Healthcare Privatization in Canada: Costs, Benefits & Alternatives
This paper examines the ongoing debate over privatizing Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, with particular attention to Manitoba's provincial policy shifts. It traces the legislative foundations of Canadian healthcare from the 1957 Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act through the 1984 Canada Health Act, then evaluates the principal arguments for and against privatization. The analysis identifies serious concerns including cherry-picking, patient dumping, and the emergence of a two-tiered care system. Two alternative reform strategies — expanding user fees and instituting provincial spending caps — are assessed, with spending caps recommended as the more effective and equitable path toward long-term sustainability.
- Introduction: Canada's costly public healthcare and privatization debate
- Background of the Healthcare Privatization Issue: Legislative history and rising healthcare spending pressures
- Considerations: To Privatize or Not to Privatize?: Arguments for and against privatization, including cherry-picking
- Options for Sustainable Reform: User fees and spending caps as alternative reform strategies
- Recommendation: Spending caps recommended with supporting historical evidence
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its policy argument in a clear legislative history, giving readers context for why the current system exists before evaluating proposed changes.
- It presents both sides of the privatization debate fairly before methodically dismantling the pro-privatization case with specific, named phenomena (cherry-picking, dumping, two-tiered care).
- The recommendation section is supported by concrete historical examples — nurse substitution in pediatric ICUs and the 1993–1995 hospital budget innovations — rather than abstract claims.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective policy memo structure adapted for academic argument: it establishes a legislative foundation, surveys stakeholder positions, evaluates specific options using cited evidence, and closes with a reasoned recommendation. This mirrors the real-world format of a commission brief while meeting scholarly citation requirements.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introductory section framing the fiscal problem, followed by a legislative history section tracing Canadian healthcare law from 1957 to 1984. A central "Considerations" section presents and critiques privatization arguments. An "Options" section then proposes two concrete alternatives — user fees and spending caps — drawing directly from the Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada report. A brief closing section delivers and defends a single recommendation, supported by two historical precedents.
Introduction
Canada prides itself on one of the most generous healthcare systems in the world. Canadians do not have to rely on their employers for health insurance or pay out-of-pocket for their medical procedures, as the greater part of their healthcare bill is covered by the government. This has contributed to making the country a relatively healthy nation; however, that health comes at a cost. Canada currently spends over 9% of its GDP on healthcare — the highest proportion in the developed world. This share can be expected to rise over the coming years as the Baby Boomer population ages. Privatization has been proposed as a possible way of reducing government expenditure on healthcare. This paper assesses the potential costs and benefits of healthcare privatization, with particular attention to the province of Manitoba.
The Canadian healthcare system has time and again been identified as one of the core elements that make Canadian citizens proud to be Canadian (Howard, 2011). Beginning in the 1960s, the Canadian government instituted a program geared at phasing out for-profit healthcare institutions and replacing them with a universal, publicly funded regime. The regime provides comprehensive health insurance coverage to all Canadian citizens through health insurance plans administered by the various provincial governments. In practice, this means that Canadians do not have to rely on their employers for health insurance or pay out-of-pocket for their medical procedures. The majority of the bill is covered by the government, with citizens paying only small monthly premiums — usually $100 or less. This has proven to be a generous and highly popular plan. However, it is also very expensive to run and has indirect effects on access.
In recent years, provincial governments have begun considering ways of making the healthcare system more sustainable in the long term. A number of solutions have been proposed, including the privatization of hospitals and clinics currently under government ownership and administration. Any attempt to shift the burden of healthcare from the government to the individual citizen is likely to face massive public resistance. The Manitoba government has been identified as one of the greatest supporters of this strategy (Howard, 2011), and a number of changes along these lines have already been introduced and implemented (Howard, 2011). One move geared at shifting healthcare costs to the individual is the province's recent decision to eliminate publicly-delivered school-based dental programs. Such changes represent an almost certain move toward privatization (Howard, 2011). It is crucial that stakeholders understand the potential implications of such shifts so that they can make decisions based on facts. There is no doubt that rising healthcare expenditure may come to hurt the economy, particularly as the Baby Boomer population ages. It is prudent, therefore, that provincial administrations devise effective ways to make the healthcare system more sustainable.
Background of the Healthcare Privatization Issue
The origin of the Canadian healthcare system can be traced back to the passage of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1957, which accorded Canadians the right to access diagnostic and hospital services as needed (Wilson, 2000). The Act was expanded in 1966 with the passage of the Medical Care Act, which ensured public funding for physician services (Wilson, 2000). The Canada Health Act, passed in 1984, strengthened the country's healthcare system through the inclusion of an accessibility clause stating that Canadian citizens were not to pay any charges or medical fees for medically necessary healthcare (Wilson, 2000). These three pieces of legislation form the basis of the country's healthcare system as it exists today.
Recent decades have, however, seen serious cost-related issues arise. Between 1990 and 2000, the average portion of territorial and provincial budgets spent on healthcare rose from 32% to 38% (Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada, 2002). Canada currently spends 9.3% of its GDP on healthcare — the highest proportion in the industrialized world (Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada, 2002).
Numerous task forces and commissions were established in the 1990s to provide recommendations on the sustainability of the country's healthcare system (Wilson, 2000). In 1993, the World Bank began to pressure the Canadian government and other nations to privatize healthcare funding and delivery as a way of cutting public spending. Many nations reformed their health systems to conform with the World Bank's preferred model of American-style privatized healthcare.
As a cost-cutting measure, provincial governments began exploring different policy options to limit the role of the public sector in healthcare provision and to recast it as a private responsibility. In Manitoba, this trend has taken several forms, including: (i) the delisting of health services for outpatients; (ii) the elimination of publicly-delivered school-based dental programs; (iii) the contracting out of cleaning and food services in hospitals to private companies; (iv) the privatization of home care services; and (v) the use of private laboratories (Howard, 2011). All of these are clear indications that the province is moving toward a privatized healthcare system, yet vigorous debate continues over whether privatization is truly the right course of action.
Considerations: To Privatize or Not to Privatize?
Proponents of privatization have put forward two main arguments. The first is that privatization allows faster access to care and greater choice in the type of care provider (Wilson, 2000). The second is that, since private ventures operate on a for-profit motive, they are deemed to be more efficient and less costly to the private consumer or the taxpayer (Wilson, 2000).
Critics of privatization, however, argue that the reduced operating costs of private entities result from lower staff wages, a reduced number of healthcare providers, and a lowering of healthcare workers' qualifications — all of which produce a lower quality of care (Wilson, 2000). According to Estes and Swan (as cited in Wilson, 2000), the efficiency of private entities may also be linked to private businesses offering only selected healthcare services to selected groups of patients during restricted hours of operation — a phenomenon commonly referred to as cherry-picking or creaming. The implication is that private companies will compete for the same clients or the right to offer certain services, resulting in an oversupply of some healthcare services and an undersupply of others (Wilson, 2000).
Another significant concern with privatization is the phenomenon of dumping, where private entities decline to provide care for unprofitable patients, forcing general hospitals to offer around-the-clock services to meet the needs of the broader public (Wilson, 2000). This affects the quality of care delivered in general hospitals and creates conditions for the development of a two-tiered system, where citizens with financial means can purchase superior medical care while those relying on the public system are left with consistently lower-quality services (Wilson, 2000).
On balance, privatization carries more costs than benefits. There is no doubt, nonetheless, that cost is the core problem — Canadians do not wish to pay more for lower-quality healthcare. The path to a more sustainable healthcare system lies in finding new and more effective ways to allocate the funds currently available, rather than shifting costs to individuals. The following sections detail potential courses of action.
References
Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada. (2002). Sustainability of Canada's healthcare system. Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from
Howard, W. J. (2011). Missing links: The effects of healthcare privatization on women in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Prairie Women's Health Centre of Excellence. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from http://www.pwhce.ca/pdf/ml.pdf
Wilson, D. F. (2000). Privatization of the Canadian healthcare system: Not yet and hopefully never. University of Alberta, Edmonton. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/privat_canada.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.