Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How did Canada develop its single payer health insurance system?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 11:31 PM
Original message
How did Canada develop its single payer health insurance system?
Edited on Thu Aug-20-09 11:46 PM by BREMPRO
I think it's important for the discussion of how we get to a single payer system to review how the Canadians got there. They did not have a full single payer system until they passed the Canadian Health Act of 1984 (revising the Medical Care Act of 1966 to prohibit user fees and extra billing from doctors). When did they start the evolution to a single payer system? 1946. It took 38 years of provincial models, legislation, stakeholders fights, doctor strikes, and lots of citizen advocacy to get there.


from wikipedia:

The beginning of coverage
It was not until 1946 that the first Canadian province introduced near universal health coverage. Saskatchewan had long suffered a shortage of doctors, leading to the creation of municipal doctor programs in the early twentieth century in which a town would subsidize a doctor to practice there. Soon after, groups of communities joined to open union hospitals under a similar model. There had thus been a long history of government involvement in Saskatchewan health care, and a significant section of it was already controlled and paid for by the government. In 1946, Tommy Douglas' Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government in Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for much of the population. Douglas had hoped to provide universal health care, but the province did not have the money.

In 1950, Alberta created a program similar to Saskatchewan's. Alberta, however, created Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MS(A)I) in 1948 to provide prepaid health services. This scheme eventually provided medical coverage to over 90% of the population.<10>

In 1957, the federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to fund 50% of the cost of such programs for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act.

By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. In Saskatchewan, the act meant that half of their current program would now be paid for by the federal government. Premier Woodrow Lloyd decided to use this freed money to extend the health coverage to also include physicians. Despite the sharp disagreement of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, Lloyd introduced the law in 1962 after defeating the Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike in July.

Medical Care Act
The Saskatchewan program proved a success and the federal government of Lester B. Pearson, pressured by the New Democratic Party (NDP) who held the balance of power, introduced the Medical Care Act in 1966 that extended the HIDS Act cost-sharing to allow each province to establish a universal health care plan. It also set up the Medicare system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility"



Given the Canadian's experience, and our more diverse 50 state system (rather than 10 provinces), I think it's unrealistic to think somehow we can enact a national single payer system and eliminate private insurance in one step. The Canadian system's evolution is instructive to understanding the development of a national single payer system. There are realities of the political process, power of stakeholders, divisiveness within a country, that can't be ignored. I believe the president is taking the wise approach by keeping stakeholders at the table, and by introducing a public option as a facet of a comprehensive reform plan. Looking at how long it took Canada to get a single payer system, I think a goal of a public option now is a very encouraging start. If we can get this in place, and it is successful and people see it doesn't kill granny or break the bank, we can work on further expansion.

I also think the president is wise not not focus all the attention on insurance. Private health insurance is not the only reason our costs are more than double most industrialized nations. (read "The Cost Conundrum" http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande ). Canada's development of single payer from the 1946 Saskatchewan model is parralell to state models being developed here now (such as Massachuetts). MA has learned that they can get most citizens covered with universal insurance, but it has become very expensive and they learned they must also find ways to controlled costs and increase the number of primary care physicians. To control costs Obama has proposed models of best practices (such as the Mayo and Cleveland clinic) that have lower costs and better outcomes by not utilizing a "fee for service" model. He's also proposed requirements for preventative care and wellness, and healthier food and exercise in schools to reduce long term costs of childhood diabetes and obesity. Health care reform needs a comprehensive approach, not just insurance reform.

We have islands of excellence in this country such as cancer care and technology that attracts foreigner from all over the world. The Canadian system covers all it's citizens, but does not have the same level of innovation. If we can develop comprehensive reform to cover all our citizens without sacrificing this advantage or breaking the budget, our 37th in the world WHO ranking will shoot up to the top.

This is difficult work, with no silver bullet. I think an open mind, rational/respectful debate, persistence, and patience is our best strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think this is why the insurance industry is fighting tooth and nail against the public option.
They know the history of Canada and they fear incrementalism.

They claim that they won't be able to compete with it but I think their real fear is that people will see that it works and works well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I agree. But they have actually broadcast TV adds in support of reform,
because they know the current system is unsustainable and Obama has kept them engaged at the bargaining table. They just don't want the public option for the reasons you stated and are lobbying hard behind the scenes to kill it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. They fear it so much
that they are practically making deals with the devil in order to fight it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6353938&mesg_id=6353938
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polly7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ummmmm ........
Edited on Fri Aug-21-09 12:32 AM by polly7
we really do have some brilliant people who've impacted health world-wide for years and provided many life-saving innovations, just two being insulin and the pacemaker. Maybe I've just gotten touchy reading over the last few months how backward and useless in the medical research field we're supposed to be up here.

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2007/11/canadas-greatest-medical-research.html

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/35237.html

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-med-res-e.htm

http://www.cdnmedhall.org/laureates/?laur_id=30

http://www.cdnmedhall.org/laureates/?laur_id=78

Just a few links, there are so many more. Here is one from just today's news - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090820/virtual_surgery_090820/20090820?hub=TopStories

Canadians have contributed greatly and continue to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I was hoping a Canadian would chime in :)
Edited on Fri Aug-21-09 12:47 AM by BREMPRO
Did not intend to dismiss the health care innovations from Canada. I was basing my comment on innovation from my knowledge of our robust biotech industry and from the statistics of "medical tourism" that show 40% come to the US for advanced treatmenta. I am less aware of what is going on in Canada, except that most Canadians seem to be satisfied with their system. Thanks for posting the links!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polly7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. 40% of who go there for advanced treatment?
You're welcome, I'm not only satisfied with our system, I'm proud of it, in spite of our faults. Course my grandpa knew Tommy Douglas and always talked about what a great thing he did here in Saskatchewan and eventually for the rest of Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Wish i could say the same for our system...
not a lot to be proud of except a few islands of excellence. The 40% figure is the from the total number of "medical tourists" from around the world who travel abroad to the US for health care services. I can't find the citation for where i got that stat, but here is the entry from wikipedia on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

United States
Although much attention has been given to the growing trend of uninsured Americans traveling to foreign countries, a report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care.<56> The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care. Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S. However, costs differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh any currency fluctuations.

Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.<57> Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.

It should be noted that many locations in the US that offer medical care comparable in price to foreign medical facilities are not Joint Commission Accredited.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polly7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. OHIP fraud.
"The fraud problem was particularly acute in cities close to the US, where 37 million people have no health insurance. According to Ontario doctors who work in these cities, many former residents who moved to the US kept a mailing address in Canada in order to obtain a health card. Some Americans who own cottages in Ontario form another group of abusers: because they have an Ontario address, they can obtain a health card. Other cases involve out-of-country visitors borrowing valid OHIP cards from friends and family members for medical treatment in Canadian emergency wards."

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp-archive/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-154/1412.htm

"It's not an epidemic in any one person's practice," said Keith MacLeod, an obstetrician in Windsor, Ontario, across from Detroit, "but I would estimate that from 12 to 20 of my patients at any one time are ineligible Americans. And I'm just one of 520 doctors in Windsor, 23,000 in Ontario."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/20/world/americans-filching-free-health-care-in-canada.html?pagewanted=all

Just so you know, Ontario had to re-issue its health cards in part because of what definitely isn't medical tourism, but a real need for uninsured people to get care. I wish we were rich enough to be able to handle this sort of thing financially, but we're not.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subterranean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. I think this is how many universal health systems developed.
They evolved incrementally from the institutions, systems and structures that were in place in each country, rather than as deliberately planned policies. I read an interesting article about this in the New Yorker recently (link below). It brings some perspective to Obama's approach to reform.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. great read, thank you. examples show how incremental path-dependent change works better than
radical overhaul.

this passage was a good summary:

"Some people regard the path-dependence of our policies as evidence of weak leadership; we have, they charge, allowed our choices to be constrained by history and by vested interests. But that’s too simple. The reality is that leaders are held responsible for the hazards of change as well as for the benefits. And the history of master-planned transformation isn’t exactly inspiring. The familiar horror story is Mao’s Great Leap Forward, where the collectivization of farming caused some thirty million deaths from famine. But, to take an example from our own era, consider Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s disastrous reinvention of modern military operations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in which he insisted on deploying far fewer ground troops than were needed. Or consider a health-care example: the 2003 prescription-drug program for America’s elderly"

Author is also a Massachusetts doc so has a first hand view of the reforms that have been implemented in that state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
10. Check out: Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

Study Findings, By Data Source

U.S. ambulatory facilities survey. Almost 40 percent of the facilities we surveyed reported treating no Canadians, while an additional 40 percent had seen fewer than ten patients (Exhibit 1Go). Fifteen percent of respondent sites reported treating 10–25 Canadian patients, and only about 5 percent reported seeing more than 25 during the previous year (generally 25–75 patients; none reported more than 100). These findings were fairly consistent across the service categories. The overall response rate was 67 percent, and it varied across type of clinical facility from 56 percent for ambulatory surgery centers to 80 percent for cancer centers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. So it started regionally, proved it worked, and became national.
Some time ago, I posted the suggestion on DU that our progressive states band together and form a "blue state" single payer healthcare coalition. I was soundly rebuked here and informed that, under federal rules, such a regional coalition would be illegal.

I still believe it's the only way to make it happen. Progessive states in the northeast and the west coast pooling their resources to finance single payer. Show that it can work, and maybe the rest of the country will follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sounds like a good idea, but i think that they are right about the rules
my understanding is that each state regulates its own health care and cross state plans are not currently legal. I think that what is happening now is that the states are experimenting and we can use those experiences to shape a national plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC