Home Page News Opinion Foreign Policy Politics Policy Legislation Lobbying Hill Life & People Hill Climbers Heard On The Hill Calendar Archives Classifieds
Hill Times Events Hill Times Books Hill Times Careers The Wire Report The Lobby Monitor Parliament Now
Subscribe Free Trial Reuse & Permissions Advertising
Log In

When it comes to health care funding in Canada, we must stop living in the past

By Greg Marchildon, Raisa Deber      

Rather than squabbling over whether the federal government is contributing its ‘fair share’ of health dollars, it’s time to move on. Now, more than ever, we need federal and provincial governments to talk about the important areas of health care that have never been required to be covered by medicare.

Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott has been working to negotiate long-term health accords between the federal government and the provinces and territories. The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright
Share a story
The story link will be added automatically.

How much should the federal government pay towards health care costs?

Hardly a week goes by without this thorny issue being disputed between federal and provincial governments—even as health accord agreements are reached, one-by-one. There’s considerable scope for inflating or deflating the numbers on both sides. The simple solution, often repeated, is that health costs should be shared between the federal government and the provinces 50-50.

But this solution is far from simple and is very misleading.

The old model of ‘shared-cost’ financing—with the federal government paying about half the costs of what the provinces spend on medicare—has not existed since 1977. At that time, the shared-cost model was replaced with a block transfer of funds, with roughly half of the new transfer being in the form of ‘tax points.’ This meant that the federal government reduced its tax rate, which allowed provinces to increase their tax rate without any net effect on the taxpayer.

The result was that, since 1977, the federal cash contribution toward health care was roughly 25 per cent of provincial medicare expenditures. Today, provincial governments routinely—and conveniently—ignore the ‘tax points’ when calculating how much money they are receiving for health care from the federal government.

To make matters more confusing, the block transfer, currently called the Canada Health Transfer, is not earmarked specifically for provincial health ministries to spend on health care. Instead, the entire transfer goes into the general revenue funds of the provinces—and it is up to the provinces where and how they spend it.

This funding system makes it impossible to know whether a Canada Health Transfer dollar from Ottawa to the provinces ends up being spent on health care.

An additional complexity is that the older cost-shared model for health funding did not cover all provincial health expenditures. Federal money was directed only to universal coverage for all residents of each province/territory for ‘medically required’ hospital and medical care services. This restriction still applies today; the Canada Health Act definition of insured services only requires provinces to cover hospital and medical care—largely doctor—services, although they can, and often do, go beyond that.

So how much does the federal government contribute to health care?

If we very roughly estimate the federal contribution to provincial spending on hospital and physician services today without counting the tax points or including all provincial health spending, we end up with a federal cash contribution that is in the range of 25 to 30 per cent.

Why, then, is there a perceived funding crisis?  Why are the provinces crying foul when it comes to health care funding?

One key reason is that how we deliver health care has changed.

Provincial governments now spend considerable amounts of money on items that are not insured services under the Canada Health Act; this includes out-patient prescription drugs (since drugs administered in hospitals are required to be covered), long-term care, home care, rehabilitation, dental care, and mental health.

There are no national standards or conditions on covering these services.

Researchers have long pointed out the potential for improving outcomes and cutting total costs if provinces/territories could work together to identify and implement best practices and potentially gain buying power. Some of this is now, thankfully, beginning to happen (e.g., purchasing pharmaceuticals on a national basis).

So rather than squabbling over whether the federal government is contributing its ‘fair share’ of health dollars, it’s time to move on. Now, more than ever, we need federal and provincial governments to talk about the important areas of health care that have never been required to be covered by medicare.  This is particularly pertinent as technology allows more care to be delivered by non-physicians in home and in the community.

Provinces are spending more in health arenas outside of the Canada Health Act, with considerable variability across jurisdictions for who is covered for what.

Our governments need to work out a new arrangement for health for the 21st century. Filling in these gaps with better and more cost-effective coverage should be the focus of our first ministers.

Proposals for targeted funding for some of home care and mental health programs in the bilateral agreements between Ottawa and some provincial and territorial governments could be a helpful first step, but they still omit critical cost drivers such as pharmacare, dental care, and rehabilitation.

Moving the debate forward could help us stop living in the past and move towards constructing a better future for all Canadians.

Politics This Morning

Get the latest news from The Hill Times

Politics This Morning


Your email has been added. An email has been sent to your address, please click the link inside of it to confirm your subscription.
More in News

Cannabis confusion ‘nature of the beast’ as 95-year ban ends, but it’s ‘time to pull the trigger,’ say experts, politicos

The Liberals are spending $100-million over six years on public awareness campaigns, which most insiders say are a good start but opposition MPs slam as a ‘failure.’

Canada needs Saudi Arabia ‘whether we like it or not,’ says booted Canadian envoy

Individual human rights cases ‘can’t be the driver of international policy,’ says Dennis Horak, who was Canada's ambassador to the Middle Eastern power before being expelled in August after what he called an 'ill-advised

Elections debate commissioner coming before 2019 election, but not through legislation: Minister Gould

Time has run out for legislation to set up the promised independent commissioner to run leaders’ debates, says Karina Gould, who will rely on recommendations made by a House committee in the spring.

Labyrinthine federal procurement system too complex: watchdog

News|By Emily Haws
Long processes, problematic procurement tools, and security clearances were noted as the top complaints of both federal officials and suppliers in the last year.

Public service staffing survey results show management ‘out of touch,’ says NDP MP Daniel Blaikie

News|By Emily Haws
The ‘perception versus the reality seems to be a little out of whack,’ says Public Service Commission president Patrick Borbey.

Steel town MPs, industry reps, cool to idea of quota-for-tariff exemption for U.S. metal duties

News|By Jolson Lim
Algoma Steel told the House International Trade Committee that it would support certain quotas in exchange for a duty exemption, something U.S. president Donald Trump hinted as a solution to ending the trade spat.

Former Hill staffer Wernick wants MPs to sign pledge to bring about ‘a long-term culture change’ on the Hill

News|By Abbas Rana
MPs offer mixed reaction to Paul Wernick’s ideas and are expressing concerns that following some elements of the pledge would violate the privacy of their staff.

Experts, critics urge feds to ‘ratchet up’ climate change efforts, seize the political leadership, after ‘landmark’ UN report

‘Staying the course when it’s the wrong course is not leadership,’ said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May of the Liberal government’s response to a recent UN report on the impacts of climate change.

Great expectations, and racism, but immense pride and learning: Asian-Canadian MPs share their experiences

News|By Jolson Lim
For some Asian-Canadian MPs, being elected to Ottawa comes with expectations. But they say the job brings them much pride and an opportunity to learn about their community.
Your group subscription includes premium access to Politics This Morning briefing.