Research says funding cuts and poor organisation stop Canadians from accessing healthcare – and 20% have no doctor at all
Research says funding cuts and poor organisation stop Canadians from accessing healthcare – and 20% have no doctor at all
Note: these are my chosen quotes from the articles:
The CMAJ study, led by family physicians and researchers at the University of Toronto and published on Monday, compares the Canadian healthcare system with those of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the UK. Those countries were chosen because 95% or more citizens have access to a family physician.
She pointed out that Norwegians and Finns are automatically registered to a doctor or health centre, and those in the UK have a right to register with care providers in their immediate communities.
Many Canadians, however, wait for years on provincial family doctor waitlists. Others have to call around town in hopes of finding someone willing to accept them. In the interim, they cobble care together through urgent care clinics, hospital ERs and, in some cases, private out-of-pocket services.
The CMAJ study, led by family physicians and researchers at the University of Toronto and published on Monday, compares the Canadian healthcare system with those of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the UK.
Among the study’s chief conclusions is that countries that design healthcare systems around the principle of guaranteed access have far different – and usually better – outcomes than those in Canada.
Important comparative differences included higher rates of primary care funding, more doctors, better organisation and information systems support and greater physician accountability to the public insurer.
Kiran said that more and more Canadian medical school graduates are losing their appetite for the self-employed, fee-for-service model on which Canada currently relies in favour of greater work-life balance.
With shifts like these, the CMAJ study suggests Canada may be forced to chose between continuing to pour money into a broken system, and reimagining it entirely.
Kiran said a chief lesson to learn from other countries with public systems is that universal healthcare can work when it is designed and funded with intention.
The original article contains 681 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m in the 20% without access to a doctor and I am completely unable to have regular checkups or health issues looked at. It’s extremely frustrating knowing it could be better managed
I’m in Montreal and in the same situation. No family doctor, whenever I have a health issue I have to call 811 to get sent to a clinic so I can have my problems dismissed by a random doctor.
I’m tempted to go to Ontario to pay for a private doctor, which defeats the purpose of our system.
Sounds stupid, as care delivery through a family physician who coordinates care for patients is the cheapest and most efficient form of health care delivery.
It’s also usually better for the health outcomes of the patient
Exactly. We have to remember the old saying of Hippocrates: prevention is better than cure. Preventing a disease will save the system an enormous amount of money because it will reduce the number of hospital admissions. Hospital admissions are the most expensive costs.
Yes, but it would mean that the poor would have the same care as the rich, and the rich would pay for it.
The current system suits the people who run it just fine: they have access to primary care, they pay lower taxes, and they can make money investing in private health-care delivery. What’s the incentive for them to invest in public care?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The CMAJ study, led by family physicians and researchers at the University of Toronto and published on Monday, compares the Canadian healthcare system with those of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the UK.
Among the study’s chief conclusions is that countries that design healthcare systems around the principle of guaranteed access have far different – and usually better – outcomes than those in Canada.
Important comparative differences included higher rates of primary care funding, more doctors, better organisation and information systems support and greater physician accountability to the public insurer.
Kiran said that more and more Canadian medical school graduates are losing their appetite for the self-employed, fee-for-service model on which Canada currently relies in favour of greater work-life balance.
With shifts like these, the CMAJ study suggests Canada may be forced to chose between continuing to pour money into a broken system, and reimagining it entirely.
Kiran said a chief lesson to learn from other countries with public systems is that universal healthcare can work when it is designed and funded with intention.
The original article contains 681 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m in the 20% without access to a doctor and I am completely unable to have regular checkups or health issues looked at. It’s extremely frustrating knowing it could be better managed
Where u at, city-wise?
I’m in Montreal and in the same situation. No family doctor, whenever I have a health issue I have to call 811 to get sent to a clinic so I can have my problems dismissed by a random doctor.
I’m tempted to go to Ontario to pay for a private doctor, which defeats the purpose of our system.
Can you ask your friends/family who they see and ask if they can hook you up?
They’re all full and not taking any new patients, or nowhere near where I live unfortunately
Sounds stupid, as care delivery through a family physician who coordinates care for patients is the cheapest and most efficient form of health care delivery. It’s also usually better for the health outcomes of the patient
Exactly. We have to remember the old saying of Hippocrates: prevention is better than cure. Preventing a disease will save the system an enormous amount of money because it will reduce the number of hospital admissions. Hospital admissions are the most expensive costs.
Yes, but it would mean that the poor would have the same care as the rich, and the rich would pay for it.
The current system suits the people who run it just fine: they have access to primary care, they pay lower taxes, and they can make money investing in private health-care delivery. What’s the incentive for them to invest in public care?
Nothing changes until the rich fear the poor.
I read a lot of fanciful books to my young son, but the most outlandish one of all is where the little girl goes to a checkup with her family doctor.
ive been doctorless for years. good thing people don’t have check engine lights