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

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

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.

More in News

Feds lowballing parliamentary budget officer’s salary, say ex-PBO officials

News|By Emily Haws
The government is looking to pay the next parliamentary budget officer way less than it should, which could lead to it picking the wrong person for the job, say a former PBO and his ex-deputy.…

MPs defend taking trips paid by lobbyists, foreign governments, but some say the practice needs review

Some Liberal and Conservative MPs say rules that permit lobby groups and foreign governments to pay for MPs' trips abroad warrant review, including regarding limits on the value of free trips and where lobbyists fit…

Senate urged to expand bill to clear more LGBTQ criminal convictions

After getting rushed through the House, advocates are calling for the Senate to pump the brakes on the government’s bill wiping out historical unjust convictions and to broaden the legislation’s scope to add more offences…

Feds ‘not ready’ to roll out cannabis legalization given ‘huge gap’ in police training: critics

Police won’t be ready to properly test Canadians for drug impairment when cannabis is legalized, say critics who point to “terrible” new data showing 665 Canadian police officers as of Feb. 1 are certified to…

‘I think it’s done,’ NDP MP Stewart doubts Trans Mountain pipeline expansion’s viability, but feds say it’s going to happen

News|By Emily Haws
As the federal Liberals face mounting pressure to get the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion approved, NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who was arrested for protesting the pipeline in March, says he doubts it will actually…

‘Crystal clear’ feds have jurisdiction on $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline: here’s how they could ‘reinforce’ it

There’s no doubt that the federal government has authority to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline, says a pair of constitutional lawyers, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promised legislation to “reinforce” that right could sweep aside…

Senate seeks intervener status to back House BOIE in ongoing court battle with NDP

The NDP’s court challenge of the House Board of Internal Economy’s 2014 order for NDP MPs to repay almost $4-million in expenses continues, with the Senate now seeking intervener status to support the BOIE’s appeal…

B.C. Liberal MPs tout environmental measures in Trans Mountain talks with constituents, but opposition MPs say Grits to ‘absolutely’ lose support in 2019

British Columbia Liberal MPs say they're touting environmental investments and protections brought in by the Liberal government for the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project with constituents, with some suggesting their voters are split roughly…

Liberals could revert to third-party status if MPs ignore constituents’ concerns, warns rookie Grit MP

News|By Abbas Rana
Liberals jumped from the third-party status to win a majority government in the 2015 general election, but they could easily revert to their pre-election status if Grit MPs don't reach out regularly to constituents before…