raise questions
around their compatibility with the provision of universal care.

The reality is that private hospitals play a key role in delivering care to patients in other countries with universal health care. Canada is only one of 30 high-income countries with universal care and many of these countries involve the private-sector in their health-care systems to a wide extent while performing better than Canada.

Australia is one of these countries and routinely outperforms Canada on key indicators of health-care performance while spending at a similar or lower level. Like Canada, Australia ranked
in the top ten for health-care spending (as a percentage of GDP and per capita) in 2020. However, after adjusting for the age of the population, it outperforms Canada on 33 (of 36) measures of performance.

Importantly, Australia outperformed Canada on a number of key measures such as the availability of physicians, nurses, hospital beds, CT scanners, and MRI machines. Australia also outperformed
Canada on every indicator of timely access to care, including ease of access to after-hours care, same-day primary care appointments, and, crucially, timely access to elective surgical care and specialist appointments.

Australia’s universal system is also characterized by a deep integration between the public and private sectors in the financing and delivery of care. Universal health-insurance coverage is provided through its public system known as Medicare. However, Australia also has a large private health-care sector that also finances and delivers medical services. Around half of the Australian population (55.2% in 2021/22) benefit from private health-insurance coverage provided by 33 registered not-for-profit and for-profit private insurance companies.

Private hospitals (for profit and not for profit) made up nearly half (48.5%) of all Australian hospitals in 2016 and contain a third of all care beds. These hospitals are a major partner in the delivery of care in Australia. For example, in 2021/22 41% of all recorded episodes of hospital care occurred in private hospitals. While delivering a small minority of emergency care (8.2%), private hospitals delivered the majority of recorded elective care (58.6%) and 70.3% of elective admissions involving surgery.

Private hospitals primarily deliver care to fully funded public patients in two ways. The first is contracted
care, either through ad hoc inter-hospital contracts or formal programs. Fully publicly funded episodes of care occurring in private hospitals made up 6.4% of all care in private hospitals, while representing 2.6% of all recorded care. The second way is privately delivered care paid for through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. A full 73.5% of care paid for by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs occurred in private hospitals.

It would be easy, however, to underestimate the significance of this public-private partnership by examining only the delivery of care that is fully publicly funded. Privately insured care is also partially subsidized by the government, at a rate of 75% of the public fee. Therefore, in order to understand the full extent of publicly funded or subsidized care in private hospitals, it is helpful to examine private hospital expenditures by the source of funds. In 2019/20, 32.8% of private hospital expenditures came from government sources, 18.2% of which came from private health-insurance rebates. This means that a full
third of private hospital expenditure comes from a range of public sources, including the federal government.

Overall, private hospitals are important partners in the delivery of care within the Australian universal healthcare system. The Australian system outranks Canada’s on a range of performance indicators, while spending less as a percentage of GDP. Further, the integration of private hospitals into the delivery of care, including public care, occurs while maintaining universal access for residents.


More from this study

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

Business

New federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan

Published on

Fr0m the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

As part of his successful election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised a “very different approach” to fiscal policy than that of the Trudeau government. But when you peel back the rhetoric and look at his plan for deficits and debt, things begin to look eerily similar—if not worse.

The Carney government’s “responsible” new approach is centered around the idea of “spending less” in order to “invest more.” The government plans to separate spending into two budgets: the operating budget (which appears to include bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers and benefits) and the capital budget (which includes any spending that “builds an asset”). The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 (meaning operating spending will be fully covered by revenues) while funding the capital budget through borrowing.

Aside from the fact that this clearly complicates federal finances, this “very different” approach to spending actually represents more of the same by continuing to pursue endless borrowing and a larger role for the government in the economy.

The chart below compares projected annual federal budget balances for the next four years, from both the 2024 Fall Economic Statement (FES)—the Trudeau government’s last fiscal update—and the 2025 Liberal Party platform. Importantly, deficits from the 2025 platform show the overall budget balance including both operating and capital spending.

Let’s start with the similarities.

In its final fiscal update last fall, the Trudeau government planned to borrow tens of billions of dollars each year to fund annual spending, with no end in sight. Based on its election platform, the Carney government also plans to run multi-billion-dollar deficits each year with no plan to balance the overall budget. The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

In the current fiscal year (2025/26) the Trudeau government had planned to run a $42.2 billion deficit. The Carney government now plans to increase that deficit to $62.3 billion. Trudeau’s most recent fiscal plan forecasted annual deficits from 2025/26 to 2028/29 representing a cumulative $131.4 billion in federal government borrowing. Over that same period, the Carney government now plans to borrow a cumulative $224.8 billion.

The Carney government’s fiscal plan does include a number of tax changes that are expected to lower revenues in years to come—including (but not limited to) a personal income tax cut, the elimination of the GST for some first-time homebuyers, and the cancelling of the planned capital gains tax hike. But even if you exclude these factors from the overall budget, the Carney government still plans to borrow $52.9 billion more than the Trudeau government had planned over the next four years.

By continuing (if not worsening) this same approach of endless borrowing and rising debt, the Carney government will impose real costs on Canadians. Indeed, 16-year-olds can already expect to pay an additional $29,663 in personal income taxes over their lifetime as a result of debt accumulation under the previous federal government, before accounting for the promised increases.

One of the key promises made by Prime Minister Carney is that his government will take a different approach to fiscal policy than his predecessor. While we won’t know for certain until the new government releases its first budget, it appears this approach will continue the same costly habits of endless borrowing and rising debt.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

 

Continue Reading

Automotive

New federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution

Published on

During his victory speech Monday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated one of his favourite campaign slogans and vowed to make Canada a “clean energy superpower.” So, Canadians can expect Ottawa to “invest” more taxpayer money in “clean energy” projects including electric vehicles (EVs), the revolutionary transportation technology that’s been ready to replace internal combustion since 1901 yet still requires government subsidies.

It’s a good time for a little historical review. In 2012 south of the border, the Obama administration poured massive subsidies into companies peddling green tech, only to see a vast swath go belly up including Solyndra, would-be maker of advanced solar panels, which failed so spectacularly CNN called the company the “poster child for well-meaning government policy gone bad.”

One might think that such a spectacular failure might have served as a cautionary tale for today’s politicians. But one would be wrong. Even as the EV transition slammed into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government poured $5 billion in subsidies into Honda to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. That “investment” came on top of a long list of other “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution; $13 billion for Volkswagen (or $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

How’s all that working out? Not great.

“Projects announced for Canada’s EV supply chain are in various states of operation, and many remain years away from production,” notes automotive/natural resource reporter Gabriel Friedman, writing in the Financial Post. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada, only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”

In 2023, Volkswagen said it would invest $7 billion by 2030 to build a battery cell manufacturing complex in St. Thomas, Ontario. However, Friedman notes “construction of the VW plant is not scheduled to begin until this spring [2025] and initial cell production will not begin for years.” Or ever, if Donald Trump’s pledge to end U.S. government support for a broad EV transition comes to pass.

In the meantime, other elements of Canada’s “clean tech” future are also in doubt. In December 2024, Saint-Jérome, Que.-based Lion Electric Co., which had received $100 million in provincial and government support to assemble batteries in Canada for electric school buses and trucks, said it would file for bankruptcy in the United States and creditor protection in Canada. And Ford Motor Company last summer scrapped its planned EV assembly plant in Oakville, Ontario—after $640 million in federal and provincial support.

And of course, there’s Canada’s own poster-child-of-clean-tech-subsidy failure, Northvolt. According to the CBC, the Swedish battery manufacturer, with plans to build a $7 billion factory in Quebec, has declared bankruptcy in Sweden, though Northvolt claims that its North American operations are “solvent.” That’s cold comfort to some Quebec policymakers: “We’re going to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a bet that our government in Quebec made on a poorly negotiated investment,” said Parti Québécois MNA Pascal Paradis.

Elections often bring about change. If the Carney government wants to change course and avoid more clean-tech calamities, it should pull the plug on the EV revolution and avoid any more electro-boondoggles.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X