Connect with us

Fraser Institute

Other countries with universal health care don’t have Canada’s long wait times

Published

5 minute read

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.

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

CPP another example of Albertans’ outsized contribution to Canada

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Amid the economic uncertainty fuelled by Trump’s trade war, its perhaps more important than ever to understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation and its outsized contribution to programs such as the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

From 1981 to 2022, Albertan’s net contribution to the CPP—meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta received in CPP payments—was $53.6 billion. In 2022 (the latest year of available data), Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP was $3.0 billion.

During that same period (1981 to 2022), British Columbia was the only other province where residents paid more into the CPP than retirees received in benefits—and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than B.C.’s contribution. Put differently, residents in seven out of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP (Quebec has its own plan) receive more back in benefits than they contribute to the program.

Albertans pay an outsized contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP because of the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and younger population (i.e. more workers pay into the CPP and less retirees take from it).

Put simply, Albertan workers have been helping fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and without Alberta, the CPP would look much different.

How different?

If Alberta withdrew from the CPP and established its own standalone provincial pension plan, Alberta workers would receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower CPP contribution rate deducted from our paycheques) than other Canadians, while the contribution rate—essentially the CPP tax rate—to fund the program would likely need to increase for the rest of the country to maintain the same benefits.

And given current demographic projections, immigration patterns and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers will likely continue to pay more into the CPP than Albertan retirees get back from it.

Therefore, considering Alberta’s crucial role in national programs, the next federal government—whoever that may be—should undo and prevent policies that negatively impact the province and Albertans ability to contribute to Canada. Think of Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Canada faces serious economic challenges, including a trade war with the United States. In times like this, it’s important to remember Alberta’s crucial role in the federation and the outsized contributions of Alberta workers to the wellbeing of Canadians across the country.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Homebuilding in Canada stalls despite population explosion

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Austin Thompson and Steven Globerman

Between 1972 and 2019, Canada’s population increased by 1.8 residents for every new housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents in 2024. In other words, Canada must now house more than twice as many new residents per new housing unit as it did during the five decades prior to the pandemic

In many parts of Canada, the housing affordability crisis continues with no end in sight. And many Canadians, priced out of the housing market or struggling to afford rent increases, are left wondering how much longer this will continue.

Simply put, too few housing units are being built for the country’s rapidly growing population, which has exploded due to record-high levels of immigration and the federal government’s residency policies.

As noted in a new study published by the Fraser Institute, the country added an all-time high 1.2 million new residents in 2023—more than double the previous record in 2019—and another 951,000 new residents in 2024. Altogether, Canada’s population has grown by about 3 million people since 2022—roughly matching the total population increase during the 1990s.

Meanwhile, homebuilding isn’t keeping up. In 2024, construction started on roughly 245,000 new housing units nationwide—down from a recent peak of 272,000 in 2021. By contrast, in the 1970s construction started on more than 240,000 housing units (on average) per year—when Canada’s population grew by approximately 280,000 people annually.

In fact, between 1972 and 2019, Canada’s population increased by 1.8 residents for every new housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents in 2024. In other words, Canada must now house more than twice as many new residents per new housing unit as it did during the five decades prior to the pandemic. And of course, housing follows the laws of supply and demand—when a lot more prospective buyers and renters chase a limited supply of new homes, prices increase.

This key insight should guide the policy responses from all levels of government.

For example, the next federal government—whoever that may be—should avoid policies that merely fuel housing demand such as home savings accounts. And provincial governments (including in Ontario and British Columbia) should scrap any policies that discourage new housing supply such as rent controls, which reduce incentives to build rental housing. At the municipal level, governments across the country should ensure that permit approval timelines and building fees do not discourage builders from breaking ground. Increasing housing supply is, however, only part of the solution. The next federal government should craft immigration and residency policies so population growth doesn’t overwhelm available housing supply, driving up costs for Canadians.

It’s hard to predict how long Canada’s housing affordability crisis will last. But without more homebuilding, slower population growth, or both, there’s little reason to expect affordability woes to subside anytime soon.

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X