How can we improve our health care system?

[Star1234]

I remember getting a variation of this question at interviews last year and I assume it pops up a lot.

 

How can we reduce wait times and improve the quality of patient care?

 

Is the solution a public-private mix?

 

I'd like to hear what you guys think.

[Cnussey]

I remember getting a variation of this question at interviews last year and I assume it pops up a lot.

 

How can we reduce wait times and improve the quality of patient care?

 

Is the solution a public-private mix?

 

I'd like to hear what you guys think.

 

Primary Health Care: Prevention. (Seriously though, there is no quick-fix).

[Star1234]

haha, sorry, I should have been more specific. What I was actually wondering about was whether creating a two-tier system would be beneficial in reducing waiting times and increasing the quality of patient care.

 

Ok, I'll start with my opinion:

 

I think introducing a private sector to our healthcare while still maintaining the public sector is a good thing. First of all, you'll retain a lot of doctors that peace out to the US to practice every year (which I read is equivalent to 2 entire med school worth of students) and thus helping with the doctor shortage.

 

http://ecmaj.com/cgi/content/full/176/8/1083

 

More doctors = doctors are less overworked = they have more time to spend with each patient = increase quality of care and decrease waiting times.

 

Some people may argue that if we have a private sector, all of the "good doctors" will go there since that's where all the money is and therefore the public sector will be left with all the leftover doctors. This will create two different healthcare systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. People will argue that the quality of care for the poor will decrease and that's not fair since all Canadians are supposed to be entitled to equal healthcare. My question is: how is it that France, the country that was ranked #1 in the world in terms of healthcare, has both systems and it works fine there?

 

Thoughts?

[Cnussey]

haha, sorry, I should have been more specific. What I was actually wondering about was whether creating a two-tier system would be beneficial in reducing waiting times and increasing the quality of patient care.

 

Ok, I'll start with my opinion:

 

I think introducing a private sector to our healthcare while still maintaining the public sector is a good thing. First of all, you'll retain a lot of doctors that peace out to the US to practice every year (which I read is equivalent to 2 entire med school worth of students) and thus helping with the doctor shortage.

 

http://ecmaj.com/cgi/content/full/176/8/1083

 

More doctors = doctors are less overworked = they have more time to spend with each patient = increase quality of care and decrease waiting times.

 

Some people may argue that if we have a private sector, all of the "good doctors" will go there since that's where all the money is and therefore the public sector will be left with all the leftover doctors. This will create two different healthcare systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. People will argue that the quality of care for the poor will decrease and that's not fair since all Canadians are supposed to be entitled to equal healthcare. My question is: how is it that France, the country that was ranked #1 in the world in terms of healthcare, has both systems and it works fine there?

 

Thoughts?

 

You need to implement policies and regulations with such a system that would prevent doctors flocking to the private system and leaving a few to remain in the public system. It takes a fair amount of work to ensure such a system is "fair".

[orange123]

This is actually a very good question. I recall reading somewhere that by doing so, you actually do more harm than good. I think what should be done instead, as cnussey pointed out, is more prevention, and making a better triage and wait-list system. What is happening these days, is that doctors are not informed and/or the waitlists are not updated so as to remove those who've had spontaneous recoveries...thus adding to our wait times. But I'd like to see what others think as well. This could be a good debate.

[cnb88]

I remember getting a variation of this question at interviews last year and I assume it pops up a lot.

 

How can we reduce wait times and improve the quality of patient care?

 

Is the solution a public-private mix?

 

I'd like to hear what you guys think.

 

Well in AB... I'd say fire Dr. Duckett, Liepert, and Stelmach and put someone in there that knows a thing or two about the system ... but I digress...

 

Reduce wait times and improve quality- build more hospitals, hire more medical professionals (nurses, doctors, etc.), increase the number of beds, realize that health (like education) is not a "business" as some higher ups (ie Duckett, Liepert, Stelmach) think- it is an essential service and cuts won't make any of the wait times or quality of care better.

 

I don't think the solution is a private-public mix. Look at the US for example, lower-middle class people that can't afford insurance can't get the proper care because the expenses/costs are insane. Thus they tend to wait until it's too late before they go, and it ends up costing more. And those that have insurance, it seems you hear stories everyday of insurance companies refusing to pay what they should be (ie someone is supposed to be covered for Drug/operation A but they refuse to pay). So I don't think two-tier is the way to go. If we had more docs, hospitals, nurses and beds, the quality would be improved.

 

Part of the reason it gets so bad (I think) is because there are not enough family doctors for the population. Most doctors (at least in the Edmonton area) won't take any new patients because they are so full. As a result, there are a number of people whose only resort is medicentres. These places are good for if you have a cold/just got sick, but there needs to be a consistent doctor to manage a patient's ongoing care.

 

I hope that all made sense.

[A-Stark]

Some people may argue that if we have a private sector, all of the "good doctors" will go there since that's where all the money is and therefore the public sector will be left with all the leftover doctors. This will create two different healthcare systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. People will argue that the quality of care for the poor will decrease and that's not fair since all Canadians are supposed to be entitled to equal healthcare. My question is: how is it that France, the country that was ranked #1 in the world in terms of healthcare, has both systems and it works fine there?

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't think those old WHO rankings are particularly meaningful to the discussion. France, like most European countries, devotes a higher proportion of total health spending to the public system (~85% in contrast to only ~70% here). Physicians are also paid a lot less and are more numerous relative to the population.

 

Contrary to popular belief, there is no crisis in health care spending when it comes to physicians - the proportion of total spending on physician services has been dropping for years. When it comes to resource problems, the issues are around OR time/funding, nursing shortages, lack of long-term care beds, and a patchwork approach to prescription drug coverage. Spending on drugs is the most rapidly increasing share of total spending.

[astudentis]

I remember getting a variation of this question at interviews last year and I assume it pops up a lot.

 

How can we reduce wait times and improve the quality of patient care?

 

Is the solution a public-private mix?

 

I'd like to hear what you guys think.

 

1) focus on prevention, for long term effects (prevent now=save $$ after)

2) mix=good + bad... just discuss both sides (there are articles that give pros and cons)

[future_doc]

Yes, encourage healthy life style, e.g., plenty of exercise and nutricious food and as astudentis says, focus on prevention.