|
|
Spring 2006 |
 |
|
H
e a l t h P o l i c y
CMA president
tackles “Medicare myths” in Toronto speech
|
|
|
Submitted Photo |
|
|
|
|
CMA President Ruth
Collins-Nakai wants Canadians to speak out to help define what they want
their health care system to be.
|
|
|
|
Submitted Article |
|
CMA President Ruth Collins-Nakai wants
Canadians to speak out to help define what they want their health
care system to be.
“We must remember that Medicare did not
fall out of the clear blue Saskatchewan sky, but was the result of
Canadians making positive — and difficult — choices,” she said during a
recent speech in Toronto. “As we stand at our current crossroads, we can
come together to stop passively allowing choices to be made.”
In her speech, Collins-Nakai decried
several of the “myths” that have sprung up around Canada’s Medicare
system.
-
Myth one Canada’s health care
system is socialized medicine. “This is simply not true. Most
doctors in Canada are not salaried and can therefore speak out on
behalf of their patients.”
-
Myth two Canada’s health care
system defines Canadians. “I couldn’t disagree more. We define
health care, not the other way around.”
-
Myth three The health care
funding split is 70% public, 30% private. The meaningful totals,
says Collins-Nakai, are 45% for publicly funded “core” services such
as hospital and physician care, 25% for publicly funded non-core
services such as vision care and chiropractic treatment, 15% for
services such as dental care that are covered by private insurance,
and 15% for out-of-pocket items such as over-the-counter drugs.
“Let’s be specific here,” she said. “You
need to know that 98% of physician services in Canada are covered
publicly, while only 5% of dental services are provided that way.” So in
which direction should Canada move as it charts its future path?
Collins-Nakai said that’s a decision for
all Canadians to make. “We must realize that there is no off-the-shelf
solution built somewhere else that is going to address our reality and
meet our needs. In short, we must decide what our needs are and address
them ourselves, together, as a nation.”
She added that part of that decision must
include an honest look at how — and which — health care services
Canadians feel should be covered by government-run health insurance
programs and what role private insurance or out-of-pocket purchasing of
services should play.
There is no prohibition against the
private delivery of health care services in Canada, and Collins-Nakai
said CMA policy “continues to be that if it is better, faster and
cheaper to deliver health care privately — within the publicly funded
Medicare system — taxpayers should demand no less.”
Collins-Nakai, who delivered the message
to a Toronto conference on the delivery of private care in Canada,
acknowledged that the issue must be discussed openly particularly given
last June’s precedent-setting Supreme Court of Canada ruling concerning
the delivery of private care in Quebec.
“Before that decision, you could not even
raise the ‘P’ word without causing a furor,” she said.
The CMA continues to work on drafting a
discussion paper and policy principles on the role of private health
insurance and private care in Canada. Collins-Nakai has already sent two
letters on the issue to CMA members, which have attracted more than
2,800 responses.
She said there are other signs that the
debate about public-private funding of health care is finally out of the
closet. “We actually had a federal election (in January) in which
private delivery wasn’t used to demonize a political opponent,” she
said.
|
