Doctor's Pay Across Canada

[jdobbin]

I recall someone asking about what the pay was. It was published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday.

http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet...tion=Healthcare

[jbg]

I recall someone asking about what the pay was. It was published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday.

http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet...tion=Healthcare

All that I know is that my son saw a doctor who was an emigré from Winnipeg. That doctor pointed out that the ability of skilled people to move to the other country is almost unlimited, and practically unique in the world, i.e. no language or cultural barriers to movement.

[jdobbin]

All that I know is that my son saw a doctor who was an emigré from Winnipeg. That doctor pointed out that the ability of skilled people to move to the other country is almost unlimited, and practically unique in the world, i.e. no language or cultural barriers to movement.

That's been true for many, many decades.

The trend towards losing more doctors south has lessened in the last year or so according to professional associations. Part of it is the cost of doing business in the U.S. and part of it is more opportunities and wage increases in Canada.

[geoffrey]

Isn't the cost of malpractice insurance much higher in the States? Is this the real reason why more docs are staying up here, they don't want to get sued?

Perhaps Canada isn't doing anything better... just the US is doing things so badly that the doctors aren't going down there as much as they used to.

[Wilber]

Isn't the cost of malpractice insurance much higher in the States? Is this the real reason why more docs are staying up here, they don't want to get sued?

Perhaps Canada isn't doing anything better... just the US is doing things so badly that the doctors aren't going down there as much as they used to.

Could be a lot of things. The rise in the Canadian dollar is probably another factor.

[jdobbin]

Isn't the cost of malpractice insurance much higher in the States? Is this the real reason why more docs are staying up here, they don't want to get sued?

Perhaps Canada isn't doing anything better... just the US is doing things so badly that the doctors aren't going down there as much as they used to.

Many provinces had limited residencies as a way of controlling costs. What is did was limit doctors. Many provinces have increased their residency spots. They've also increased the amount of doctors coming out of medical schools because of the shortages. Some doctors left simply because they were burned out working all the time. There are now more scholarships for doctors in Canada and better loan payback and forgiveness schemes for service to a province. Many hospitals have been investing in gamma knives and other hi tech equipment to keep doctors in the country. Many provinces have been working closely with the hospitals and universities to facilitate foundations that attract cancer specialists, heart specialist and researchers. This allows many doctors t have dual roles as teacher and practitioners.

I think it is a combination of things that Canada has done to keep doctors.

Malpractice insurance is only a major consideration for a doctor already thinking about leaving. Some states are better than others for that.

[jbg]

Malpractice insurance is only a major consideration for a doctor already thinking about leaving. Some states are better than others for that.

I'm a lawyer, and I will say that trial lawyers that sue doctors are the lowest of the low.

[jdobbin]

I'm a lawyer, and I will say that trial lawyers that sue doctors are the lowest of the low.

Malpractice costs in Canada are very reasonable. Families are less likely to sue than in the U.S. and awards are a lot smaller when people do sue.

[FTA Lawyer]

Malpractice insurance is only a major consideration for a doctor already thinking about leaving. Some states are better than others for that.

I'm a lawyer, and I will say that trial lawyers that sue doctors are the lowest of the low.

This is really a statement devoid of all logic (and merit for that matter).

I have a good friend whose orthopaedic surgeon set a spiral fracture of his leg without using any diagnostic imaging. The end result is that his foot is literally twisted instead of straight on his leg...by 30 degrees!!

Suing a clearly negligent doctor is simply protecting the vulnerable health-care consumer from such occurrances and can hardly be characterized as the "lowest of the low". The fact is that repeatedly negligent doctors should not be practicing and suing them is one of the most effective ways to ensure that the doctors we do have are good ones.

Pursuing an unfair advantage for a client or forwarding a frivolous lawsuit is the lowest of the low...no matter whether you are suing a doctor, a criminal, a business associate or a priest.

FTA

[PolyNewbie]

I'm a lawyer, and I will say that trial lawyers that sue doctors are the lowest of the low.

I have heard a big group of lawyers that defend doctors laugh and joke about how corrupt they are with my own ears. Most trial lawyers are the lowest of the low. I assume a lawyer is criminal until proven otherwise. However, lawyers are self governed and therefore deserve to be judged based on the actions of their colleagues.

As far as doctors pay goes, they deserve it for the following reasons:

(1) The knowledge & education required and the fact that it must be updated all the time.

(2) They are responsible for lives and must pay trial lawyers to defend themselves when accused of wrong doing.

(3) They expose themselves to disease when working in hospitals and face real life threatening risks.

(4) They do not profit from being corrupt or incompetent.

(5) Irregular hours and being on call.

I think nurses should be paid more in line with doctors since they bear responsibility for life that equals or exceeds that of doctors.

[PolyNewbie]

FTALawyer:I have a good friend whose orthopaedic surgeon set a spiral fracture of his leg without using any diagnostic imaging. The end result is that his foot is literally twisted instead of straight on his leg...by 30 degrees!!

If doctors didn't have self governance and were watched by the people that doctor would not be allowed to practise. Self governance of professions serves the purpose of protecting members of those professions from their natural responsibilities toward the public.

The only way our systems can be cleaned up is to take self governance away from the law profession and the legal profession as well as a few other professions (accounting comes to mind here).

These self governing bodies are both a joke and an insult to the public.

[geoffrey]

FTALawyer:I have a good friend whose orthopaedic surgeon set a spiral fracture of his leg without using any diagnostic imaging. The end result is that his foot is literally twisted instead of straight on his leg...by 30 degrees!!

If doctors didn't have self governance and were watched by the people that doctor would not be allowed to practise. Self governance of professions serves the purpose of protecting members of those professions from their natural responsibilities toward the public.

The only way our systems can be cleaned up is to take self governance away from the law profession and the legal profession as well as a few other professions (accounting comes to mind here).

These self governing bodies are both a joke and an insult to the public.

Because you know enough about law, medicine and accounting to enforce their rules right?

[PolyNewbie]

geoffery:Because you know enough about law, medicine and accounting to enforce their rules right?

I know enough about professional ethics to say that the rules of self governed professional societies are more of a list of suggestions than professional requirements. This is why self governance of professions should be taken away. I've been extorted by both a lawyer and an accountant.

[Canuck E Stan]

I recall someone asking about what the pay was. It was published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday.

http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet...tion=Healthcare

Somehow the G&M public health reporter,Andre Picard,picked only the information he wanted out of the Canadian Institute for Health Information report.

Saskatchewan was mentioned at the beginging of the report as being the top of the heap for pay, but wasn't on the data lists.

Also NOT mentioned was the doctors in Lotusland(BC). I'm sure their pay is far more signicant to the data than the other provinces not mentioned, and possibly those mentioned.

Another great reporting job by the media.

Don't you just love reporters and editors who give you the whole story?

[Saturn]

I recall someone asking about what the pay was. It was published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday.

http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet...tion=Healthcare

All that I know is that my son saw a doctor who was an emigré from Winnipeg. That doctor pointed out that the ability of skilled people to move to the other country is almost unlimited, and practically unique in the world, i.e. no language or cultural barriers to movement.

There are professional barriers to movement. Ironically enough, those barriers are higher on moving from province to province within Canada and from the US to Canada than they are to move from Canada to the US.

[geoffrey]

geoffery:Because you know enough about law, medicine and accounting to enforce their rules right?

I know enough about professional ethics to say that the rules of self governed professional societies are more of a list of suggestions than professional requirements. This is why self governance of professions should be taken away. I've been extorted by both a lawyer and an accountant.

How were you extorted? Frankly, it's more likely a buyer beware situation. In your proposal, I don't see how that would change anything.

The rules are hardly flexible, your making a considerable overstatement there.

When it comes to professional bodies, they need to stay self-governed as only the professionals know their work and the technical aspects of it in order to make rules and enforce them.

[PolyNewbie]

geoffrey:How were you extorted? Frankly, it's more likely a buyer beware situation. In your proposal, I don't see how that would change anything.

(1) Told that I would face dire consequences including court action against me with no habeus corpus if I reported a lawyer to the law society.

(2) Told that I would face an audit if I reported unethical behaviour of my accountant to their society.

[geoffrey]

(1) Told that I would face dire consequences including court action against me with no habeus corpus if I reported a lawyer to the law society.

No one in Canada has the power to do that.

(2) Told that I would face an audit if I reported unethical behaviour of my accountant to their society.

From a CA?

Really, I'd struggle with seeing how a private practing accounting would have the power to have you audited, but hey, whatever you want to believe.

Your number one example is just plain so outrageous I'm suprised to believed them for a second. The second is unlikely, and an audit really isn't a big deal if you've kept proper records.

[Saturn]

Professional organizations are little more than unions whose primary purpose is to ensure that their members get all privileges possible. The self-regulation part is a joke because those organizations' rules are stringent, yet hardly enforced by the organizations themselves. All they do is suspend 1 or 2 members for a couple of years when they really, really screw up go give the appearance of enforcement. Thousands of complaints for serious wrongdoing go uninvestigated with those organizations hiding behind privacy and other excuses. I believe some self-regulation is acceptable but most of the regulation should be handled by independent bodies.

[Saturn]

(2) Told that I would face an audit if I reported unethical behaviour of my accountant to their society.

From a CA?

Really, I'd struggle with seeing how a private practing accounting would have the power to have you audited, but hey, whatever you want to believe.

Your number one example is just plain so outrageous I'm suprised to believed them for a second. The second is unlikely, and an audit really isn't a big deal if you've kept proper records.

Really? You can't screw up your client's books for years and then cause them to be audited? And who is responsible before the law for the screw up - the accountant or the client? Of course you wouldn't want them to get audited but you can always threaten them.

[geoffrey]

Really? You can't screw up your client's books for years and then cause them to be audited? And who is responsible before the law for the screw up - the accountant or the client? Of course you wouldn't want them to get audited but you can always threaten them.

Absolutely the accountant would be held responsible for such action... it's one of those professions where image is alot. One big screwup for Arthur Anderson brought down one of the largest professional services firms in the world overnight. You don't think a single accountant that is unprofessional can be outcast from the profession as quickly?

I'm still unclear on how a non-accountant run accounting institute would remedy this situation. Those making the calls on professional conduct are independant of those they are reviewing, they have no vested interest in these people. And the profession will be quick to deal with people like this as they are all about protecting and promoting their image.

[jbg]

Pursuing an unfair advantage for a client or forwarding a frivolous lawsuit is the lowest of the low...no matter whether you are suing a doctor, a criminal, a business associate or a priest.

In my neck of the woods, most of those suits, even one, unfortunately, by the family of a close college friend, are frivilous.

[Saturn]

Really? You can't screw up your client's books for years and then cause them to be audited? And who is responsible before the law for the screw up - the accountant or the client? Of course you wouldn't want them to get audited but you can always threaten them.

Absolutely the accountant would be held responsible for such action... it's one of those professions where image is alot. One big screwup for Arthur Anderson brought down one of the largest professional services firms in the world overnight. You don't think a single accountant that is unprofessional can be outcast from the profession as quickly?

I'm still unclear on how a non-accountant run accounting institute would remedy this situation. Those making the calls on professional conduct are independant of those they are reviewing, they have no vested interest in these people. And the profession will be quick to deal with people like this as they are all about protecting and promoting their image.

The client is on the hook for the money+penalties and the headaches involved. The accountant won't get even a slap on the wrist unless the case involves massive fraud and gets out in the open. In that such a case, the professional organization won't have a choice but to investigate as there will be others investigating as well. If (by some miracle) intent is proven, the accountant will get a couple of years of suspension. The AA case is not an insulated one but AA got caught because Enron collapsed. The mere fact that fraud of such gigantic proportions took place for years before it came to light proves that self-regulation in the accounting profession leaves a heck of a lot to be desired.

An independent regulator would remedy this situation by just that - regulating and preventing things from going out of control. The profession is quick to deal with people only when things have already gone out of control and when massive loss of reputation will result if people are not dealt with. Regulation means sufficient control to ensure prevention, not just cleaning up after the fact.

[geoffrey]

Regulation means sufficient control to ensure prevention, not just cleaning up after the fact.

And having non-accountants do that changes things how?

Stricter regulations are fine and dandy, but why does it matter who puts them into place? Personally, I think that having accounting professionals decide accounting regulations makes alot of sense to me.

I certainly hope there isn't an accountant that decides the scientific merit behind two different treatmeants that would be accepted by the physicans assocations.

[Saturn]

Regulation means sufficient control to ensure prevention, not just cleaning up after the fact.

And having non-accountants do that changes things how?

Stricter regulations are fine and dandy, but why does it matter who puts them into place? Personally, I think that having accounting professionals decide accounting regulations makes alot of sense to me.

Of course it makes sense to have accounting professionals decide accounting regulations. But you could have an independent body staffed by accountants deal with issues of malpractice in the profession. Of course you'd have accountants investigating accountants but at least they would be answering to different bosses.

I certainly hope there isn't an accountant that decides the scientific merit behind two different treatmeants that would be accepted by the physicans assocations.

No, but an accountant would be able to investigate a doctor who infects hundreds of patients with Hep C over a full decade, while the medical association hid behind privacy concerns and failed to investigate for 10 years, no?