Fraser Institute
Other countries with universal health care don’t have Canada’s long wait times
From the Fraser Institute
By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua
Unfortunately it’s now very common to see stories about how long provincial wait times for medical care are driving patients to seek care elsewhere, often at great personal cost. Take the recent case of the Milburns in Manitoba who, after waiting years for a knee surgery, are now considering selling their home and moving to Alberta just to get on a potentially shorter public wait list.
Patients in Manitoba could expect to wait a median of 29 weeks to see an orthopedic specialist after a referral from a family physician, then they still faced a median 24.4 week wait to get treatment. In other words, the total typical wait for orthopedic surgery in the province is more than one year at 53.4 weeks. Remember, that’s a median measure, which means some patients wait much longer.
Unfortunately, the Milburns are unlikely to get more timely care on the public wait list in Alberta. At 64.1 weeks, the total median wait for orthopedic care in Alberta was actually longer than in Manitoba. And this doesn’t include the time it takes for provincial coverage to activate for a new provincial resident, or the time it will take to find a new family doctor and get the necessary tests, scans and referrals.
To get more timely care, the Milburns are left with unenviable options. Because they’re insured by Manitoba’s public health-care plan, paying for covered care out of pocket is restricted. They can, however, pay for and receive care privately in other provinces as uninsured visitors (i.e. not move there permanently). Specifically, certain provinces have “exemptions” that allow physicians to charge out-of-province patients directly to provide these procedures privately.
Alternatively, the Milburns could leave Canada and travel even further from home to receive timely care abroad.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Long wait times are not the necessary price Canadians must pay for universal coverage. In fact, Canada is one of 30 high-income countries with universal health care. Other countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia have much shorter wait times. For example, only 62 per cent of Canadians reported access to non-emergency surgery in less than four months in 2020 compared to 99 per cent of Germans, 94 per cent of Swiss and 72 per cent of Australians.
The difference? These countries approach health care in a fundamentally different way than us. One notable difference is their attitude towards the private sector.
In Germany, patients can seek private care while still insured by the public system or can opt out and purchase regulated private coverage. These approaches (universal, privately paid or privately insured) are able to deliver rapid access to care. The Swiss simply mandate that patients purchase private insurance in a regulated-but-competitive marketplace as part of their universal scheme. Lower-income families receive a subsidy so they can participate on a more equal footing in the competitive marketplace to obtain the insurance that best fits their needs.
Perhaps the most direct comparator to Canada is Australia—not just geographically, but because it also primarily relies on a tax-funded universal health-care system. However, unlike Canada, individuals can purchase private insurance to cover (among other things) care received as a private patient in a public or private hospital, or simply pay for their private care directly if they choose. In 2021/22 more than two-thirds (70 per cent) of non-emergency admissions to a hospital involving surgery (both publicly and privately funded) took place in a private facility.
Of course, these faster-access countries share other differences in attitudes to universal health-care policy including requirements to share the cost of care for patients and funding hospitals on the basis of activity (instead of Canada’s outdated bureaucratically-determined budgets). A crucial difference, however, is that patients are not generally prevented from paying privately for health care in their home province (or canton or state) in any of these countries.
Without fundamental reform, and as provincial systems continue to struggle to provide basic non-emergency care, we’ll continue to see more stories like the Milburn’s. Without reform, many Canadians will continue to be forced to make similarly absurd decisions to get the care they need, rather than focusing on treatment and recovery.
Authors:
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
From the Fraser Institute
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.
Mackenzie Moir
Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Business1 day agoEU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Canadian Energy Centre1 day agoCross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project
-
Economy1 day agoCarney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
-
Alberta1 day ago
Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy
-
conflict6 hours ago“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command
-
Crime1 day agoManhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband
-
Business21 hours agoCarney’s European pivot could quietly reshape Canada’s sovereignty