Skip to main content

Should we tolerate secrecy for public health care?

It's amusing to review the course of events that led to the revelation of the secrecy concerning the problems at private surgical and diagnostic clinics.  
Queen's Park. Photo: Paul Bica

The doctors lobbied to move surgical and diagnostics work from the hospitals.  The government let the emerging industry slip free of public reporting and oversight.  

Subsequently, after a death (and a coroners report), the government required the industry to face some modest oversight in 2010 -- not by a public authority, but through self-regulation by the docs . (Remember, the doctors had lobbied to expand the industry in the first place.)

Then in the fall of 2011, following disclosure that 6,800 patients would have to be notified that faulty infection control procedures at a private clinic could have exposed them to HIV or hepatitis, Health Minister Deb Matthews declined to introduce oversight by a public authority, despite public pressure.  Instead she comments,  "Government can't do everything.  A professional (regulating body) like the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they take responsibility for their members....At this point I am delighted the College is taking that responsibility seriously and has found a problem that we need to fix."  

Eventually the College of Physicians and Surgeons releases a report on the private clinics that mentions that some 29% of the private clinics fall short in some way -- but the College won't tell us which ones -- or how they fell short.  This is "taking the responsibility seriously" it seems.

Notably, the College is so distant from public control and so oblivious to public opinion, that the report is heartily self-congratulating.  They were, it seems, expecting accolades.

Now the minister promises she will improve the public accounting by the physicians and surgeons, although exactly how remains unclear. Will we ever find out the clinics that fell short, but did not outright fail?  Or how they fell short?  Will we receive annual public reports?

The underlying problem is that public disclosure runs contrary to the interests of private providers -- not just in the clinic business, but everywhere privatization appears in health care.  It reveals secrets to competitors and problems to the public.  Both threaten the ability of investors to remain in business, making profits.

It may be fine to tolerate secrecy regarding the production of widgets, but it is not appropriate to keep secrets about the production of health care services. We need our providers to cooperate and share their knowledge, not keep it to themselves.  This is even more important when those providers are funded by the public buck.

Popular posts from this blog

Deficit? Public spending ain't the cause. Revenue, however...

With the election over, pressure to cut public programs has become quite intense. In almost all of the corporate owned media someone is barking on about it.

Another option -- increasing revenue from corporations and the wealthy is not mentioned.  However, data clearly indicates that Ontario does not have an overspending problem compared to the other provinces.

Instead, it indicates Ontario has very low revenue. 
Ontario has the lowest public spending of all the provinces on a per capita basis (see the chart from the 2014 Ontario Budget below).  So there is little reason to suspect that we have an over-spending problem.  If anything, this suggests we have an under-spending problem.







The Ontario government has also now reported in the 2014 Budget that Ontario has the lowest revenue per capita of any province.  This is particularly notable as other provinces are quite a bit poorer than Ontario and therefore have a much more limited ability to pay for public spending.  (Also notable in this…

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…

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 …