private health care question

[legamus]

What is the big deal with private health care? Those who are against it, is it because government would be subsidising them? I personally do not have the money to use a private health care clinic but I have no problem with them existing or people going to them if they can afford it. So is the issue private health care receiving funds for the government? It seems like many see privatization of health care as this huge evil and I want to understand why.

[The Honest Politician]

If Healthcare becomes a for profit enterprise it will be subject to NAFTA. What is happening with Canada post will happen to Healthcare.

[FTA Lawyer]

I join legamus in wanting someone to explain to me the actual problems...not B.S. about us becoming like the U.S.

I can see the potential for problems in NAFTA as is suggested, but let me ask this...have we not always had private-for-profit delivery of public health services?

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Doctor's clinics are for-profit...the more patients a doctor sees and treats, the more money he or she can make. If the doctor can save money on tongue depressors and stethoscopes, then he or she puts more cash in his or her jeans at the end of the day.

The services are still public though, because there are set rates that the doc can charge back to the provincial health care plan, and that's how he or she gets paid...the patients don't have to bring in the cash.

A true public not-for-profit system would have government doctors, paid set salaries regardless of the number of procedures they completed in a given month.

Why can't the health system work the same as Legal Aid for lawyers. If someone wants to hire me they can do so by paying me a retainer and my subsequent bills out of their own pocket. However, if they qualify for Legal Aid, then they can still hire me, I perform the same service, but instead of getting paid "privately" I get paid "publicly" from the government budget set aside for Legal Aid.

Almost invariably I make less money on the public purse than when I have a private retainer, but the point is that clients can access my services in either fashion.

There are also some true public servant lawyers who are staff members with Legal Aid...they are government employees with set salaries.

The system seems to work pretty well in terms of providing access to legal service, so wouldn't a similar program improve access to health service for everyone (i.e. shorten wait times) without compromising the service provided?

I'm not saying kill medicare...but right now I don't see a downside to the private / public mix like with Legal Aid.

Anyone got ideas / comments?

FTA

[The Honest Politician]

I join legamus in wanting someone to explain to me the actual problems...not B.S. about us becoming like the U.S.

I can see the potential for problems in NAFTA as is suggested, but let me ask this...have we not always had private-for-profit delivery of public health services?

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.  Doctor's clinics are for-profit...the more patients a doctor sees and treats, the more money he or she can make.  If the doctor can save money on tongue depressors and stethoscopes, then he or she puts more cash in his or her jeans at the end of the day.

The answer is no.

Yes the doctor makes more money for him/her self, but the clinic which is a company itself makes no profit. Repairs come directly out of the same money that the doctor would be taking home. There is no cash reserve or corperate investment portfolio.

A true public not-for-profit system would have government doctors, paid set salaries regardless of the number of procedures they completed in a given month.

But then there are always those who do way more than they should have too, and others who abuse the system. A per patient basis is really the fairest way.

Why can't the health system work the same as Legal Aid for lawyers.  If someone wants to hire me they can do so by paying me a retainer and my subsequent bills out of their own pocket.  However, if they qualify for Legal Aid, then they can still hire me, I perform the same service, but instead of getting paid "privately" I get paid "publicly" from the government budget set aside for Legal Aid.

Almost invariably I make less money on the public purse than when I have a private retainer, but the point is that clients can access my services in either fashion.

This is where people get worried about losing all the skilled doctors to the private clinics, and leaving the less wealthy with lower levels of care.

Where you the head of your class?

Where does the validictorian of your class work right now?

Does he/she make more money than you?

I am not trying to pry, but usually in the private sector the brightest young people are gobbled up quickly by the big and the rich. Given fat salaries, and golden oportunities.

Now if a doctor is getting paid twice as much as another doctor, then the for profit clinic will have to charge twice as much for him do work on you, plus some profit for themselves.

One of the first things the new clinics will fight is a set cost for services.

[FTA Lawyer]

This is where people get worried about losing all the skilled doctors to the private clinics, and leaving the less wealthy with lower levels of care.

Where you the head of your class?

Where does the validictorian of your class work right now?

Does he/she make more money than you?

I am not trying to pry, but usually in the private sector the brightest young people are gobbled up quickly by the big and the rich. Given fat salaries, and golden oportunities.

Now if a doctor is getting paid twice as much as another doctor, then the for profit clinic will have to charge twice as much for him do work on you, plus some profit for themselves.

One of the first things the new clinics will fight is a set cost for services.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you presuppose that smart people are all money-grubbers...

I was on the Dean's list (top 10%) each of my 3 years of law school. I turned down offers of employment from 3 of the highest-paying national law firms in Canada to take employment that I love to do and allows me to see my family...but that's another topic...

Let me put this one out there...If the public system we currently have pays a doctor $1000.00 to do a hip surgery (just a made up number) but it takes 18 months to get it, what is the difficulty in allowing a "private system" doctor to charge $2,000.00 to do it in 6 months where $1,000.00 comes from the gov't and the extra from the patient?

If the only issue is the concern about doctors fleeing to the private system, that's easy...legislate a tour of duty in the public system (either for the first 5 years of license or for "x" number of hours each year).

Alberta's law society is not currently doing this, but a number of other jurisdictions do (i.e. require every lawyer who is a member of the bar to perform a certain amount of Legal Aid work).

Wouldn't this work to allay the concern about only dumb doctors in the public system? (which I'm not convinced would happen anyway...many doctors are not in it for money...in fact, many are involved in free legal clinics and organizations like Doctors Without Borders at the expense of losing time that could be spent making more cash).

FTA

[The Honest Politician]

Well, you presuppose that smart people are all money-grubbers...

In another thread you mentioned your salary. I meant nothing by it. Even so you where offered much higher paying jobs and turned them down, for good reason, but it goes to show how the best are courted by the private sector. Now what percentage of the top half of your graduating class do you think would have made a similar choice? Not everyone will turn down a larger salary.

It is not a total brain drain, it's just one side has alot more.

Even if everything is perfect, and there is no brain drain from the public sector, once profit is being made it could be argued it is a NAFTA issue.

If it is successfully argued that it does fall under NAFTA then govt. subsidies could be stopped. This could be a real sticking point if there are American facilities that can offer a service for less money, than it can be done in Canada. And they can show subsidies are preventing people from going to the states to recieve treatment. If there is no Govt. assistance for lower income citizens to also use the private system, we will be in a worse mess than we are now.

If you look at the Alberta model, posted in another thread, all they basically did was increase the number of doctors and more than doubled surgeries per room, per day. That's just common sense.

Of course, more doctors, and over twice the number of surgeries per day is going to decrease wait time.

So why does that model have to be privatized?

It should work as an entirely public system.

The basic idea behind a central medicare system is that by taking a little from everybody, we, as a society, can make sure that the individual doesn't suffer, simply because they can't afford to pay for help. Can you imagine how many personal bankrupcies there would be in the next 25 years with our aging population, and a for profit healthcare system. People who worked their entire lives, have it all wiped out by having to pay to get healthy. Yes it's a sad picture, and it is towards the extreme, but it happens in for profit systems.

Now what is being discussed for Canada is a two tier system, where if you can't be seen inside the public system within a certain time frame, or you just wish to pay for it yourself, you will be able to go a private, for profit clinic. It sounds good, but how good depends on the NAFTA issue. If it is successfully argued that private healthcare falls under NAFTA, it is the people who have been waiting in the public system that would lose their subsidy. Then we would have only solved 10% of the problem. Only those who could afford it would be accessing the faster service from the private healthcare. The middle and lower income families would still be stuck on waiting lists within the public saystem.

In all reality the legal battle over the NAFTA issue would take years. Your a lawyer, you know, every trick in the book would be brought out from both sides. I think any Govt. who puts national two tier healthcare into being, will be long gone before the full effects of a two tier system are felt.

[willy]

We have a two teir system.

In BC WCB patients, criminals and police officers get access to private clinics. Those clinics will also operate on you if you pay. An aside: the clinics came to be under the provincial NDP governement. They thought the worker deserved to jump the que.

We also have mixed clinics where some services you pay for and others are picked up by public health insurance.

In Quebec they have many practices that have opted right out of the public system. Our system is failing and the governments don't have answers so they can not inforce the single tier system. No one wants to be blamed for waiting list deaths.

If I were you I would be less worried about NAFTA and more worried about accessing the care you need when you need it as the baby boom ages.

Cambie clinic in Vacouver is 10X more efficient that the public system. The health outcomes are also better due to the short wait times procedures tend not to progress into more complex problems.

[Drea]

There is nothing wrong with private clinics. My father went to a private clinic for his laser eye surgery.

The problem I have is with private INSURANCE.

When an insurer has the ability to deny coverage -- that is scary -- not private clinics, private hospitals, etc.

Would any of you want an "HMO" to tell you "sorry bub, you aren't covered for such and such treatment, go die"?

Remember the movie "John Q" where a private insurance company denies the child life-saving treatment?

All this hype about private clinics is clouding the real issue!

WE DO NOT WANT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY COVERAGE.

[southerncomfort]

There is nothing wrong with private clinics. My father went to a private clinic for his laser eye surgery.

The problem I have is with private INSURANCE.

When an insurer has the ability to deny coverage -- that is scary -- not private clinics, private hospitals, etc.

Would any of you want an "HMO" to tell you "sorry bub, you aren't  covered for such and such treatment, go die"?

Remember the movie "John Q" where a private insurance company denies the child life-saving treatment?

All this hype about private clinics is clouding the real issue!

WE DO NOT WANT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY COVERAGE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not disagree with that, but what do you care what other people do with their own cash. If they want to buy additional insurance, let them, none of your concern really.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Personally I'm just very happy we seem to be ready to have the debate without all the shrill scare mongering.

There are numerous models available all around the world, many work better than ours. It's not simply a question of our way or the American way.

I'm sure all Canadians feel similarly, they do not want poor people denied treatment, they want costs to be controlled, they want transferabilitly between provinces, they do not want to wait forever for treatment and they do not want to completly abandon the public system we have now. Seems to me if we can all agree on these founding principles then we should be able to move on to rational analysis of what is possible.

So where do we start?

[willy]

Basic coverage with the ability to purchase extra insurance right now.

If you have blue cross coverage for instance you can get a much nicer cast.

I personally like the fact we have basic public insurance, but I wish they would put mind to how they open up new delivery opertunities.

This should not be done because of a failing systems but designed to enhance our access to quality health care.

[Biblio Bibuli]

WE DO NOT WANT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY COVERAGE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you'd put up with Medicare denying you coverage and treatment, right? RIGHT??

I've heard of several cases in the past few years where Canadian doctors told a patient that nothing could be done and that they had 6 months to live .... and how these people, refusing to believe, went to the U.S. and were fully cured.

I always thought that Canadian MEDICARE sprang for the bill in these cases.

In today's National Post, on page A8, I see that this is not always so.

The article titled "Liver recipient fighting OHIP for restitution"

tells the story of a Toronto high school teacher, Adolfo Flora, who was told six years ago t at the Toronto General Hospital that his liver was shot from cancer and that he had less than eight months to live. He was a poor risk according to the TGH surgeons so they refused to replace his cancerous liver with a piece of his brother's heathy liver.

But Adolfo was determined to live so he had the operation done in England where the doctors said that he was an excellent candidate for a liver transplant from a living donor, a role that would be filled by his brother.

Today, six years later, he is alive, his cancer gone and his health excellent, but he is still fighting Medicare to pay him close to half a million bucks, the money he spent so that he could live.

How would you feel if this were YOU? Canada would just tell you to roll over & die ... but it looks like old Adolfo could have another 40 years in him.

[Biblio Bibuli]

In today's National Post, on page A8, I see that this is not always so.

The article titled "Liver recipient fighting OHIP for restitution"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the article:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...b61bf7a25d0&p=1

Here are some excerpts for those unregistered at NP:

"Liver recipient fighting OHIP for restitution

In Adolfo Flora's ongoing battle to receive restitution from the Ontario government for his costly liver transplant in Britain, there is one indisputable piece of evidence working in his favour: He is alive.

Leslie Lilly, the medical director of liver transplantation at the Toronto General Hospital, who concluded Mr. Flora was too sick to treat ....

Determined to keep fighting, Mr. Flora sought an opinion from doctors in London.

There, he was approved as a candidate for a liver transplant ....

But he was forced to sell his mother's house to pay for the surgery ....

At a hearing before the OHIP board, two doctors who treated Mr. Flora in England expressed the view that he was a good transplant candidate.

An Ontario doctor testified that he was not."

Beware an Ontario doctor!!

[Yaro]

Private healthcare is not delivered as efficently as public healthcare. Its a fact get over it.

[willy]

Private healthcare is not delivered as efficently as public healthcare. Its a fact get over it.

The Cambie Health Clinic in Vancouver BC is able to do 10X the amount of surgeries with the same amount of resources than Providence Health Care operating department.

No crap, just the facts.

Examples of efficiencies: they work as a team, prepping and cleaning. They do not have to wait for the contracted service to be done in the limits of the public sector terms. Yes there is no physical reason the public systems can not operate with the same efficiency but systemically this can not happen. The management model is one of transaction and negotiation, private systems have the advantage of more progressive leadership models that result in higher performing organizations. i.e. West Jet vs Air Canada.

France is the best example I know of mixed systems that works. No systems will be perfect but really should a G8 country be ranked 30th in health care.

[BubberMiley]

You will always be able to find individual cases where the public system failed, just as you can find cases where the private system has failed. That's because it's a huge, complicated system run by human beings. In the end, it comes down to whether you consider health care as something sacred (in the secular sense), a service that should be solely delivered based on need and not ability to pay. You can trot out examples of how the public system has at times not fulfilled that need, but that just shows how we can all work together to improve it. Private models have the potential to help improve it, but we would have to be very careful we wouldn't be diminishing the public system while doing so.

This week in Manitoba, a private MRI clinic opened its doors. By doing so, it appears it will force the public system to once again raise the wages of those operating the MRI machines, as a number of employees were "stolen away." By introducing market forces, there is the potential that costs will skyrocket even more and people will be able to jump the queue because they have the cash in their pocket.

Many people have no problem with this sort of situation. They are almost always the ones who have the cash to benefit from it.

[Yaro]

The Cambie Health Clinic in Vancouver BC is able to do 10X the amount of surgeries with the same amount of resources than Providence Health Care operating department.

No crap, just the facts.

Not a fact at all actually, the government has hundreds of operating facilities that are almost never used. This underutilization isn't do to lack of doctors it is due to the lack of ability to pay those doctors to use those ORs. As I said before even the article itself states that no money was saved, just that the model wasn't any worse.

Examples of efficiencies: they work as a team, prepping and cleaning. They do not have to wait for the contracted service to be done in the limits of the public sector terms. Yes there is no physical reason the public systems can not operate with the same efficiency but systemically this can not happen. The management model is one of transaction and negotiation; private systems have the advantage of more progressive leadership models that result in higher performing organizations. i.e. West Jet vs. Air Canada.

Again you have no idea what you’re talking about; the public system does operate more efficiently to the extent it operates. There is no money in the system to do what is being asked, Alberta has that extra money and so it was able to do something about it. The management models for the public system were far more efficient then the private models, in fact by a fact of 5 in most reports (administrative overhead of 3% for public facilities to 15% for private facilities). The notion of a more efficient private sector is fantasy, it is often the case in the long term but for systematic and organizational efficiency the opposite is usually the case.

You should also recheck your example organizations West Jet is as of now getting killed by Air Canada. There were many reasons that Air Canada was having trouble but the single biggest was that they were mandated to provide service to communities at heavy loses. Once those mandates were removed Air Canada quickly became the most profitable airline in Canada with a far more modern and safer fleet then West Jet.

France is the best example I know of mixed systems that works. No systems will be perfect but really should a G8 country be ranked 30th in health care.

France is more sided towards the Public system then Canada's system currently is but I agree they do have a good system and I would have no problem with implementing a similar model here. However you would find it impossible to get the Doctors and Nurses to go along with it since it would significantly reduce there earning potential.

[Riverwind]

The notion of a more efficient private sector is fantasy, it is often the case in the long term but for systematic and organizational efficiency the opposite is usually the case.

I won't argue with your figures regarding management efficiency, however, the public system suffers from a lot of labour inefficiency introduced by pubic sector unions demanding compensation packages that are completely unreasonable for the work being done when compared to the rest of us who work in the private sector. They are able to negotiate these compensation packages because they have an absolute monopoly on delivering healthcare and their employer (the gov't) can't be forced into bankruptcy.

In a private model where the employers could actually go bankrupt, the unions would have to moderate their demands and you would likely see compensation in the heathcare sector follow trends similar to other industries (i.e. salaries and benefits for workers with skills and perform well on the job would go up. Salaries and benefits for unskilled workers or workers who cannot be bothered to work because they are protected by union seniority would go down).

This is why it is public sector unions who are the biggest opponents to privately delivered care.

[Guest eureka]

Should a G8 country rank 36th. as the US does? Should the US have a much higher mortality rate in its hospitals than Canada? It does. A couple of cases do not a superior system make.

I am sure the Liver donee has reason to be grateful, but what about all those who die in American hospitals who might have lived on after Canadian hospitalizarion?

[Yaro]

I won't argue with your figures regarding management efficiency, however, the public system suffers from a lot of labour inefficiency introduced by pubic sector unions demanding compensation packages that are completely unreasonable for the work being done when compared to the rest of us who work in the private sector. They are able to negotiate these compensation packages because they have an absolute monopoly on delivering healthcare and their employer (the gov't) can't be forced into bankruptcy.

Actually its funny that you should bring up compensation packages because this is one of those very few instances where the private sector pays better then the public sector. Its one of the main reasons why doctors associations are pushing so hard for a US style system (Yes I realize that many people here aren't advocating that, just pointing out that doctors are). Nurses get paid more as well in a private system which is why protests from the nurses about the introduction of a private system are minimal on the whole. Its unfortunate that everyone that does financially benefit from the medical services industry benefits more from a private system because it leaves very little incentive for anyone to defend the public system.

In a private model where the employers could actually go bankrupt, the unions would have to moderate their demands and you would likely see compensation in the heathcare sector follow trends similar to other industries (i.e. salaries and benefits for workers with skills and perform well on the job would go up. Salaries and benefits for unskilled workers or workers who cannot be bothered to work because they are protected by union seniority would go down).

Normally this is true, but the medical industry is an exception. There is a major shortage of nurses and doctors and the government(s) in Canada have used the threats of legislated contracts to maintain relatively low wages for doctors and nurses (relative to market demand).

This is why it is public sector unions who are the biggest opponents to privately delivered care.

Sort of true, the public sector unions have objected to the outsourcing of unskilled labour positions but they have never had an issue with private medical facilities. Essentially the government has (often unfairly) used threats to force down the wages earned nurses and doctors. Not that doctors and nurses are very well paid in Canada (making twice similar positions in Europe, and more recently similar wages to what are available in the US).

It should also be noted that wages aren't strictly a modifier to efficiency, as a non-consumptive cost they are an issue of wealth distribution. For some this is a problem, others feel differently but it isn't really the same issue as efficiency.

[Drea]

There is nothing wrong with private clinics. My father went to a private clinic for his laser eye surgery.

The problem I have is with private INSURANCE.

When an insurer has the ability to deny coverage -- that is scary -- not private clinics, private hospitals, etc.

Would any of you want an "HMO" to tell you "sorry bub, you aren't  covered for such and such treatment, go die"?

Remember the movie "John Q" where a private insurance company denies the child life-saving treatment?

All this hype about private clinics is clouding the real issue!

WE DO NOT WANT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY COVERAGE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not disagree with that, but what do you care what other people do with their own cash. If they want to buy additional insurance, let them, none of your concern really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't deny anyone buying extra insurance. That's a personal perogative. I am against having our public insurance REPLACED by private insurance companies.

But you'd put up with Medicare denying you coverage and treatment, right? RIGHT??

I have never ever heard of our public system denying treatment.

My mom had breast cancer, everything was paid for, everything. My uncle had lung cancer -- caused soley by his own self sucking on a cig for 40 years... every treatment everything, once again, was paid for by public insurance. A private insurer probably would've denied coverage on the basis that he was the direct cause of his illness because he was a smoker.

No. I do not want private insurance to replace public. It's just plain stupid -- private insurers don't care about lives, they care about profit (because they are in business to make a profit of course!)

I repeat:

All this hype about private clinics is clouding the real issue!

[willy]

This underutilization isn't do to lack of doctors it is due to the lack of ability to pay those doctors to use those ORs.

You make an interesting jump in logic here.

You first argue that the system is underutilized. Then you make a big judgment that it is just a matter of money.

Yes I agree they can not use the physical resources in the system but if you went back and read what I actually wrote you would see that my diagnosis was a systemic problem. They do not have the flexibility or the culture to enable them to achieve full utilization.

You should also recheck your example organizations West Jet is as of now getting killed by Air Canada.

Indicators are what you measure to check long term success. West Jet has by far the best market position, they have many new planes coming online that use less fuel and will spend more time in the air. They have a huge efficiency advantage. it takes 120 Air Canada employees to fly a plane it only takes 70 West Jet employees. West Jet planes are in the air 12 hours a day compared to less than 8 hours by Air Canada.

Your indicators would be the quarterly earnings. (guess) I hope you don't buy stock or you will be a drain on the social safety net as you age. Air Canada sold of some major assets in the last 2 quarters that are showing up on the books now. West Jet has made some investments in that same time. Who do you think will have huge profits 3 quarters from now?

Long term sustainability is impacted by your ability to maximize your resources and to have a dedicated workforce that is the engine that drives you forward.

In the public healthcare systems they have a mistrusting environment that has been toxic to employee moral. To rid the system of this cultural dynamic would take a management feat I have never seen.

[legamus]

many thanks to all the answers - i understand the issue a little better now (i think ) can someone post a link to the international rankings on health care that were referred to?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Actually its funny that you should bring up compensation packages because this is one of those very few instances where the private sector pays better then the public sector. Nurses get paid more as well in a private system which is why protests from the nurses about the introduction of a private system are minimal on the whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason that many Canadian nurses come back after a stint in the U.S. is always basicly the same .... "They worked my ass off." And many are back because they were kicked out, because they were too slow & incompetent. This is a fact!

The doctors? The doctors get paid more in the U.S. because they produce more.

They produce more because they are heavily encouraged to specialize. You see, in the U.S. they do believe in sayings like .."practice makes perfect". They also know that some surgeons are more talented at replacing hips, other's natural tallent may lie in fiddling with tiny little bones in your fingers & toes, yet others are natural born knee replacers. ETC, ETC, ETC.

Not like in Canada, where doctors have "quotas". Did you know that in Canada a doctor can do only a certain number of this or that kind of surgury before he is cut off for the rest of the year? NO MATTER HOW GOOD & QUICK HE/SHE is.

Why do you think there are so many more anesthetists needed in Canada than in the U.S.

[willy]

legamus,

The study uses an index similar to the United Nations Human Development Index and the Fraser Institute Index of Human Progress. An index score, ranging from zero to 100, indicates how a health care system performs relative to others.

Quality is measured using such categories as health status, mortality rates, preventable illnesses, appropriateness of services and patient satisfaction.

Access to care measures insurance coverage in a population, equity in health outcomes, how health spending is distributed between acute and other health-care services, and the availability of medical expertise and technology.

Cost variables include efficiency and total health spending, and sustainability.

According to the overall rankings Singapore, which relies heavily on private sector financing, has the "best" health-care system with a score of 62.1. Singapore puts much responsibility on patients to finance at least a portion of the costs of their care.

Second-place United Kingdom (60.5), which operates a private system alongside its National Health Service, ranked high largely for its low spending. By contrast, the United States (53.6) ranked just behind Canada (56.7) partially due to its high level of expenditure. Because containing costs is considered beneficial, says Ramsey, "more spending on health is worse than less."

Ah and a study on wait times,

The rise in waiting time between 1999 and 2000-01 is principally a result of an increase in the waiting time between GP referral and specialist consultation -- increasing from 4.9 weeks in 1999 to 7.2 weeks in 2000-01, an increase of 46.9 percent.

Waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment increased for Canada as a whole between 1999 and 2000-01, rising from 8.2 to 9.0 weeks, an increase of 9.8 percent.

Throughout Canada, the total number of people estimated to be waiting for treatment was 878,088 in 2000-01, an increase of 3 percent between 1999 and 2000-01.

The highest percentage of patients seeking treatment outside of Canada were those in need of radiation oncology (5.6 percent). For all specialties, 1.7 percent of patients left the country to receive treatment.

National Center for Policy Analysis