By refusing to end it's private-pay MRI scheme [scam?] in the face of federal transfer deductions, #skpoli has become the first province to declare that it effectively no longer supports the principles of the Canada Health Act. 1/7
The CHA explicitly forbids provinces either directly or indirectly allowing patients to be charged for insured services and allows Ottawa to deduct such charges from a province's allocation under the Canada Health Transfer. 2/7
For nearly 40 years every province has publicly professed adherence to the principles that provincial health insurance be comprehensive, universal, accessible, portable and publicly administered (even when their actions demonstrated otherwise) 3/7
To be clear, the CHA principles are weakly defined and have been, to date, poorly enforced by Ottawa. But their rhetorical & symbolic importance to Cdns kept provincial governments from going too far or too fast in undermining the public provision of health services. 4/7
Provincial demands for increases to the transfer were always accompanied by public protestations that they were needed to insure the principles of the CHA could be upheld. But that may have changed in the last 48 hours. 5/7
But Saskatchewan can't legitimately have it both ways. It can't demand ever increasing transfers in order to 'save the health care system' while refusing to be bound by even the weak conditions imposed by the CHA. 6/7
Ultimately, this is a political fight, not a legal fight. SK is fully within its rights to allow private MRIs. Ottawa is within its rights to reduce the CHT in response. The question is on which side will the people of Saskatchewan fall in this game of health care chicken? 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Saturday thoughts on a week in Cdn health care: Money, Reform & Politics. Let’s start with the $$. Whether you believe the health care system is woefully underfunded or whether it needs more reform than cash, it is undebatable that the feds have not been stingy w the cash. 1/20
From 2004-17 the CHT grew 6%/yr (2-3 X inflation rate). The 2004 Health Accord also gave additional billions for wait times reductions, human resources, home care, drug coverage, primary care reform and a host of other reforms promised by the provs. 2/20
Since 2017 the CHT grew at 3.5% per year or the rate of inflation, whichever is greater. The 2017 bilateral health agmts with the provinces also gave an additional $11.5B for mental health and community based care reforms by provinces. 3/20
As premiers intensify demands for increases to the health care transfer from the federal government, provincial publics need to make it clear that they too have demands. I can think of at least three things that should come out of the FPT negotiations: 1/8
First, provinces should provide clear plans as to how and where the money will be spent. These have to go beyond things like "we'll fix primary care" and clearly outline HOW they'll fix primary care (or wait times or whatever is their priority) 2/8
Second, provs need to be transparent about how they will measure success. What improvements can we expect to see and when will we see them? More money to return to the pre-pandemic status quo is not acceptable. The system needs to be reformed and fixed not merely sustained. 3/8
There's an old joke in politics that when someone says, "It isn't about the money", you know it's ALL about the money. So what does it mean when a premier describes the health care situation in Canada as being "all about the money" as BC Premier @jjhorgan did the other day? 1/9
First off, it shows that Horgan doesn't understand the situation with the health care systems in Canada very well at all. Yes, COVID threw the systems a series of curve balls that have done real damage. But simply opening the spending tap won't solve them. 2/9
Systems that were already strained have been further strained -- health human resources, mental health services, community care, long-term care, etc. -- some to the point of breaking. If the premiers think this will be solved by writing a cheque, they're being willfully blind 3/9
The SK premier insists that the Lib-NDP confidence and supply agreement will increase western Canadian alienation. Presumably because it further weakens western voices in the federal government. Once again, the Premier’s arithmetic seems to be off … 1/X
If we assume by “the west” the Premier means AB, SK and MB then there are 6 Liberal MPs from “the west” (and 21 if you include BC). By including the NDP in agenda setting that number increases to 11 (and to 39 if you include BC). 2/X
The only way you can see this as less western representation is if you deem non-CPC MPs in the west as somehow not being “real MPs” or as being somehow not representative of the people who elected them. 3/X
A thread 🧵on the Sask govt’s plan to reduce our surgery backlog. The plan is to contract private surgical facilities (some of which may need to created or expanded) to provide these services which would be paid for by the province. 1/20
These surgeries would presumably be the “easy” ones. Those that are relatively low risk and carry less need for post-op care. This leaves the more complicated, riskier and more care intensive surgeries to be done by the public system. 2/20
This is all, they say, a temporary measure to get rid of the huge backlog of delayed surgeries due to COVID. The govt doesn’t mention that the size of the backlog is directly attributable to its own unwillingness to take the necessary steps to deal w rising COVID infections. 3/20
1/x Possibly a long thread: While @SLangeneggerCBC's interview w the premier this a.m. was great, there was another aspect of @CBCSask's recent coverage that is more problematic, namely the request that the govt release Dr. Shahab's specific advice to the govt on the pandemic
2/x This is a problem because Dr. Shahab is a civil servant (as was I many moons ago) and the idea that the government would release the advice of a specific civil servant goes against the very bargain that underpins the govt/public-service relationship.
3/x Civil servants are meant to be anonymous. Their anonymity is what allows them, so the theory goes, to speak truth to power. They give advice, the govt decides (in accordance w the advice or not). The public holds the govt (not the civil servant) accountable for the decisions.