Skip to main content

What's best for health care: competition or collaboration?

The head of the Ontario association of for-profit home care corporations, claims, "As a direct result of competition today's home care system is more accountable, has better client service indicators and has greater transparency than it did in the past."

Which is news to many of us. Not least because there has not been any real competition in Ontario home care since the Ontario government was forced to suspend the compulsory competitive bidding process years ago, due to complaints from the community.

In fact it is now almost seven years since the process was first suspended.

So... competition delivers results -- even when there is no competition?

It is, however, interesting that the Home Care Association is publicly advocating for the old system: it sounds a bit like they hope to get competitive bidding back once the election is out of the way. If so, the failure of the PCs won't help them, especially if the Liberals fail to get their majority, as it seems now (11:42 pm  October 6).

A true alternative would be a health care system based on cooperation, collaboration, and integration, rather than competition. It has proven much more efficient than competition in the health care insurance industry. Below is the letter from Natalie Mehra, Director of the Ontario Health Coalition on this.


Re. Competitive Bidding Hurting Home Care, Letter October 3 & response October 6, by Sue VanderBent, Executive Director, Ontario Home Care Association, Hamilton
To the Editor,
We heartily support the call for an end to competitive bidding and a full review of Ontario’s home care system.
Home care competitive bidding -- the system of contracting out home care services -- has spawned massive protests and is so unpopular that it has been placed on moratorium not once, but twice. If the newly elected provincial government continues to extend the current moratorium, it will simply entrench for-profit privatization of vital health care services.
With a very few exceptions, the only proponents of competitive bidding are the companies that want to use the bidding system to win greater market share or increase their profits. Their interests are often contrary to the public interest.
Competition for contracts among provider companies is a potent force that blocks information sharing and service coordination. In fact, competitive bidding necessitates extra tiers of administration and fragments rather than integrates service.
Studies show that the for-profit companies in Ontario’s home care system have a higher mark-up than the non-profits in order to make room for profit-taking from their taxpayer-funded contracts. The for-profits overtly support two-tier home care. They want more user fees for patients on top of government funding as these give them more revenue streams from which to take profits. They have lobbied against extending basic employment standards to some of the most marginalized workers in Ontario’s health care system.
In contrast, the public interest is in enhanced stability and continuity of care, better coordination, and vastly improved equity of access to home care. Public values align with non-profit service delivery and its ethos of caring before profit-taking. Tight budgets necessitate efficient administrative structures that prioritize funding of front-line services. All of these would be better served through the creation of a stable public/non-profit home care system in Ontario.
As more services are cut and moved out of hospitals, all of us who support public health care and its principles of equity and fairness should be concerned about the privatization of home- and long-term care and the negative influence of the growing for-profit home care companies on Ontario’s health care system.
Natalie Mehra
Director

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…