Article content continued

To be fair, there are some areas where we do reasonably well. For example, our system delivers more consultations with family doctors, cataract surgeries, and knee replacements than the average universal health-care system. We also have fewer patients dying after a heart attack, and a stellar record on breast and colorectal cancer survival.

On the flip side, our mortality rate following ischemic strokes is higher than in many countries, our survival rate for cervical cancer is only average, and we have the worst record for obstetric trauma (injury to the mother while giving birth). Canada also reports the lowest amount of hospital activity (as measured by discharge rates). An optimistic view of this measure would be that our system is good at keeping patients healthy and out of the hospital. However, a more sober analysis suggests the existence of a bottle-neck of patients waiting to be admitted—a view supported by the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are waiting for treatment. And of course, there remains the question of why our system costs so much if it delivers fewer expensive, in-hospital treatments to patients.

Pumping more money into an already expensive system is clearly not the answer

While the tireless defenders of the status quo will undoubtedly continue to selectively focus on the few bright spots, the wealth of evidence suggests we have a lot of work to do. Crucially, simply pumping more money into an already expensive system is clearly not the answer.

Let’s take this opportunity to eat some humble pie, identify countries that do better than us on any of the 42 performance metrics identified in the Fraser Institute’s report, and learn about what they do differently so that we can improve our system for patients who need it most.

National Post

Bacchus Barua is associate director of the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Health Policy Studies.