Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Southern Border Without Doctors (Canada’s physician shortage)
National Review Online ^ | September 06, 2006 | Nadeem Esmail

Posted on 09/06/2006 2:14:53 PM PDT by neverdem







Southern Border Without Doctors
Canada’s failed efforts at central planning have created a physician shortage.

By Nadeem Esmail

There are two basic concepts of policy-making that all politicians must understand: the Law of Unintended Consequences, and its more colloquial cousin, the Principal Principle. Canada’s experience with government management of the physician supply provides an excellent example of each. It also provides yet another case study of the reality that government central planning typically fails. Unfortunately, these examples have come with a steep price tag: declining access to physicians in Canada.

This sorry tale begins in the early 1970s. At that time, Canadians enjoyed one of the highest physician-to-population ratios in the developed world. It was a good time for physician training in Canada. In response to a 1964 federal-government commission’s call for a doubling of Canada’s capacity to train doctors, four new medical schools had been built and twelve others expanded significantly. In light of recent evidence showing that higher physician-to-population ratios are related to lower mortality rates, such generous access to physicians was good for Canadians.

Yet not everyone liked the direction things were headed.

In the early- to mid-1980s, some government officials and researchers voiced concern about the increasing number of physicians in Canada and its potential cost implications. They recommended governments reduce the number of medical-school admissions and training positions that were available. While no specific policy resulted from these calls, medical-school admissions were reduced slightly through the 1980s.

It wasn’t until the early 1990s that specific policies restricting physician supply were introduced.

In 1991, a paper known as the Barer-Stoddart report — published as a discussion paper for a conference of Canada’s Deputy Ministers of Health — recommended among other things: reducing medical-school enrolment by 10 percent in order to approximately maintain the physician-to-population ratio in Canada, reducing the number of provincially-funded post-graduate training positions, and reducing Canada’s reliance on foreign-trained doctors over time. In 1992, governments responded by accepting all three recommendations with the goal of maintaining or reducing the physician-to-population ratio over time.

Unfortunately, the government estimates of how many students should be trained were too low. The number of Canadian students being trained as physicians in Canada was insufficient to maintain the physician-to-population ratio even through the mid-1990s. Canada ended up relying on foreign-trained doctors to make up for the shortfall. By the turn of the millennium, officials had come to realize that more physicians were needed and began ramping up physician training once more.

This brings us to the Principal Principle, which states that for every solution not carefully considered, one always creates more problems than one solves (while some scholars will recognize this principle’s relationship to the Law of Unintended Consequences, it is considered as a colloquial cousin for discussion here). One of the key problems was that the plans laid out for Canada’s physician supply in the early 1990s were based on the realities of medicine in the early 1990s. Since then, the ability to treat patients has progressed significantly, the age of the population has also advanced, and people’s expectations have also grown along with the medical possibilities.

The original intention to maintain a physician-to-population ratio around the 2-per-1,000 mark may well be short of what is actually required — at the very least it is well short of the physician-to-population ratios in other developed countries. In addition, much of Canada’s past discussion surrounding physician supply has ignored the dynamics of physician supply, including increasing future retirements.

The restrictions were ill advised, and they resulted in a much greater problem than Canada started with.

And the problem is likely to get worse because Canadian enrolment figures have not yet caught up with reality and the needs of Canadians. According to Fraser Institute estimates, the number of new physicians needed to simply maintain the current physician-to-population ratio exceeds the number of Canadian-trained physicians entering the workforce every year from now to 2015 — and this doesn’t take into account the likely effects of an aging physician workforce, 34 percent of whom are now 55 or older. Unless Canada can make better use of the physicians on the ground today and in the near future, the nation will be forced to rely on foreign-trained medical graduates to maintain the level of services in Canada.

This brings us to the Law of Unintended Consequences, which dictates that the actions of individuals and governments always have effects that are unanticipated.

The first such consequence comes from Canada’s reliance on foreign-trained physicians. While these doctors have increased supply in Canada, the unintended consequence is that some nations where doctors are already scarce have had to make do with less, notably South Africa and India. Importantly, in 2002, one in ten physicians practicing in Canada was trained in a lower-income nation.

Other unintended consequences are foregone health benefits from a larger physician population and reduced access to health-care services. Access in Canada has gotten to the point where an estimated 1.2 million Canadians were unable to find a regular physician in 2003, and where long waits for medically necessary treatment are alarmingly common. The average wait time for non-urgent medical services hovered near the 18-week mark in 2005.

Importantly, for those convinced that the problems would have arisen regardless, or that further government intervention is the solution to the problems caused by government intervention, countries that have taken a different path have avoided Canada’s situation.

According to a recent report from the OECD, nations that have traditionally relied on the market to determine the number of domestically-trained physicians have enjoyed greater access to doctors than those nations that, like Canada, have tried to actively manage physician supply. The shortfalls of central planning in health care are equally evident on a broader scale: Countries that have relied on a policy backbone of private competition outperform health-care models like Canada’s, which are centrally planned and organized.

The lessons from Canada’s experience are clear: Central planning typically does far more harm than good. And in this case, as in most, it is the population that ultimately pays the price.

— Nadeem Esmail is the director of health-system performance studies at the Fraser Institute and author of Canada’s Physician Shortage: Effects, Projections, and Solutions, published by the Institute.  




TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fraserinstitute; health; medicine

1 posted on 09/06/2006 2:14:55 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ah, another "Brain Drain" article...

If you were a new DR. who was assigned to Tuktoyuktuk, you'd head to the USA too!


2 posted on 09/06/2006 2:17:25 PM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MD_Willington_1976

What difference is this compared to what happened in the US when the medical schools decide to limit applicants?


3 posted on 09/06/2006 2:31:02 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Who will lead our country next? Who will fight the good fight? Who has the courage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There is a physician shortage on both sides of the border, and you're not going to fix health care until you eliminate the shortage. Even with all the Canadian doctors coming over here, we still don't have enough.

The big difference is that the Canadians have a system that accentuates the problem by encouraging doctors to flee.


4 posted on 09/06/2006 2:57:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Just need to import more physicians from Caribbean Med schools.

HI EVERYBODY!

5 posted on 09/06/2006 3:08:14 PM PDT by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Central planning typically does far more harm than good.

Word up.

6 posted on 09/06/2006 3:10:03 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The big difference is that the Canadians have a system that accentuates the problem by encouraging doctors to flee.

Nope.

August 26, 2005 , The report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), released Wednesday, shows that 317 physicians returned to Canada last year compared to 262 who left.

- Here are some highlights from the CIHI report on doctors:

-In 2000, 420 Canadian physicians moved abroad compared to 262 in 2004, a 38 per cent decrease.

-In 2000, 256 physicians returned to Canada compared to 317 in 2004, a 24 per cent increase.

-For the first time since 1969, when statistics were first compiled, more physicians returned to Canada than left the country.

-Between 2000 and 2004, the number of doctors in Canada grew by five per cent, a rate that kept pace with population growth.

-In 2000, there were 188 physicians per 100,000 population; in 2004, there were 189 per 100,000.

-The average age of physicians increased by one year from 2000-2004, to 49.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/august/more_doctors_returni.php

7 posted on 09/06/2006 3:14:31 PM PDT by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Snowyman
re: -The average age of physicians increased by one year from 2000-2004, to 49)))

Whoa--that is discouraging, unless they are admitting older students to start with. Ideally, a newly minted doc should be in his mid to late twenties. When you start admitting them in their thirties (which is trendy), the career life is obviously shorter. And when you encourage docs to retire as early as possible by making their lives as miserable as possible, it pays to admit young ones.

8 posted on 09/06/2006 3:24:50 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
What difference is this compared to what happened in the US when the medical schools decide to limit applicants?

Are you referring to an earlier period in our history? I believe that the AMA enforced limits on medical schools, that's why a number of my contemporaries went abroad to medical school in the 1970s.

It was indeed a non-market restriction of trade.

I heard a speech by Sen. Lowell Weicker in the early 1990s, where he claimed credit for having gotten the "medical lobby" to have allowed increased medical school enrollment in the U.S., in return for an expansion of Medicare benefits that would of course benefit their constituents. I believe that this grand bargain would have taken place during the Nixon years.
9 posted on 09/06/2006 3:24:53 PM PDT by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
In the early- to mid-1980s, some government officials and researchers voiced concern about the increasing number of physicians in Canada and its potential cost implications.

These morons couldn't pass a basic economics course. When you have a larger supply of something, the price decreases.

I realize this doesn't quite apply with criminals and lawyers, who can make a unilateral decision to do business with a person, but going to a doctor is voluntary.

10 posted on 09/06/2006 3:55:10 PM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Many MDs are still trained overseas. I know three of them. No, there are still substantial school restrictions. ERGO This has fueled the rise of Nurse practitioners and Physician Assistants.


11 posted on 09/06/2006 6:11:43 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Who will lead our country next? Who will fight the good fight? Who has the courage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
It doesn't make economic sense for schools to want to restrict their enrollments. Colleges for example are universally engaged in empire building.

In what way are Medical Schools limiting their size, and where is the economic reward to them for doing so?

My perception is that the imposition of HMOs and "managed care" is making medicine a less lucrative and otherwise less attractive field, along with increasing medical liability and health care entitlement that forces doctors to care for uncooperative and unappreciative patients. These are the factors that discourage young Americans from pursuing medical careers.
12 posted on 09/06/2006 6:36:27 PM PDT by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
In what way are Medical Schools limiting their size, and where is the economic reward to them for doing so?

The schools are limited by their physical capacity. There's just so many students that can fit into lecture halls, student microbiology laboratories, etc. Once they are maxxed out, you have to build new schools.

13 posted on 09/06/2006 10:24:41 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Marius3188; ZGuy; Incorrigible; El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; ...
autism special

Fathering kids above age 40 may increase risk of autism

Treatment with 'friendly' bacteria could counter autism in children

Older fathers 'raise autism risk'

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

14 posted on 09/06/2006 10:37:39 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

It doesn't make economic sense for schools to want to restrict their enrollments.

"managed care" is making medicine a less lucrative and otherwise less attractive field, along with increasing medical liability and health care entitlement that forces doctors to care for uncooperative and unappreciative patients. These are the factors that discourage young Americans from pursuing medical careers.


University and other education settings are not competitive economic environments. They are run more like guilds or non profits. Grant, government funding, mission and tax breaks put them in a different economic catagory. The idea is to extend influence but not necessarily put out more product.

External factors such as market forces have changed the setting...agreed. But people go into medicine for many reasons, one being economic. What MDs are doing is trying to reposition a few on the top of a health provider ladder that they hope they can control.


15 posted on 09/07/2006 3:36:46 AM PDT by Chickensoup (Who will lead our country next? Who will fight the good fight? Who has the courage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ping to 15


16 posted on 09/07/2006 3:38:10 AM PDT by Chickensoup (Who will lead our country next? Who will fight the good fight? Who has the courage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The guiding principle for public policy ought to be the same as it is for medicine: First, do no harm.


17 posted on 09/07/2006 3:38:22 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Most socialized systems are stuck with paying for care that politicians don't WANT to pay for as it takes monies frpm other "projects"...so they are stuck with giving lip service to more access and benefits, while at the same time erecting subtle barriers to access.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/02/controlling_health_care_costs_by_controlling_access/


18 posted on 09/07/2006 3:49:58 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One need not wonder whether the politicians who are micromanaging Canada's medical services have ready access to medical care as needed. Eh? Too bad about the masses.


19 posted on 09/07/2006 6:28:01 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Soon to come to California's communities if Arnie signs that new law.


20 posted on 09/07/2006 10:47:46 AM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson