Virtual care will break the Canada Health Act—and that’s a good thing

From the Fraser Institute

The leadership of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is facing sharp criticism for its recent proposal to effectively ban private payment for virtual care. In a clear example of putting politics before patients, this would only erect additional barriers for those seeking care.

Moreover, it’s a desperate bid to cling to an outdated—and failed—model of health care while underestimating modern-day innovations.

Virtual care—online video doctor consultations—is a private-sector innovation. In response to our government system’s inability to provide timely care, private companies such as Maple have been offering these services to Canadians for almost a decade. In fact, the public system only pushed meaningfully into the virtual space during COVID when it established partnerships with these private companies alongside setting up new fee codes for virtual consultations.

In return for improving access to physician consultations for thousands of Canadians, these virtual care companies have been rewarded with increased government scrutiny and red tape. The weapon of choice? The Canada Health Act (CHA).

Specifically, sections 18 to 21 of the CHA prohibit user fees and extra billing for “medically necessary” services. Further, the insurance plan of a province must be publicly administered and provide “reasonable access” to 100 per cent of insured services. Provinces found in violation are punished by the federal government, which withholds a portion (or all) of federal health-care transfer payments.

Until recently, there had been no obvious conflict between the CHA and privately paid-for virtual care—primarily because the provinces are free to determine what’s medically necessary. Until recently, many provinces did not even have billing codes for virtual care. As virtual services are increasingly provided by the public sector, however, the ability to innovatively provide care for paying patients (either out-of-pocket or through private insurance) becomes restricted further.

Within this context, the CMA recently recommended formally including virtual care services within the public system, alongside measures to ensure “equitable access.” At the same time, it reiterated its recommendation that private insurance to access medically necessary services covered by the CHA be prohibited.

See where this is going?

The kicker is an additional recommendation banning dual practice (i.e. physicians working in both the public and private sector) except under certain conditions. This means doctors in the public system who could otherwise allocate their spare hours to private appointments online would now have to choose to operate exclusively in either the public or private system.

The combined effect of these policies would ensure that innovative private options for virtual care—whether paid for out-of-pocket or though private insurance—will either be overtaken by bureaucracies or disappear entirely.

But what the CMA report fails to recognize is that virtual care has expanded access to services the government fails to provide—there’s little reason to suspect a government takeover of the virtual-care sector will make things better for patients. And even if governments could somehow prevent Canadian doctors and companies providing these services privately, virtual care is not beholden to Canada’s physical borders. Patients with a little bit of technical knowhow will simply bypass the Canadian system entirely by having virtual consultations with doctors abroad. If Canadians can figure out how to access their favourite show in another country, you can be sure they’ll find a way to get a consultation with a doctor in Mumbai instead of Montreal.

Instead of forcing physicians and patients to operate within the crumbling confines of government-run health care, the CMA’s leadership should be grateful for the pressure valve that the private sector has produced. We should celebrate the private innovators who have provided Canadians better access to health care, not finding ways to shut them down in favour of more government control.

Author:

Bacchus Barua

Up Next

Who Is Directing The War On Agriculture And Nutrition?

Don't Miss

‘Third Rail’: Here’s Why Team Kamala Isn’t Peddling The Typical Dem Climate Panic This Election

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

Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit

conflict / 8 hours ago

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

conflict / 9 hours ago

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

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.