Privatizing CanuckCare©

We've written about the Canadian health care system many times over the years. It's "free," which means that one gets what one pays for. As with all such schemes, actual care is rationed, most often by the use of long wait times that work on the basis of attrition.

That's changing, however, at least in one Province:

"Wait times ... dropped significantly in the Saskatchewan province after private, for-profit clinics were introduced to the area."

On the one hand, this would seem blindingly obvious to anyone with even the most remote grasp of how markets work. But it's a hopeful sign that, at least for now, some government bureauweenie(s) "get" it.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time our Neighbors to the North© have considered privatizing at least a part of the health care sector.

From 2009:

"Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec."

What's Canadian for "What took you so long?"

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

CanuckCare & Medical Tourism, Revisited

We've been blogging about the propensity for many of our Neighbors to the North to come south of the border to receive actual health care, such as in this post from over 6 years ago:

"Canadian Premier Danny Williams has chosen to circumvent the obviously superior (and free!) Canadian health care system, by flying to the United States for heart surgery, which is widely and freely available in his home country."

Previously, other powerful Canadians, such as MP Belinda Stronach had also chosen to have care rendered here.

Now FoIB Holly R helpfully alerts us to this factoid:

"An estimated 52,000 Canadians left the country to receive non-emergency health care in 2014"

Reason I bring this up is that recently, one of the two major party Presidential candidates averred that many Canadians come here for care that is supposedly widely and quickly available in their own country. Now, it's true that there have been recent attempts to privatize at least some sectors of the Canadian boondoggle health care system, with mixed results. But the fact remains that such care is unavailable to the majority of Canadians, and the sad truth is that the implosion of our own system impacts them, as well.

Just an observation.

Health Wonk Review: Happy New Year! edition

Welcome, friends, to 2016-style health care wonkery. Later this month, we'll be celebrating our 11th anniversary here at IB; it's fascinating to look back over almost a dozen years of posts (and quite a few 'Reviews hosted) to see how much has changed, and how much hasn't.

But no time for waxing nostalgic, let's get on with the show:

■ First up is our good friend (and colleague) Jay Norris. Jay was recently appointed to the Board of Directors of Connect for Health Colorado, the Centennial State's exchange. He's concerned about a policy decision made by the Exchange to begin blocking enrollments from out of state brokers at the beginning of open enrollment. Here he explains why.

■ Over at Health Affairs Blog, Susan DeVore writes about six big trends to watch for in health care for 2016, including MACRA, telemedicine, value-based contracting, specialty pharmaceuticals, and others. She notes that with the upcoming Presidential election, health care is once again keeping us up at night. How much of the current debate is hyperbolic rhetoric? What policy changes are realistic in an election year? What market trends in the private sector will drive the most change?” Good questions, Susan.

■ At Workers Comp Insider, 'Review coordinator (and all-around gracious lady) Julie Ferguson lets us in on the depressing fact of the week:  In 2014, there were approximately one and a half times more drug overdose deaths in the U.S. than deaths from motor vehicle crashes. She looks at developments in the nation’s opioid and prescription drug epidemic via a pair of recent studies on the topic, as well as a roundup of some other noteworthy writing on opioids.

■ For the next few months, Health System Ed's Peggy Salvatore will be blogging on digital strategy for healthcare organizations in preparation for a pharmaceutical conference on digital health (the ePharma Summit 2016). This is the first post in the series, which is about how pharma spends a lot on marketing and provides a necessary product, and that as an industry it the means and the clout to make a positive difference. But will it? Stay tuned...

■ Longtime foil Wendell Potter notes that all of the Republican presidential candidates have condemned the Affordable Care Act and pledged to replace it as soon as they’re elected. But with what? Wendell runs down their likely replacement proposals, which he’s dubbed “The Faulty Five."

■ Dr Jaan Sidorov is one of my very favorite wonk-bloggers and. as usual, he doesn't disappoint. This week, he likens mHealth to dashboard tachometers, arguing that when mHealth is "smart, synergistic and scalable," the tachometer can improve insurer/vehicle performance.  Without those features, however, there's enough about mHealth to make it very attractive to consumers on a retail basis. Vroom, vroom!

■ I've only recently been following Charles Gaba, and I regret having missed his insights over the years. Here, he acknowledges that the ACA mandate penalty costs less than the premiums for some people, but... Well, he offers some important clarifications regarding the case studies quoted in a recent NY Times story about people deliberately choosing to pay the Individual Mandate penalty rather than sign up.

■ Like Peggy S, Joe Paduda has put together a series; his is on how he thinks the ACA's getting along, from enrollment to costs. As usual, he's concise and on-point. Part One is here, and Part Two here.

■ Longtime HWR contributor David Williams has been following Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, specifically his proposal to speed up FDA approvals, which has been garnering a lot of criticism, much of it deserved. But why do opponents have to go all the way back to 1956 for evidence against the plan? Instead, asks David, shouldn't we use the proposal as an opportunity to debate the role of safety and efficacy in approvals, and to examine why some parts of the FDA work better than others? Another good question.

[ed: Do I sense a theme?]

■ Uber-wonk Roy Poses alerts us to the new CDC draft guidelines that urged more conservative use of narcotics for non-malignant chronic pain, and which immediately attracted a barrage of criticism. His take? Those arguments against them were underwhelming. Click through to learn why.

■ Dr Brad Flansbaum addresses a recent New Yorks Time article about whether doctors should unionize, and comes away unconvinced either way. What's so great about this post is the series of insightful questions he poses to both sides of the debate.

[ed: Yup]

■ And now for something completely different. Our own post examines CanuckCare©'s rather lackadaisical view of death: as in the Canadian Medical Association considering allowing doctors to LIE about patients death to cover up euthanasia. Spoiler Alert: at least one Canadian med school's already doing so.

Thanks for tuning in, and please join us at Joe P's place on the 28th.