Supreme court ruling in Quebec June 9

[Guest happy2bme]

So apparently the ruling stated not being able to carry private health insurance for use at private clinics/hospitals is unconstitutional both within the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of Rights, forget the section that it referred to. The news conference kept making reference to an ideal model like the Swiss have.

 

Boy, Ralph Klein is going to love this one. Currently in Alberta you can not access you private health insurance unless it is not covered by Alberta Health Care at all or your maximum $$$ limit allotted by Alberta Health has been exhausted for the year EVEN IF THE SERVICE ISN't FULLY COVERED BY ALBERTA HEALTH.

For example, say Alberta Health pays decided to pay 5 cents towards an$60.00 eye exam (they don't currently pay anything), you can't even use your private insurance to cover the $59.95 that wasn't covered.because it is a AHC funded service. In such a case it is better for alot of people not to have any partially funded services as many people do have some sort of private insurance benefits.

 

I'm sure in the next few years the private health care sector will be blooming across Canada and not just Quebec!

 

Any further thoughts people?

[Guest moo]

I think this is a great decision.

 

Many people will disagree with me on this. Some will want send me nasty emails. A few will want to hang my head on a platter, but privatized medicine, ALONG WITH A PUBLIC SYSTEM, is the way to go.

 

For those who think that our health care system, measured by outcomes, is better than the US. Well, you're right. But Canada also lags far behind most other European countries that also have a parallel private system.

 

Medicare is a safety net, not a cage. It is time we let go of the socialistic (I don't even want to say liberal because I think that's how far to the left this country has swung) ideologies and have some common sense, for the good of the people. Those who have been advocating the single tier system will still have their free health care. But now, millions of other Canadians will too. This is a great day for Canada. It's a great day to be a doctor.

[Guest satsumargirl]

I am going to throw a few arguments out there. I personally have not decided on which side of the fence I stand since I think there are pros and cons to each side.

 

BUT

 

1) having private health care doesn't really solve anything, unless we get more physicians....otherwise, the docs working in the public system will be the same docs working in the private system, so it doesn't really mean more services being offered. The private will just take away from the public.

 

2) The above would be exactly what the private industry would want because in order for them to succeed the public system would have to be less than optimal

 

3) Private systems need to be wasteful really. By this, I mean, in order to meet the demand on an "I need it now because I'm paying for it" basis, the system would have to always have a surplus of equipment and staff to meet peak demands. So...it is innefficient and not a good way to keep costs down (as with our single payer system). And well, some may say that's fine they'll pay the extra. BUT personally, it kind of bothers me that there would be this surplus not being used by people who may need it but just can't afford it.

 

4) The wealthy generally have better access to healthcare anyway. They are better connected and I guess in theory this doesn't matter, but it does. They also are healthier in general and don't need as many services. SO...those who need better access to healthcare are probably those who can't afford the private route anyway.

 

These are some of the things that come to my mind. I can probably think up of more (except I have to get back to work).

Is Canada's health care system perfect...no. Is privatization really the best solution?

 

I admit that when I am frustrated about the lack of resources I have working in a hospital, I often think about how great it would be to be in the States where, on the surface, it appears things are better. But I'm not so sure it is really the best way to go. I do see alot of waste in hospitals and I think a step in the right direction would be to elminate that.

 

Story:....my bf just finished his MBA. A guest lecturer owns a consulting company and they consult with big companies going under and restructure them to actually work and be successful. This company has a great track record. They offered free of charge to consult with an Ontario hospital and restructure them so they functioned better. AND the hospital REFUSED. Reason? They said they get funding based on their previous year's spending. If they became more efficient they would lose funding.!! :\ I'm not sure why they didn't understand "efficient" as being offering the same service but at a reduced time and cost etc... Oh well!

 

 

Another problem I see with privatization of healthcare is that healthcare just doesn't follow the basic business principles of supply and demand. I wouldn't buy cataract Sx just 'cause it's on sale. But I might buy a shirt I don't need for 50% off --just cause it was such a deal. Likewise I don't think someone who needs a tumour removed should be denied just because he/she cannot afford it. But hey, if you can't afford a Ferrari then you have no business owning one.

 

My thoughts for now...

 

Sats

[Guest satsumargirl]

Just an addition to my above comments.

 

I am surprised to hear that getting private insurance would even ever be considered against the law. I would think anyone should be able to get it (I guess that is what the court rulling says). I see the problem more being where you can use it.

 

Each province is different. But I believe in Ontario, physicians can chose to charge for their services. BUT if they do this they cannot bill OHIP. That is they must decide which route they want. And pretty much nobody choses the private way...my God, who would want the hassle of having to bill pts and get the money from them! No thanks! That is my understanding anyway.

 

So what good is having private insurance if there is nowhere to use it?

 

Having some experience with the amount of paperwork required for 3rd party billing (through work on ABI program which gets most funding from insurance b/c of car accidents etc.) I can say I would NEVER opt for this. I can't stand paperwork...let me see my pts and do my job!

 

 

O.k...I'm off again

[Guest wattyjl]

the two posts above are excellent and outline many of the reasons private healthcare is not the way to go - the states has good healthcare, for the rich. medicaid is a friggin joke - their poor are not taken care of. the country gets into budget trouble because of their war, and what gets $50 billion worth of cuts? anyway, many of the potential (and in my opinion likely) problems with a parallel public-private system were raised in satsumara's excellent posts above, so no need to reiterate.

 

one thing that i don't hear often discussed: how long will people with substantially/entirely privatized healthcare benefits put up with paying the high taxes required to support a public healthcare system? yea... not long. so who suffers? again, those without the money to pay... there is nothing wrong with canada attempting to take care of everyone, not only those who can afford it. i recognize this is idealistic but hey, we have to start somewhere. we already don't help that much with food and shelter, so why take away healthcare as well. so moo, i couldn't really agree with you less.

 

also, though it's hard to put much trust in government these days, i trust 'them' more than i trust a health insurance co. or HMO to spend the money necessary to take care of me. moo - you're in the states, so you must have heard/seen situations when doc's hands have been tied by the plans that people are on. not that we have infinite resources here, but at least they are more evenly distributed across society.

 

obviously i'm highly biased by the material i've read (which itself was admittedly biased), but i don't see any reason to pursue the privatization issue anymore - there are other aspects of healthcare delivery that can be analyzed and made more efficient - not just financing.

[Guest happy2bme]

So the Swiss system, everyone feel free to correct me as I am only going on what I heard at the news conference, is a private type coverage with the government footing the private insurance bill for the poor.

 

So I take it to mean that the delivery is private but the coverage is still universal. So instead of me paying Alberta health care $83 and Blue Cross 145.00 a month I would only have the one insurance company XYZ for probably more, but if I couldn't afford it the Swiss goverment would pay them for me. But all clinics etc would be private.

 

So everyone IS covered with the same private insurance.

[Guest moo]

also, though it's hard to put much trust in government these days, i trust 'them' more than i trust a health insurance co. or HMO to spend the money necessary to take care of me. moo - you're in the states, so you must have heard/seen situations when doc's hands have been tied by the plans that people are on. not that we have infinite resources here, but at least they are more evenly distributed across society.

 

I've never pushed a privately run health care system like the US. All the arguments you've put forth is correct. Yes, physicians many times down here are limited in the stuff they can prescribe--because certain plans don't cover certain treatments. But I think what most Canadians don't understand is that this ruling does NOT take away anyone's fundamental right to health care. If someone chooses to be insured privately, that's THEIR choice. In the US, as you said, unless you're on medicare/caid you MUST have some private insurance, or you're not covered AT ALL. Everyone in Canada assumes that privatization=evil. So what if we have private hospitals? Will doctors migrate to the private sector? Sure, but soon, the market will be saturated and MDs will have to find jobs in the public sector.

 

And queue jumping already happens in Canada. Public sector employees have a huge advantage when it comes to getting efficient health care. Is it fair that these people, just by virtue of the fact that they are working for the government, are allowed this? Just because one works for a private company doesn't make him/her any less worthy of health care... and if his/her company gives them insurance, then so be it. For those who don't have insurance, you always have the safety net of a national health insurance.

 

Like I said above, the US system is far from perfect. In fact, I think the Canadian system is superior. But does that mean that the Canadian system is perfect? I doubt anyone here would disagree with me if I said there's definitely a lot of room for improvement. Let's get creative and try to better the health care system. Canadians need to get over the socialistic idealogy and realize that privatization ALONG WITH A PUBLIC SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE might not be such a bad idea. Again this ruling does not take away anyone's fundamental right to health care: not the poor, not the rich, not the middle class. The biggest problem I have with the system as it is, is the idea that "well, if I can't have it, then you can't either." Our society doesn't work that way.

[Guest tomparv]

The biggest problem I have with the system as it is, is the idea that "well, if I can't have it, then you can't either." Our society doesn't work that way.

 

Well, if we regard health care as a fundamental human right, which we do, then the basis of its allocation should be NEED, not ability to pay.

 

It's not that you're saying to the rich 'If I can't have it, then you can't either' - it's that 'Whoever needs it more should get it first', which (to me) is entirely fair, wait-list or no wait-list.

 

Britain introduced a parallel private system less than 10 years ago to allow patients to have elective surgeries, like cataract surgery and joint replacement, in private hospitals. There have been many horror stories coming out of those hospitals, which, because of the profit motive, seek to cut costs in order to stay competitive but still turn a tidy profit.

 

Guyatt and Devereaux's article in JAMA a few years ago concerning mortality rates in not-for-profit vs. for-profit dialysis centres in the United States serves as a telling example of such problems - the rate of death was significantly higher in for-profit centres, when all other factors were controlled for...

 

And we know that for-profit care is approximately 15% more expensive than one-tier care, because of the administrative costs associated with sorting through forms and submissions from multiple insurance companies.

 

So, other than to benefit the wealthy, is there a compelling argument to allow a parallel, privatized system? One could argue that the gov't could pay to send patients into it in order to reduce wait times, but that's an expensive, short-term proposition - better to expand the existing public care system in the long-term.

 

People deride our 'socialized' medicare system, but what is its failing? That it reduces consumer choice? Health care is not a normal commodity - it doesn't follow market patterns - it isn't consumed for its own sake, you can't evaluate your own need for it, that need is unpredictable and you care about whether others consume it.

 

People argue that the system is 'unsustainable', but diversifying funding sources (read: private insurance) is not an effective cost-control measure - direct taxation is the least regressive way of funding a health care system, private payment the most. If a private system springs up, the rich will get more, for less money.

 

To say that the system is 'unsustainable' is a moral argument - it is saying that you don't approve of the current pattern of burdens and benefits (the rich subsidizing the poor).

 

There is a great article on this topic: 'Political wolves and Economic Sheep'. The last section is particularly relevant. www.chspr.ubc.ca/chspr/pd...03-16W.pdf

 

I loved it - it really feeds into this debate.

 

Anyway, I have a hard time stomaching rich people trying to get the best, fastest care with their (hard-earned, of course) money because they earned it, and all the poor people be damned.

 

Tom

[Guest moo]

It's not that you're saying to the rich 'If I can't have it, then you can't either' - it's that 'Whoever needs it more should get it first', which (to me) is entirely fair, wait-list or no wait-list.

 

That's where you and I differ, fundamentally. I myself don't see it fair that anyone has to suffer if they don't need to. I see your point but at the same time, I don't think ideology, passion, and emotion should take the place of reason. If person X can get off the waitlist to have that hip replacement because he can pay, why not? Our society already has great inequities. Is it fair that a child born into a poor family has to go to a public school, while a child born into a rich family can go to a private school?

 

We can beat this horse to death and we won't change each others minds.

 

And btw, like I said, queue jumping already happens whether you realize it or not. Who jumps the queue the most? Politicians, public sector/WCB recipients... the people who, ironically, want to keep the system the way it is.

 

As for private clinics offering inferior care. That's really irrelevant. Again, like I said, I'm not advocating taking away the public system. Those who want to have a choice can have a choice. And if that study you cite is indeed generalizeable, the ones who will suffer are the ones who choose the private system. They will realize this and either the private sector will have to offer better care or the people will stay in the public system. And even within the public system, there are differences in the way different hospitals in different provinces are run.

 

And for elective surgeries in private clinics, we already have those, if you haven't noticed already.

[Guest tomparv]

That's where you and I differ, fundamentally.

 

Probably so - I just added more to that post (trying to beef up the argument, you know) if you want to take a look. =)

 

And btw, like I said, queue jumping already happens (i.e., politicians, WCB recipients, etc.), whether you realize it or not.

 

Yes, people in power, physicians and their families, WCB - and it isn't right. It's pragmatic, certainly, but I don't believe it should happen. Maybe I'm a pie-eyed socialistic idealist, but need should be the sole criteria for access. To allow people to exit the system undermines public faith and erodes funding.

 

As is argued in the article I posted, tax cuts in recent years have benefitted the rich more than anyone else, resulting in less government income. And provincial budgets have made deep cuts to departments other than Health, so health care appears to take up a bigger percentage of spending each year. These are choices that have been made by politicians, who must cater to those who support them and fund their campaigns - the rich. Public care is being slowly eroded because of this, but it doesn't mean it can't do all things for all people, if it were properly supported.

[Guest tomparv]

If person X can get off the waitlist to have that hip replacement because he can pay, why not? Our society already has great inequities. Is it fair that a child born into a poor family has to go to a public school, while a child born into a rich family can go to a private school?

 

Why not? Because them being allowed to do so is taking away an opportunity or a 'spot', so to speak, that could have gone to somebody who is in greater pain, and experiencing a greater deficit in their quality of life. We already have a shortage - allowing physicians to exit into a private system (where they will earn more money, no doubt) means there will be fewer orthopaedic surgeons treating people according to their need, regardless of their income level. The poorer people who need hip replacements will suffer, because the opportunity to pay and 'jump the queue' exists.

 

Yes, there are inequities we cannot change - but why not mandate change in the areas in which equality is a societal virtue, like health care? That poor child has no control over the circumstances of his or her birth, but hopefully will live under a government that would like to see them get care that is as timely and effective as that given to those lucky enough to be born rich.

 

Those who want to have a choice can have a choice.

 

But this is a zero-sum game - giving them the ability to a make a 'choice' takes away from someone else who, because of their financial situation, cannot take advantage of that freedom to choose. It is a tool of inequality.

 

And if that study you cite is indeed generalizeable, the ones who will suffer are the ones who choose the private system. They will realize this and either the private sector will have to offer better care or the people will stay in the public system.

 

Say that the study is generalizable. For-profit care is of lower quality. And it is more expensive. And only those who are already privileged in our society can access it. These are all minuses, but if a parallel system is introduced the rich are still the only ones who will benefit from it, at a price to everyone else in society.

[Guest Jochi1543]

I spent most of my life (up to 16 years of age) in a country with public healthcare, and the last 4 in the US, with private healthcare. I have to say I'm definitely for publicly funded healthcare. Private healthcare doesn't solve the issue of waiting for a doctor - in a highly populated area like Washington DC, the wait for a general practitioner may be 2 weeks. Also, private insurances cover only part of your expenses, and while with a sore throat it's no big deal, once you land in a hospital, you'll be in major financial trouble. For example, a lady I volunteered with spent a week in the Cardiac ICU and the bill was $100,000 US. Her insurance covers 80%, not bad - but 20% of $100,000 is $20,000! I believe in the US about a third of the population can't afford to see a doctor, which is ridiculous. I'm lucky to have insurance through my school, which is affordable (about $400 US a year), but the coverage leaves a lot to be desired, and most doctors will require me to pay cash on the spot and then have ME bill my insurance for reimbursement. I've gotten $500 bills from 1 doctor visit in the past, and as a student, I of course don't have a spare $500 lying around.

 

Now, if we are talking major surgery, like bone marrow trasplant, public healthcare will put you in the dumps. But with private healthcare, you'd end up shelling out a good deal of cash for it too, because no insurance will cover EVERY expense. If you have a life-threatening condition and the money to treat it, you are always free to travel abroad to receive emergency treatment (I'm talking transplant-type issues here).

 

Also, private healthcare system discriminates against patients. Different patients get billed a different amount for the same procedure, and the discrimination is actually reverse - richer patients are charged less. Absolutely not a good idea in my opinion.

[Guest studentz]

So apparently the ruling stated not being able to carry private health insurance for use at private clinics/hospitals is unconstitutional both within the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of Rights, forget the section that it referred to. The news conference kept making reference to an ideal model like the Swiss have.

 

No, it basically said that it is unconstitutional to not be able to buy private insurance when the public service doesn't deliver what it is supposed to. The last part is important, as the Quebec court that reviewed the court before the Supreme Court noted that in general, public care doesn't violate the Charter because it is in accordance with "fundamental justice in a free and democratic society" i.e. the trade off is worse. In the Supreme Court decision, "only" 3 of the 7 said that the ban on private insurance, regardless of the ability of the public system to work properly, violates the Charter. A fourth judge didn't rule on the issue assue as it wasn't crucial to the case. Thus, it's a wake up call to get waitlists under control as Ontario has done with the Cardiac Care Network.

 

A parallel privte system cannot work fairly given the way Canadian medical education is set up. There are only two options: either physicians choose one system or the other or they work in both.

 

In the first case, physician resources will obviously be lost from the public sector. How is this fair, when Canadian taxpayers--including those who cannot afford private insurance--invest literally millions of dollars in each physician trained? Moreover, without knowing how many docs will jump ship, there will be no reliable way of setting medical school class sizes.

 

In the second case, a parallel private system in which physicians practice in both systems, we will see exactly what has happened everywhere this has been tried, including some provinces here for certain procedures (e.g. cataract surgery in Manitoba): the services with the longest waitlists in the public sector will be those with the most physicians straddling both systems, and these waitlists will increase. Remember, people will only be induced to pay for private insurance if the public system is perceived to be inferior; physicians in both systems thus have implicit motivation to maintain long public waitlists. How does this benefit anyone but those who can buy private insurance?

 

Rather than getting over a (legitimate) fear of a parallel system, Canadians, I think, should get rid of a fear of privately built and operated facilities that perform services funded by the public system. The argument against them is always "it will cost more." Yes, it will, but if the government won't put up the cash to build a facility and buy diagnostic equipment, what's worse, going without the facility or allowing enterprising doctors do it and pay a bit more in the long run? I'd like to buy a house cash as using a mortgage would "cost more" but if I can't, am I going to say "screw the house" or take out a mortgage? As long as there is no cue jumping and the services are paid for buy the government, it works. Canadians, in general, don't realize that all docs are private and most hospitals are too; it's just the funding of services that's public.

[Guest happy2bme]

I agree studentz that the waitlists issue were indeed a factor in the decision as I watched the disection of the ruling in the evening news for a second time last night. The conference with MD's in the a.m. didn't tend to bring up that little point so much as a requirement of the decision as the motivation for it.

 

However, who decides how long is too long. One could theorize that waiting 6 weeks for a new patient appointment at the Family Doc is too long or 1 week is. How about one day?

 

Unfortunatly or fortunatly all law is subject to interpretation and each province will need to decide how they interpret the rulings and various challenges will have to presented in the courts etc. I guarantee that Alberta will be one of the first places the ruling will be tested to the nth degree to see how many services it may include for private care. Also if the ruling is solely "waitlist" oriented and say for example they allow private hip replacements, if the public sector by some miracle becomes much more efficient the ruling becomes invalid and then the private insurance/facilities, what becomes of them?

 

As for Manitoba wait times etc. I'm originally from there and if they could somehow convince their MD's that graduate to stay or come back to the province, wait times wouldn't be such a problem. $10,000 for rural incentives may be helping but I think that program isn't enough. I am not convinced that changing cataract surgery to private was the sole reason for the increased wait times. I know many people who went to UofM for med and I am racking my brain as we speak to think of 1 person that stayed or came back to the prov after residency and lets face it, Manitoba doesn't tend to attract grads from other schools as much as like Ont. B.C. or even Alberta, especially many of the specialists.

 

For the record I've lived in the U.S. (minneasota, 4 years) and I can honestly say I (and my family) received better and faster primary care there when I compare it to the care we now receive in alberta and I wouldn't mind paying extra to insure that my family get the care they need even if the goverment can't provide it. So I welcome changes to system that allows this as long as their are provisions for the poor like government paid for private insurance so that the playing field is level. But for those who want to save medicare at all costs, it's gotta change and the government needs to start looking at true and valid solutions instead of throwing more money at a system that is structurally unsound.

 

Holy, my post looks like the ramblings of a crazy person....well I guess it is. LOL

[Guest satsumargirl]

However, who decides how long is too long. One could theorize that waiting 6 weeks for a new patient appointment at the Family Doc is too long or 1 week is. How about one day?

 

Well, I guess we would have to look at outcomes. Were they any different for someone who had to wait 6 weeks for cataract surgery vs someone that had to wait one week or 2 months?

 

One thing about waitlists is there is no standardized way of measuring them. And because of that, waitlists don't really provide a good measurement of how well our health care system is meeting people's needs.

 

1) People may be put on waitlist to see a specialist before they even know they need to see the specialist (e.g waiting for test results to come in etc...) and then cancel when they find out it's not necessary. So waitlists may appear longer than they actually are.

 

2) How do you determine how long you were on the waitlist. Is it from the time you were placed on a list to see a specialist until the day you had your first appointment? Or is it from the day you were on this list until you actually got whatever procedure you needed complete? Is it from the day of your first visit to the specialist until you get your procedure? etc . Published data are not consistent with this measurement.

 

3) Does average time on a waitlist even tell you anything? Your order on a waitlist isn't necesarily a first come first served basis. If someone with a more urgent need comes along the less urgent ones get prioritized lower.

So maybe the average wait time for x-procedure is 3 months for non-urgent situations. But maybe it is 3 days when your situation is urgent.

 

 

So before deciding how long is too long....we must decide how we are going to even measure the wait!

 

Sats

[Guest Koppertone]

Let's clarify the ruling here for anybody confused. The ruling was to allow private insurance in Quebec only. Right now a physician in Canada is free to opt out of the public system, but they must opt out 100% of their fees from the public system (1). Also all hospitals in Canada are privately run, however they must be run as non profit organizations as they are publicly funded. So this ruling say that in Quebec only (Canada still pending), private insurance is allowed to pay for health care, and as an aftereffect those physicians which chose to be 100% privately funded now have another source of income rather than direct payments from patients.

 

So arguments about whether private health care should be allowed in Canada are moot; it's already allowed here.

 

However the arguments about whether the public system can sustain itself are entirely valid. Right now there is a physician shortage in Canada for all specialties. To what extent that shortage exists in a point of argument. Couple this to the fact that everybody in Canada is entitled to free health care, increasing the demand on the system. However the American system is also facing a potential shortage (2) so it is apparent that an overall problem facing medical system are low medical school enrollments.

 

Several weeks ago a friend and I talked with a prominent member of the faculty here at the UofA. He told us that in the late 90's the CMA decided to decrease medical enrollment numbers as it forecast a decrease in the number of required physicians. He analyzed the numbers and discovered that their calculations were wrong and that an increase was needed. Several years later they admitted to this mistake, however medical school enrollment still lags far behind its requirements to keep up with population growth.

 

This leads up to my argument. It was posted earlier that "we currently have public/private schools, so why not have the same for health care?" Firstly we do have a public/private health care system. Second we also have a surplus of teachers in this country (I have several relatives who are waiting on getting teaching positions after having gotten their degrees). If, however, there was a shortage of teachers and the private system was taking them all away, I doubt there would be a lot of support for the private system among your average Canadian. Third, medical student in this country have the highest government subsidized tuition than in any other program(3), paying only 20% of the actual cost of education. This means that the Canadian taxpayer pays for the majority of a medical student's training.

 

So currently we have a medium sized pool of medical graduates who had the majority of their training paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, most likely in the realm of $150-200k a piece (makes you feel kind of important). Whether you think a publicly funded group of individuals should be promoted to abandon a universal health care system to take part in a private one is your own prerogative. However let's be realistic here; taking the resources out of a limited pool in the public sector is going to increase waiting times for that sector while decreasing waiting times for those who can afford the private sector. Even if the private sector becomes saturated the result is the same: less physicians in the public sector. This wouldn't be a problem if we had a surplus of physicians, but we don't.

 

With that in mind, there is a silver lining to this cloud. As a physician you only stand to gain from the current health care strife. Even under the current system there is a 99% chance that you will be in the top 1% income bracket. Actually as a medical student there is a 55% chance that you come from a family with a household income of more than $80,000/year (compared with the national average of 18%) (4), so if your practice falls through you'll at least be able to fall back on more than adequate family support. This position gives you a unique perspective on the world and how things should be run.. just don't expect these to be the same opinions as the other 82% of your patients.

 

 

Links:

 

(1) www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f...xt=private health care&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1118424907834_1884&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=cmaj

 

(2) www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f...=physician shortage&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1118425861879_1912&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=cmaj

 

(3) epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201...11/004.htm

 

(4) www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f...xt=medical student&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1118428246249_2356&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=cmaj#T718

[Guest studentz]

The CMA site had an article about neurosurgeons who can't find jobs in Canada. It mentioned that it costs about 8-9 million of taxpayer's money to train a single one.

[Guest cracked30]

I have issue with the "reported" costs of medical school. Back when they were deregulating the medical school thing here in Ontario, they began to give us a cost for our education. But the math was flawed, they just took the faculty of medicine's budget and divided it by the number of medical students. Giving a cost of about $25K per sudent per year. That's were the infamous number comes from.

 

But, we pointed out that the number of graduate students, about another 100, were not included, nor were the factoring of their salaries. Then we pointed out the number of undergraduates, from many different courses, who take courses put on by the faculty of medicine. Then we pointed out that the clinical teachers in clerkship earned no significant salary for teaching medical students who spent all of their time in the clerkship, working for free for the healthcare system.

 

The value that was worked out by us was approximately 10 000 per year cost at UWO. I guess, now with a new undergraduate bachelor of medical sciences degree, that cost of teaching medical students would be even less.