Government meddling contributes to doctor exodus in Quebec

They have not left Quebec’s health-care system but rather have opted out of the province’s publicly-financed framework to provide care to their patients privately.

Quebec’s health minister recently came under fire after reports revealed a record number of physicians left the province’s public system to practise privately. Less discussed are the reasons why physicians made this choice.

Indeed, it turns out that ill-conceived attempts to protect publicly-funded health care by the Trudeau government and successive provincial governments may have contributed to the increasing numbers of physicians opting-out.

To be clear, the 780 physicians in question account for about four per cent of physicians in the province. However, this represents a 22 per cent increase in the number of physicians leaving the public system compared to the previous year—and is part of a growing trend. More importantly, they have not left Quebec’s health-care system but rather have opted out of the province’s publicly-financed framework to provide care to their patients privately.

Why?

One reason, is because governments have forced them to do so.

Until recently, physicians in Quebec (including those who practiced in the public sector) were allowed to charge patients so-called “accessory-fees” in certain instances—for example, if the service was either not covered or insufficiently reimbursed by the government’s fee schedule.

However, the federal Canada Health Act (CHA) clearly states that “extra-billing” of this nature, when charged by physicians who also bill the public system, must result in dollar-for-dollar deductions in federal health-care transfer payments to the province. In other words, the CHA encourages provincial efforts to effectively force doctors to choose between the public and private system if any out-of-pocket expenses are involved.

And so, under financial threat by the Trudeau government, Quebec eventually clamped down on such fees charged by physicians who worked in the public system.

Consequently, physicians who relied on these payments to cover a portion of their operating costs faced an unfortunate choice—stay in the public system at the risk of financial ruin or opt-out entirely and practise exclusively in the private sector.

For many, the choice was obvious. One study found that by 2019 “an additional 69 specialist physicians opted out after the 2017 clampdown on double billing [sic] than previous trends would have predicted.” Several clinics offering endoscopy and colonoscopy services simply closed their doors. Quebecers also ended up with a less convenient health-care experience following this clamp down, as evidenced by the reduction in clinic-provided services that followed.

This attitude to extra-billing stands in stark contrast to the situation in other universal health-care countries such as Australia where consultations with specialists are usually only partially (85 per cent) covered by the universal plan. In fact, physicians (family doctors and specialists) can generally set fees above the government’s fee schedule so long as they forgo the convenience of directly billing the government (i.e. patients claim reimbursement after the fact). Notably, Australia’s health-care system costs less than Canada’s in total (including these private payments) yet delivers more rapid access to health-care services with a greater availability of medical professionals, hospital beds, and diagnostic and surgical technologies.

More generally, a recent study found 22 of 28 universal health-care countries require patients to share a portion of the cost of treatment (with generous protections for vulnerable groups). These include deductibles (an amount individuals must pay before insurance coverage kicks in), co-insurance payments (the patient pays a certain percentage of treatment cost) and copayments (the patient pays a fixed amount per treatment). Crucially, many of these countries including Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have shorter wait times than we endure.

In these countries, physicians are also generally allowed to practise both in publicly-funded universal settings and private settings (a policy known as “dual practice”) rather than having their activities restricted to one setting only. In other words, Canada’s federal restrictions on cost-sharing and extra-billing (such as Quebec’s accessory fees) and provincial barriers to dual-practice place our universal system in the minority of a small cohort of countries that are not particularly known for stellar performance.

The looming threat of further reductions in federal cash transfers, under the CHA, has led to provinces such as Quebec imposing increasingly restrictive conditions on physicians in the public system. And in response, physicians—by opting-out—are indicating that they’ve had enough.

It’s ironic that the very groups intent on supposedly “protecting public health care” by forcing physicians to choose between the public and private systems have enforced policies that may very well lead to the public system’s continued demise.

Authors:

Bacchus Barua and Yanick Labrie

Related Topics:#BacchusBarua #FraserInstitute #YanickLabrie PublicVSPrivateHealthCare QuebecDoctorExodus QuebecHealthCare

Up Next

Court strikes secret police recording from trial and dismisses all charges against protestor

Don't Miss

1,000 UK doctors condemn medical association’s push to lift puberty blocker ban for minors

Todayville

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

Carney praises Trump’s world ‘leadership’ at G7 meeting in Canada

Business / 7 hours ago

Carney’s Honeymoon Phase Enters a ‘Make-or-Break’ Week

Energy / 7 hours ago

Kananaskis G7 meeting the right setting for U.S. and Canada to reassert energy ties

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Fraser Institute

Long waits for health care hit Canadians in their pocketbooks

Published on June 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

Canadians continue to endure long wait times for health care. And while waiting for care can obviously be detrimental to your health and wellbeing, it can also hurt your pocketbook.

In 2024, the latest year of available data, the median wait—from referral by a family doctor to treatment by a specialist—was 30 weeks (including 15 weeks waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist). And last year, an estimated 1.5 million Canadians were waiting for care.

It’s no wonder Canadians are frustrated with the current state of health care.

Again, long waits for care adversely impact patients in many different ways including physical pain, psychological distress and worsened treatment outcomes as lengthy waits can make the treatment of some problems more difficult. There’s also a less-talked about consequence—the impact of health-care waits on the ability of patients to participate in day-to-day life, work and earn a living.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, wait times for non-emergency surgery cost Canadian patients $5.2 billion in lost wages in 2024. That’s about $3,300 for each of the 1.5 million patients waiting for care. Crucially, this estimate only considers time at work. After also accounting for free time outside of work, the cost increases to $15.9 billion or more than $10,200 per person.

Of course, some advocates of the health-care status quo argue that long waits for care remain a necessary trade-off to ensure all Canadians receive universal health-care coverage. But the experience of many high-income countries with universal health care shows the opposite.

Despite Canada ranking among the highest spenders (4th of 31 countries) on health care (as a percentage of its economy) among other developed countries with universal health care, we consistently rank among the bottom for the number of doctors, hospital beds, MRIs and CT scanners. Canada also has one of the worst records on access to timely health care.

So what do these other countries do differently than Canada? In short, they embrace the private sector as a partner in providing universal care.

Australia, for instance, spends less on health care (again, as a percentage of its economy) than Canada, yet the percentage of patients in Australia (33.1 per cent) who report waiting more than two months for non-emergency surgery was much higher in Canada (58.3 per cent). Unlike in Canada, Australian patients can choose to receive non-emergency surgery in either a private or public hospital. In 2021/22, 58.6 per cent of non-emergency surgeries in Australia were performed in private hospitals.

But we don’t need to look abroad for evidence that the private sector can help reduce wait times by delivering publicly-funded care. From 2010 to 2014, the Saskatchewan government, among other policies, contracted out publicly-funded surgeries to private clinics and lowered the province’s median wait time from one of the longest in the country (26.5 weeks in 2010) to one of the shortest (14.2 weeks in 2014). The initiative also reduced the average cost of procedures by 26 per cent.

Canadians are waiting longer than ever for health care, and the economic costs of these waits have never been higher. Until policymakers have the courage to enact genuine reform, based in part on more successful universal health-care systems, this status quo will continue to cost Canadian patients.