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…

Budget underwhelms on health care. Bait and Switch is such a nasty term

Last year the government promised a 4.64% health care funding increase in 2018/19. Then, earlier this month, they announced they would deficit spend to improve hospitals, mental health, home care, and child care.   Three of the four items cited by the government for improvement were part of health care. 

As it turned out the government did in fact promise in today's Budget to deficit spend $6.7 billion. (Due to a $1 billion fall in expected revenue, the extra spend amounts only to an extra $5.7 billion for 2018/19 programs – but that is still a significant chunk of new found cash for program spending.)  
If health care had gotten even a proportionate share of this new $5.7 billion in program spending, it would have added an additional $2.4 billion to health care  --  in other words about another 4% increase.  

But all health care got -- despite the government’s health care rhetoric -- was an extra $284 million. That may sound like a lot but with a total health care spend of $61 bill…

Ford government promise falls far short of solving hospital hallway medicine problem

Tens of thousands of new Long-Term Care (LTC) beds needed just to offset aging
The new Progressive Conservative government in Ontario has promised 30,000 new long-term care beds over the next ten years, often connecting this to their promise to end hospital hallway medicine.  But how does this promise stack up with growing demand for these facilities?
Most people 85 and older live in collective dwellings (LTC facilities, seniors residences, multiple level of care facilities).  The setting with the largest number of elders 85 and older is LTC facilities, with about 35% of the population 85 to 89  years old and almost 40% of the population 90 to 94 years. Older people are even more likely to be in a LTC facility.
The population 85 and older is the main driver of the need for long-term care beds.
An additional thirty thousand LTC beds by 2028 will only partially offset the rapid growth in the 85+ population.  The ministry of finance projects 42.5% growth in the most relevant population (85 a…