Introduction to the Special Issue: Precarious Solidarity-Preferential Access in Canadian Health Care

Space, place and (waiting) time: reflections on health policy and politics

Health systems have repeatedly addressed concerns about efficiency and equity by employing trans-national comparisons to draw out the strengths and weaknesses of specific policy initiatives. This paper demonstrates the potential for explicit historical analysis of waiting times for hospital treatment to add value to spatial comparative methodologies. Waiting times and the size of the lists of waiting patients have become key operational indicators. In the United Kingdom, as National Health Service (NHS) financial pressures intensified from the 1970s, waiting times have become a topic for regular public and political debate. Various explanations for waiting times include the following: hospital consultants manipulate NHS waiting lists to maintain their private practice; there is under-investment in the NHS; and available (and adequate) resources are being used inefficiently. Other countries have also experienced ongoing tensions between the public and private delivery of universal health care in which national and trans-national comparisons of waiting times have been regularly used. The paper discusses the development of key UK policies, and provides a limited Canadian comparative perspective, to explore wider issues, including whether 'waiting crises' were consciously used by policymakers, especially those brought into government to implement new economic and managerial strategies, to diminish the autonomy and authority of the medical professional in the hospital environment.

Concierge, Wellness, and Block Fee Models of Primary Care: Ethical and Regulatory Concerns at the Public-Private Boundary

In bioethics and health policy, we often discuss the appropriate boundaries of public funding; how the interface of public and private purchasers and providers should be organized and regulated receives less attention. In this paper, I discuss ethical and regulatory issues raised at this interface by three medical practice models (concierge care, executive wellness clinics, and block fee charges) in which physicians provide insured services (whether publicly insured, privately insured, or privately insured by public mandate) while requiring or requesting that patients pay for services or for the non-insured services of the physicians themselves or their associates. This choice for such practice models is different from the decision to design an insurance plan to include or exclude user fees, co-payments and deductibles. I analyze the issues raised with regards to familiar health care values of equity and efficiency, while highlighting additional concerns about fair terms of access, provider integrity, and fair competition. I then analyze the common Canadian regulatory response to block fee models, considering their extension to wellness clinics, with regards to fiduciary standards governing the physician-patient relationship and the role of informed consent. I close by highlighting briefly issues that are of common concern across different fundamental normative frameworks for health policy.

Medical Need: Evaluating a Conceptual Critique of Universal Health Coverage

Some argue that the concept of medical need is inadequate to inform the design of a universal health care system-particularly an institutional (universal, comprehensive) rather than a residual (minimalist, safety net) system. They argue that the concept (a) contradicts the idea of comprehensiveness; (b) leads to unsustainable expenditures; (c) is too indeterminate for policy; and (d) supports only a prioritarian distribution (and therefore a residual system). I argue (a) that 'comprehensive' understood as 'including the full continuum of care' and 'medically necessary' understood as 'prioritized by medical criteria' are not contradictory, and (b) that UHC is a solution to the problem of sustainability, not its cause. Those who criticize 'medical need' for indeterminacy (c) are not transparent about the source (ethical, semantic, political, or other) of their commitment to their standards of determinacy: they promote standards that are higher than is necessary for legitimate policy, ignoring opportunity costs. Furthermore, the indeterminacy of concepts affects all risk-sharing systems and all systems that rely on medical standard of care. I then argue that (d) the concept of need in itself does not imply a minimal sufficientist standard or a prioritarian distribution; neither does the idea of legitimate public policy dictate that public services be minimalist. The policy choice for a system of health care that is comprehensive and offers as good care as can be achieved when delivered on equal terms and conditions for all is a coherent option.