Some sources have 'studies' and 'statistics' that show one thing, and other source has something that says the exact opposite. For example, I researched some news articles on Canada's expenses, quality of care, waiting periods, and it doesn't seem all that bad.
However, the Frasur Institute of Canada quotes the Canadian Medical Association as saying the waiting lines are becomming "unconsciounably long" and that canada uses dilapidated, old technology in addition to ever-increasingly strict rationing. I see this organization quoted often with its statistics.
For example, it claims:
1. "Canada ranked 24th out of 27 OECD countries in 2002 for the number of doctors per 1,000 population. It had 2.3 compared with an OECD average of 2.9"
2. "As for waiting periods: "the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery, the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family doctor through to surgery was 17.7 weeks, a significantly more than the 16 weeks found in 2001. Median waiting times remain higher in every category than are deemed ‘clinically reasonable’ median waiting times by physicians in 2005. (Fraser Institute, 2005, Chart 14.) Overall, 85 per cent of median waiting times are higher than clinically reasonable waiting times. (Fraser Institute, p. 27.)"
3. "An assessment in 2000 by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) argued that shortages have led to an “unconscionable” delay in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and debilitating bone and joint ailments (Gratzer, 2002, p. 88 ). “We’re
not talking about Ferraris and Lamborghinis here,” according to Dr Hugh Scully, the head of the CMA. “We’re talking about the Chevrolets and the Fords that are necessary to make it [diagnosis] accessible and reasonable for everybody. To use Dr Phil Malpass’ phrase, medicare is “functionally obsolete”
4. I don't know if this is true, or how to counter it, but they claim: "The Canada Health Act explicitly forbids any Canadian from
buying from the private sector a medical service that is already covered under the public health system. Private insurance plans are not allowed to cover “core services” and may only cover “non-core services.” As a result, the role of private medical insurance in Canada is
limited to supplemental care. The role of the private sector is further discouraged by the regulation of private physician practice and private insurance plans."
5. Their 'studies' seem to suggest that, of those polled, most favour the addition of user fees and private insurance. "In 2002 the Canadian Medical Association sponsored a poll on user fees. Its results were far from expected; 57 per cent supported user fees (Gratzer, 2002, p. 19). A further Michael poll in August 2001 found that a clear majority of Canadians support both user fees and a private insurance option. (A first,
similar poll in 1991 found only a small percentage of the public accepting such ideas.) (Gratzer, 2002)
The 2005 Health Care in Canada survey by the public opinion research firm POLLARA shows that 49 per cent of the public said they would be willing to make out-of-pocket payments to purchase faster access to health care. A majority also believe that expanding
private insurance would: result in shorter waiting times (68 per cent), provide better access to healthcare (59 per cent) and improve quality (60 per cent)."
This rather seems to be a concise summary of the "findings" and so-called "mythbusting."
1. The Canadian system has many fans, and not just within Canada. Like the NHS to Britons, medicare is a quasi-religion to Canadians. Both systems are regularly subject to the claim that they are the best in the world. And just as the main argument in defence of the NHS is that it is free at the point of use, and as such theoretically the most equitable
system possible, so the argument goes that, in comparison with the market model of the US, the Canadian system places a justified premium on fairness.
• Canadians have traditionally mistrusted the involvement of the market in health care. Comparison with the US is geographically and ideologically understandable, but unfortunate. Firstly because opinion of US health care is largely based on myth (many Americans believe these myths too), and secondly, because Canadian system performance should be assessed by looking at other publicly funded systems.
Unfortunately – as with the NHS – the practice leaves much to be desired. Both the NHS and medicare have founding and guiding principles which they systematically fail to meet or abide by. Hence the charge in Canada that “everything is free but nothing is
accessible”.
• Gratzer (2001) highlights three problems within the Canadian single-payer (government) healthcare model. First, accountability is poor and aggravated by the Federal structure. Second, decision-making is politicised. Third, single-payer government control leads to a lack of innovation. These three lead to a lack of responsiveness to
patient needs or wants.
• Aba et al (2002) argue that Canadian health care is inefficient in that financing (lack of direct payment) does not encourage users and providers of health care to be accountable for the economic benefits and costs of services.
• Single-payer tax financed healthcare lends itself to rationing. Waiting times (owing to rationing by queuing) are a serious concern to Canadians. These are often caused by the lack of availability to medical technology. Again, this is reminiscent of the UK: A recently released report from the UK Audit Commission (2002) reveals “there are relatively short waits for general X-rays but waiting times for some other examinations
are excessive. For example, the average wait for general ultrasound is eight weeks and 20 weeks for MRI scans, with a quarter million people waiting for these examinations alone. Tellingly, usage of different items of equipment varies by a factor of two or more across similar departments. For example, some MRI scanners are used for 4,000 examinations a
year, but others are used for fewer than 2,000 examinations”. Such scenarios can be found with ease in the Canadian press.
• Despite poor availability in Canada of advanced medical technology, international comparison reveals pretty good healthcare outcomes – generally better than those in the USA and the UK and more akin to those associated with high spending European social insurance systems such as France and Switzerland (OECD). Life expectancy is high, cancer survival rates are good and deaths from IHD and stroke are average.
• So yes, it ‘works’, in that on many measures it delivers a broadly acceptable level of healthcare. But so much depends on what one wants from a health system. On most objective measures the Canadian system at best disappoints, and at worst is simply unacceptable in a wealthy, modern nation, particularly when expenditure is considered. The Dutch with their highly regulated system have recently begun to feel this more
strongly and look set to embrace markets with renewed vigour in order to get more for their money and to enable healthcare supply more closely to reflect demand.
• So why does Canada perform relatively well? Studies have shown that a number of non-health system related factors affect health outcomes. Perhaps the high level of expenditure is important. Canada also benefits from lower levels of income inequality than the US and UK. Tobacco consumption is low in comparison to OECD member countries.
• On an ideological level some might consider the Canadian system attractive, however, Page 6 the reality is that the Canadian tax-funded single-payer model restricts expenditure to such an extent that healthcare supply far from matches demand. Though private expenditure has increased significantly to plug some of this gap, other healthcare funding
systems have done so much more successfully.
Link
I just seem to be getting contradictory information. One seems to paint a doomsday scenario, and the other something very different. I just thought I would mention this, since we have had a few discussion on it and I say verily that I am thorougly confused, especially since they admit Canadian health and statistics are good, yet the system they claim is poor in care, technology, and waiting periods.
