Better Treatment, Better Care (5)
than enough money we've been one of the developer world's best funded healthcare
systems for many many years but they're not going where they need to be they're
they're directed into the wrong areas all right let's then talk a little bit
more about some of the other systems because i want
to see where the similarities are you went through in detail talking about
sweden one other aspect i wanted to ask you about though was
why is a private company incentivized to recapitalize was sort of interesting the
way you worded that as they were quite excited for this private hospital to
come in because then they went and fixed everything up
you just challenge those who think that that
is not what happens there's a i think many people have a misconception about
what it is that once you've made a profit what it is that owners do with
that profit um but why why would a private hospital rather than pay that
out as a dividend to a shareholder why would they recapitalize what would be
the point of that the perspective is on the long term
as the private operator is running the facility what they want to do is find
ways to get more patients through the facility efficiently at a high quality
so that they can see more patients and increase the resources available to the
hospitals money's following patients in the health care system i think one of
the best examples in sweden actually comes from nursing care
the nurses when the hospital was run by the government had often gone to the
administrators and said well if we make this change or that change we can see
patients more efficiently we can see more patients through the facility and
the administrators said well we'll kick it up the chain and we'll see what what
the chain brings down and eventually we'll make the change post privatization
the nurses would go to the administrator say well if you move this over there and
did that thing over there all of a sudden we could increase the number of
patients through the award the administrator went great that's more
patients through the facility that's an increase in revenues an increase in
profit let's make that change let's get it done
right now the nurses are more satisfied they're getting to do they have more
control they're getting to do the things they want the owner is more satisfied
because their profitability has gone up as a result of reinvesting that profit
for the long term for creating a business that has sustainability that
can see more patients ultimately eventually and why wouldn't that happen
in the public sector like you would think that there would be some incentive
if you do if you are doing all this rationing you're keeping the low-cost
bed blockers in place you're reducing the amount of operating room
time you'd think there'd be a surplus at the end that you would then be able to
to spend on the diagnostic equipment and improving the facility
why doesn't that happen in the public sector
again i think it comes back to the incentives if you go up to the hospital
administrator today said okay hospital administrator if we spend 200 000 over
here we can see 200 more patients next year the administrator will go okay so
now i'm going to take 200 000 from the budget i get every to look after people
to look after more people and i don't get any more money
that doesn't make any sense let's just keep doing things the way we are
it's fine that we don't have great patient throughput we could change the
way we fund the hospital now have activity-based funding
and that changes the incentives for the hospital administrator and brings in a
lot of that a lot of the incentives that are associated with private sector
activity because money is following patients changing the way we pay for
hospital care has a meaningful impact on how hospitals behave and how they react
to changes like this because it changes the reception of a patient from a cost
to someone bringing resources to the hospital and that is enhanced with
private competition but it's not actually a concert component
i know that this is such a central element to reforming the system that i
want to look at just a couple more jurisdictions to understand if it's
implemented in a different way let's talk a bit about australia and and i i
like talking about australia because they sort of have a similar history to
canada and so you'd think have we followed a similar route when it
when it comes to structuring our public services so tell us what happens there
australia is a very interesting country they've actually gone the direction of
encouraging high-income individuals to have private parallel healthcare
insurance so that they don't put a burden on the universal access
healthcare system so in australia there are there is cost
sharing for uh for services so there are some fees to be paid there is a top-up
system physicians can opt out of direct billing to government they can build
patients directly and ask patients to top up over the government fee or in
exchange for building government directly they only charge the government
fee when it comes to surgical services it
can be done in the private sector then in the public sector there's a sharing
of services there's a sharing of physicians there are some very
interesting tweaks to that what's fascinating about australia is there are
inducements to go into private healthcare insurance those inducements
were created uh in order to encourage people off the public waiting list into
the public hospital uh and ian harper from the university school of melbourne
at the time that actually looked at what happened to public hospital spending
what he found is that as these incentives were created for people to
privately insure for medically necessary services
the growth rate of public hospital spending capped off and so the
government was effectively saving itself money every year by encouraging people
to private insurance with subsidies because they didn't have to pay for the
public hospital care and there's a substantial amount of care in australia
that actually happens in the private parallel system and let's step back for
a minute and remember this is a universally accessible system access to
care regardless of ability to pay with shorter waiting lists than we have in
canada with lower expenditures as a share of gdp than we have in canada they
spend less they wait less and they encourage private sector insurance so
the idea being once you reach a certain level of income we don't want to
subsidize you anymore you should pay for it yourself that's that's the prevailing
attitude correct but you're also still paying
your taxes as a high income earner it is a
country not the center for canada so you're paying for the care of those in a
lower state of income for those in a higher state of at least an income terms
needs but as a high income individual we expect or encourage you to have a
private insurance construct and we expect you to do that at a fairly young
age so that there's also cross-subsidization from younger
high-income individuals older high-income individuals
so then how do how do they deal with this question of activity-based funding
do do private hospitals with private insurance patients get funded one way
and public hospitals get funded on the same block funding model as we do or is
it all activity based it's activity-based funding within the
universal access construct so as far as the public system is concerned when
patients are going to a hospital be that a public hospital or private registered
hospital that's included in the scheme the dollar amount that follows the
patient same as in sweden is fixed it gets looked after and the patient
gets to choose their facility so the patient can choose to go to the
government facility they can choose to go to the private non-profit or the
private for-profit they take their money with them the dollar amount is fixed
when we go into the private system there's a cost share that comes in so
the public system still pays a little bit into the private care alongside the
subsidy but then the individuals expected to top up well once again that
also underscores your point about the importance of activity-based funding
because if you're a public hospital and you're able to deliver great service and
great care and have a good reputation and attract some of those private
patients then that gives you more money into your into the system to treat them
doesn't it well absolutely and i think one of the things that happens as well
over time is we find as activity-based funding takes hold as these
opportunities open up the private sector tends to specialize towards routine care
or care that might be considered almost an assembly line type of care hip
surgeries knee replacements counteract surgeries things that can be done in a
fairly predictable sense with a fairly predictable cost base with a fairly
predictable outcome as long as care is delivered well that actually turns
public hospitals into centers of excellence for very advanced care where
the outcomes are a little more difficult to understand where the cost base is
less predictable there may be more consequences and so the profitability is
not easily understood out front and that is actually not a bad thing if
you think we take all the lower acuity patients who really don't need to be in
a giant tertiary facility who really don't need to be in a complex medical
facility with all of the things that entails including all the negative
things that entails they can be in a place that suits their particular
medical condition and now we can focus in the public hospital on those patients
who really do need that level of intensity and care okay i have to get
you then to myth bust on another misconception or preconception because
oftentimes you'll hear critics of of establishing this parallel private or
establishing private hospitals is that it will just cream off the top of the
very best practitioners and you'll end up with the best surgeons and the best
cancer doctors and the best heart surgeons in the private facilities which
will deprive those who who need to have the public
service of the very best medical care what happens in practice in australia
in practice the surgeon splits our time between the public and private system
there is a prestige associated with being in the hospital that delivers the
most complex tertiary care surgeons don't always want to be doing the
routine medicine they want to be doing something that challenges their skills
and needs in australia the private surgeon is actually able to see private
patients in the public hospital office and that means they're accessible to the
public hospital when they're required to be there and it encourages them to stay
there is a policy construct that has been proposed by those who make this
claim that would actually create that to be a reality in canada those who say the
best surgeons will leave the public system they're
also argued therefore we should have surgeons either in or out of the public
system and mandate that that would create exactly the problem
they're wanting what we should allow is dual practice for physicians let them be
in the public system and the private system we know from international
experience that the number of surgeons who could move exclusively into the
private setting is actually not very high it will be a percentage as a small