DOCSLIB.ORG

Physician Fee Levels: Medicare Versus Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Physician Fee Levels: Medicare Versus Canada Physician Fee Levels: Medicare Versus Canada W. Pete Welch, Ph.D., Steven J. Katz, M.D., Stephen Zuckerman, Ph.D. Adjusted for differences in purchasing fee levels and how they are adjusted over power and practice expenses, Canadian time that is likely to be the single most Im­ physician fees are, on average, 59 percent portant issue faced under the Medicare of Medicare fees. The general perception fee schedule. that Medicare fees are low is the result of Thus far, assessment of the appropri­ comparison with U.S. private fees, not to ateness of Medicare payment rates has the much lower Canadian fees. In the con­ been confined to comparisons with rates text of the current U.S. health care sys· paid by private insurers in the United tem, lowering Medicare fees to Canadian States (Physician Payment Review Com­ levels could jeopardize access to care by mission, 1992c). Because private rates are Medicare beneficiaries. However, if all higher, the comparison raises concerns payers used the same fee schedule, fees that the elderly's access to care could be that differed substantially from those cur· impaired if physicians prefer to treat pa­ rently used by private insurers might be tients covered by private insurance rather viable. than Medicare enrollees. The experience of the Medicaid program, whose rates are INTRODUCTION substantially lower than private insurance The new Medicare fee schedule, a ma­ rates, is an example of how low physician jor reform of physician payment in the fees can restrict access to care within the United States, has accomplished two U.S. health care system (Holahan, Wade, goals. First, by incorporating a resource· and Gates, 1992). Of course, given Medi­ based relative value scale (RBRVS), it par· care's larger share of physician revenues, !Iaiiy corrects historical inequities in pay­ physicians might respond differently to ment for procedure and cognitive serv· low Medicare fees than they do to low Ices. Second, by reducing these inequi­ Medicaid fees. ties, it focuses debates over Medicare Fees under private insurance are not fees on the overall generosity of pay­ the only reasonable source of compari­ ments, both now and in the future. Al­ son. Physician fees in other countries though the relative values may be revised may be just as appropriate a "bench­ and the extent of geographic equity is mark." Canada is an obvious source for sometimes questioned, it is the overall comparison for several reasons beyond its geographic proximity to the United States. First, physicians in both countries Support for this research was provided by the Health Care Fl· nancing Administration to The Urban Institute through Cooper­ are generally paid on a fee-for-service ba­ ative Agreement Number 99-C-98526 to the Brandeis University sis. Second, although the negotiations Health Polley Research Consortium. W. Pete Welch and Stephen Zuckerman are with the Urban Institute, Steven J. between the provincial medical associa­ Katz is with the University of Michigan. Any opinions ex­ tions and the governments are not di­ pressed are those of the authors and not The Urban Institute, University of Michigan, or their sponsors. rectly analogous to Medicare, they result Health Care Financing RevlewiSpring 1993/volume14,Number3 41 in fee schedules that are generally similar METHODS to Medicare's structure. Third, the Cana­ dian health care system has been sug­ To compare fees, we developed In­ gested by some as a solution to the prob­ dexes that are weighted averages of fees lems of the U.S. system. Finally, Canadian in Canada relative to those paid under fees are established in a single-payer con­ Medicare. Although our prlmary objective text and, as such, provide a useful con­ is aggregate comparisons of relative fees, trast to Medicare, which is forced to oper­ we also compare fees disaggregated by ate in a market with private insurers. In type of service. For this we need to define this sense, Canadian fees suggest what the unit of Medicare services, select ser­ U.S. fees might be under a system in vices, and ensure comparability of Cana­ which all payers adhered to the same rate dian and Medicare fees. Ensuring compa­ schedule. rability involves addressing differences In In spite of these reasons, few coding systems, payment rules, and eco­ Canadian-U.S. comparisons of physician nomic conditions. fees have been made. The present study Our basic unit of observation is the fills a void by comparing the physician Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) fees paid by Medicare to those paid by code. Although CPT codes are used by Canadian provinces. In addition to com­ most payers In the United States, each paring physician fees In the aggregate, Canadian province has Its own coding we compare fees by type of service. system. Because of the difficulty of iden­ One of the few contributions in this tifying Canadian provincial codes that are area Is by Fuchs and Hahn (1990), who equivalent to CPT codes, II was not feasi­ compared fee levels in the two countries. ble to work with all the CPT codes and all Beyond the Medicare focus, the methods the provinces. We therefore focused on employed in this study extend the work fees in the four largest provinces, which by Fuchs and Hahn in two respects. First, together have 83 percent of the Canadian we use fees from the four largest Cana­ population. In order of population size, dian provinces, whereas Fuchs and Hahn they are Ontario, Quebec, British Colum­ used fees from a single small province bia, and Alberta (Manitoba) adjusted to represent all of Selection of Codes and Construction of Canada Second, our U.S. fees are consis­ Index tently derived from a single source the Medicare fee schedule. Fuchs and Hahn We classified CPT codes by type of ser­ combined data from Health Insurance vice to help ensure that the selected Association of America and Blue Shield codes were representative of a wide plans in Iowa and California and treated range of services and to allow us to com­ this as representative of the country as a pare fees at a somewhat disaggregated whole. In light of the weakness of their level. In particular, we employed a type-of­ underlying fee data, and given the Intro­ service classification system deviSed by duction of the Medicare fee schedule, the Berenson and Holahan (1992). The sys­ Issue of relative fees across the two coun­ tem divides physician services into 6 tries needs to be revisited. (major) categories and 23 subcategories. 42 Health Care Financing Review/Spring 1993/volume 14, Number3 Evaluation and management services Within the procedure and Imaging sub­ comprise the first category. Its subcate· categories, we selected the eight CPT gorles are office visits, hospital visits, codes with the greatest share of Medi­ emergency room services, home and care expenditures for each type of ser­ nursing home visits, consultations, and vice. (These expenditure shares also specialist evaluation and management serve as weights in the index, as noted services. The last subcategory In this later.) A CPT code's Medicare expendi­ group Includes services provided by oph· ture was calculated as Its volume In 1989 thalmologlsts, psychiatrists, patholo· times its relative value units (RVUs) In the gists, and allergists. new Medicare fee schedule. A code's ex­ Procedures, the second category, in· penditure divided by the expenditure for eludes major procedures (subdivided Into all services yields the code's expenditure cardiovascular, orthopedic, and other), share. CPT codes with high volumes are ambulatory procedures (subdivided Into more likely to be represented than codes eye and other), and minor procedures with low volumes, and CPT codes with (subdivided into endoscopic, oncology high fees (and RVUs) are more likely to be procedures, dialysis services, and other). represented than codes with low fees. Imaging, the third category, Is divided Into One might be concerned that our selec­ standard Imaging (routine X-rays and nu· tion procedure Is biased toward selecting clear medicine), advanced imaging (com· CPT codes with high Medicare fees (and puterized tomography (CT] scans and RVUs). To test this, we replaced Medicare magnetic resonance imaging [MRID, so· fees with Ontario fees in calculating ex­ nographlc imaging, and Imaging proce· penditure shares. Viliually the same CPT dures (largely cardiac catheterization). codes would be selected under the two The remaining three categories are tests methods. (subdivided into laboratory and other), an· Within the other subcategories (i.e., esthesiology services, and other services. evaluation and management), we se­ Of the Berenson and Holahan group· lected CPT codes by group: the 10 codes lngs, three categories and three subcate· for office visits, the 6 codes for hospital gories were dropped for this analysis. An· visits, the 5 codes for emergency room estheslology services were dropped visits, the 3 codes for subsequent nursing because In some fee schedules payment facility care visits, the 3 codes for rest varies by the duration of the procedure, home visits for established patients, the 4 making pricing difficult. Laboratory tests, codes for eye exams, the 2 codes for psy­ other tests, and "other services" were chotherapy, and the 5 codes for office dropped because of the difficulty of lden· consultations. Both initial and followup tllying equivalent Canadian codes. Oncol­ visit codes were included (Table 1). ogy services were dropped because they The CPT codes incorporated in this in­ are often included In Canadian global dex represent 63 percent of the RVUs in hospital budgets and cannot, therefore, these 17 subcategories. Within each of be separately priced. Dialysis services the three categories, this expenditure were dropped because of problematic share Is 83 percent for evaluation and Medicare data on volume. This left 17 sub­ management services, 43 percent for pro­ categolies in 3 categories.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canada Health Act Canada Health Act
    CANADA HEALTH ACT CANADA HEALTH CANADA HEALTH ACT Public Administration Public Administration Accessibility Accessibility Universality Universality ANNUAL REPORT Comprehensiveness Comprehensiveness 2014–2015 Portability Portability ANNUAL 2014 REPORT 2015 Health Canada is the federal department responsible for helping the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Health Canada is committed to improving the lives of all of Canada’s people and to making this country’s population among the healthiest in the world as measured by longevity, lifestyle and effective use of the public health care system. Published by authority of the Minister of Health. Canada Health Act – Annual Report 2014–2015 is available on Internet at the following address: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/cha-lcs/index-eng.php Également disponible en français sous le titre: Loi canadienne sur la santé – Rapport Annuel 2014-2015 This publication can be made available on request on diskette, large print, audio-cassette and braille. For further information or to obtain additional copies, please contact: Health Canada Address Locator 0900C2 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9 Telephone: (613) 957-2991 Toll free: 1-866-225-0709 Fax: (613) 941-5366 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Health of Canada, 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this information (publication or product) may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system, without prior written permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S5 or [email protected] HC Pub: 150140 Cat.: H1-4E-PDF ISBN:1497-9144 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Health Canada would like to acknowledge the work and effort that went into producing this Annual Report.
    [Show full text]
  • CMS-9909- Surprise Billing Disclaimer
    Notice: This HHS-approved document has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication and has not yet been placed on public display or published in the Federal Register. The document may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes have been made during the OFR review process. The document published in the Federal Register is the official HHS-approved document. [Billing Codes: 6523-63-P; 4830-01-P; 4510-29-P; 4120-01-P] OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 890 [RIN 3206-AO30] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 54 [TD9951] RIN 1545-BQ04 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Parts 2510 and 2590 [RIN 1210-AB99] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Parts 144, 147, 149, and 156 CMS-9909-IFC [RIN 0938-AU63] Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part I CMS-9909-IFC 2 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management; Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Interim final rules with request for comments. SUMMARY: This document sets forth interim final rules implementing certain provisions of the No Surprises Act, which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260). These interim final rules amend and add provisions to existing rules under the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act. These interim final rules implement provisions of the No Surprises Act that protect participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees in group health plans and group and individual health insurance coverage from surprise medical bills when they receive emergency services, non-emergency services from nonparticipating providers at participating facilities, and air ambulance services from nonparticipating providers of air ambulance services, under certain circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • No. S090663 Vancouver Registry in the SUPREME COURT of BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: CAMBIE SURGERIES CORPORATION, CHRIS CHIAVATTI
    No. S090663 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: CAMBIE SURGERIES CORPORATION, CHRIS CHIAVATTI, MANDY MARTENS, KRYSTIANA CORRADO, WALID KHALFALLAH by his litigation guardian DEBBIE WAITKUS, and SPECIALIST REFERRAL CLINIC (VANCOUVER) INC. Plaintiffs And: MEDICAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, MINISTER OF HEALTH OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Defendants And: DR. DUNCAN ETCHES, DR. ROBERT WOOLLARD, GYLN TOWNSON, THOMAS McGREGOR, BRITISH COLUMBIA FRIENDS OF MEDICARE SOCIETY, CANADIAN DOCTORS FOR MEDICARE, MARIEL SCHOOFF, JOYCE HAMER, MYRNA ALLICON, And the BRITISH COLUMBIA ANESTHESIOLOGISTS’ SOCIETY Intervenors And: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Pursuant to the Constitutional Question Act FINAL WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Solicitor for the Attorney General of Attorney General of Canada Canada, Pursuant to the Constitutional Department of Justice Question Act BC Regional Office 900-840 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2S9 Per: BJ Wray Solicitor for the Plaintiffs, Gall Legge Grant Zwack LLP Cambie Surgeries Corporation et al. 1000 – 1199 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3T5 Canada Per : Robert Grant, Q.C. Solicitor for the Defendant, Ministry of Attorney General Attorney General of British Columbia Legal Services Branch 1301-865 Horny Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3 Per: Jonathan Penner Solicitor for the Intervenors, Arvay Finlay LLP Dr. Duncan Etches, Dr. Robert Woollard, 1512-808 Nelson Street Glyn Townson, Thomas Macgregor, The Vancouver, BC British Columbia Friends of Medicare V6Z 2H2 Society, Canadian Doctors for Medicare Per: Joe Arvay, Q.C. Solicitor for the Intervenors, Hamilton Howell Bain and Gould Mariel Schooff, Joyce Hamer & Myrna 1918-1030 West Georgia Street Allison Vancouver, BC V6E 2Y3 Per: Jim Gould The Intervenor, British Columbia Anesthesiologists’ Society The British Columbia Anesthesiologists’ #326 – 555 Sixth Street Society New Westminster, BC V3L 5H1 Per: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Changes and Physicians Opting out from Medicare in Quebec: an Interrupted Time-Series Analysis
    RESEARCH HEALTH SERVICES Policy changes and physicians opting out from Medicare in Quebec: an interrupted time-series analysis Damien Contandriopoulos PhD, Michael R. Law PhD n Cite as: CMAJ 2021 February 16;193:E237-41. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.201216 ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: In all Canadian prov- Quebec government’s yearly list of phys- analy sis suggested that an additional inces, physicians can decide to either bill icians who chose to opt out from 1994 to 69 specialist physicians opted out after the provincial public system (opt in) or 2019 to analyze the relation between the 2017 clampdown on double billing work privately and bill patients directly these events and physician billing status. than previous trends would have (opt out). We hypothesized that 2 policy predicted. events were associated with an increase RESULTS: The number of family phys- in physicians opting out in Quebec. icians who opted out increased from 9 INTERPRETATION: We found that the in 1994 to 347 in 2019. Opting out number of physicians who opted out METHODS: The 2 policy events of inter- increased after the Chaoulli ruling, and increased in Quebec, and increases after est were the 2005 Supreme Court of Can- our analysis suggested that between 2 policy actions suggest an association ada ruling on Chaoulli v. Quebec and a 2005 and 2019, 284 more family phys- with these policy interventions. Opting regulatory clampdown forbidding dou- icians opted out than if pre-Chaoulli out decisions are likely important inputs ble billing that was implemented by trends had continued. The number of into decision-making by physicians, Quebec’s government in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Health Act and Its Principles
    Canada Health Act and its Principles The Canada Health Act was the subject of discussions at every venue in the Conversation on Health. Participants focused on the values underlying the legislation, as well as the principles it espouses. Participants also debated the proposed sixth principle of sustainability. Here is a selection of what British Columbians had to say about the Canada Health Act. Canada Health Act Values and Foundation Participants debated whether the Canada Health Act represents an expression of a human right, or is simply a piece of legislation which can be flexible and adapt to the changing requirements of society. For some, the principles dictate an approach to health care delivery deeply embedded in Canadian society. Other participants object to this view on the grounds that, to them, it prevents the health care system from adapting to new requirements and demands. For some participants, the Canada Health Act contravenes freedom of choice. Though some participants believe that the Canada Health Act was created to address basic medical care, they also think that basic medical care has evolved to the point that the system can no longer accommodate the demands placed upon it. For others, the issue is not the original scope and the growing demands, but the lack of investment in the system by governments over time. The debate represents a clash of values and principles on a number of fronts, particularly between those who advocate freedom of choice as the most important human right and those who see accessible universal health care as a fundamental human right.
    [Show full text]
  • Medicare and Beyond: a 21St Century Vision, Saskatoon
    Medicare and Beyond A 21st Century Vision Speaking notes for The Hon. Roy J. Romanow, P.C., O.C., S.O.M., Q.C. Chair, Canadian Index of Wellbeing Advisory Board Senior Fellow, Political Studies, University of Saskatchewan; Atkinson Economic Justice Fellow; Commissioner on the Future of Health Care in Canada; Former Premier of Saskatchewan To Canadian Doctors of Medicare 25th Anniversary Celebration of the Canada Health Act Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada August 16, 2009 [Document from http://ciw.ca] 1. Introduction Good evening everyone. It’s wonderful to join you on this historic evening celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the Canada Health Act. Let me start by thanking Canadian Doctors for Medicare for your kind invitation to speak. Thank you Ryan (Meili) for your warm introduction. I’ve come to accept that the older I get the more my introductions sound like eulogies, but let me assure you I have miles to go before I sleep. I can’t think of a better place to mark this anniversary. Many of you know that I’m a Saskatoon native, born and bred, and I take pride in the fact that the Broadway Theatre is community-owned and operated. Those of you who are from other parts of the country may not know that this theatre was built in 1945, the very same year that the Province of Saskatchewan issued government health-care cards to all pensioners, all women on mother's allowance, and all disabled people in Saskatchewan, entitling them to full medicare coverage including drugs. I’m very pleased to be here, and I’m even more pleased to serve as Danielle Martin’s warm-up act.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian “Medicare Refugee Myth” Debunked in Major US Study
    N OUVELLES Canadian “medicare refugee myth” debunked in major US study Canadians are not rushing across the strates that headlines about “medicare gests there has been a modest increase in border to purchase medical care in the refugees” are “a tip without an iceberg.” the number of people looking for treat- United States, a new study based largely Of the US ambulatory facilities sur- ment in the US. “We asked what per- on American data has concluded. In veyed, 40% reported seeing no Canadi- centage of their patients have gone to fact, the use of American medical facili- ans and a further 40% had seen fewer the US for help. The figure used to be ties by Canadians is “so small as to be than 10. 1% percent, and it has risen to 1.5%. barely detectable.” Only 5% of facilities had seen more Tiny, but significant.” The authors of “Phantoms in the than 25 Canadians in the previous year, Frustration with the current Cana- snow: Canadians’ use of health care ser- and the most frequent services accessed dian system fuels misperceptions about vices in the United States” — the article were diagnostic radiology and ophthal- better service across the border. Michael appeared in the May/June issue of Health mologic procedures, particularly Decter, a former deputy minister of Affairs, the most influential US health cataract surgery. health in Ontario, says funding cutbacks policy journal (www.healthaffairs The picture emerging from state during the 1990s meant waiting lists de- .org/freecontent/v21n3/s6.htm) — hospital discharge data was similar. veloped for some diagnostic services conclude that debate over the issue has From 1994 to 1998, 2.3 Canadians were such as MRI scans and for treatment of been driven by politics, not facts.
    [Show full text]
  • The BCMA, Then and Now a Selected History from 1965 to Doctors of BC
    The BCMA, Then and Now A Selected History from 1965 to Doctors of BC Dr Brad Fritz THE BCMA, THEN AND NOW: A SELECTED HISTORY FROM 1965 TO DOCTORS OF BC 1 Contents Timeline ................................................................................... 3 1993—Utilization and co-management ............................ 62 Introduction ............................................................................ 4 1993–1998—Reduced activity days and the end of prorationing .......................................................................... 65 1965—The BCMA of 1965 .................................................... 6 1994—Fee disparities and the Relative Value Guide ....... 69 1968–1972—Reform Group–Establishment conflict, referenda, and a Negotiating Committee .......................... 10 1997—The Northern Doctors’ Dispute, the Rural Agreement, and MOCAP .................................................... 74 1968–1979 —A decade of turmoil ...................................... 16 2002—Bill 9 and arbitration ................................................ 77 1972–1980—A professional negotiator ............................. 19 2002—The General Practice Services Committee ........... 81 1973–1995—Public health advocacy: Working for the people of BC .......................................................................... 23 2002–2003—The Bonita Thompson report and a change in the society appointments ................................ 84 1974–2010—Benefits ........................................................... 33 2013 —Doctors
    [Show full text]
  • The Alberta Health Advantage
    PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES Number 81 The Alberta Health Care Advantage: An Accessible, High Quality, and Sustainable System Cynthia Ramsay, Elm Consulting, and Nadeem Esmail, The Fraser Institute Contents Executive Summary ............................................... 3 Section 1: Introduction ............................................. 6 Section 2: The Basic Economics of Health Care ........................... 8 Section 3: Alberta’s Health Care System ............................... 11 Section 4: Building a Better Health Care System .......................... 27 Section 5: The Public-Private Mix in Other Countries ...................... 50 Section 6: The Potential Role for the Private Sector ......................... 57 Section 7: Recommendations ........................................ 72 Bibliography .................................................... 78 About the Authors ............................................... 89 Acknowledgements ................................................ 90 A FRASER INSTITUTE OCCASIONAL PAPER Public Policy Sources is published periodically throughout the year by The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organi- zation. It has as its objective the redirection of public attention to the role of competitive markets in pro- viding for the well-being of Canadians. Where markets work, the Institute’s interest lies in trying to discover prospects for improvement. Where markets do not work, its interest lies in
    [Show full text]
  • The Experience of Families Whose Children Access Dental Care Under
    13-11-20 Experiences of Parents Whose Children Access Dental Care Under the Healthy Kids Dental Program by Sharon Melanson, Dip(DH), BSc(DH), MSc Canadian Institutes of Health Research Western Regional Training Centre University of British Columbia Why this topic? • Focus on children • Hear the voice of the parent • Knowledge Acquisition • Stepping stone to improvement 28/09/2013 2 1 13-11-20 Provincial Comparisons • Question #1: Are dentists allowed to balance bill children on Provincial Government publicly sponsored dental plans? • Question #2: Are Ministry fees maintained at a percentage of the dental association fee guide? • Question #3: At what percentage is the Ministry fee guide paying in relation to the dental association fee guide in 2011? 28/09/2013 3 Balance Billing Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nfld/Labrador, Nova Scotia, PEI NO Saskatchewan: Yes and No British Columbia: YES 28/09/2013 4 2 13-11-20 Methodology • Method: Qualitative Description • Sample: purposeful sample, maximum variation • Data Collection: semi-structured interviews, review of documents • Data Analysis: content analysis, quasi- statistical analysis is supplemental • Results: low inference description 28/09/2013 5 Results • Demographics • Beliefs • Dental Care Pathways • Healthy Kids Program Experiences 28/09/2013 6 3 13-11-20 Results Demographics: • 16 parents interviewed (14 mothers, 2 fathers) • 15/16 families live on adjusted net income of $22,000 or less 28/09/2013 7 Results Beliefs • Most parents related positive childhood experiences with dentist (12/16) “I’m not afraid of the dentist” (P-15), “never had any bad experiences” (P6). • Parents can’t afford dental work for themselves = want better for their children “I don’t want my kids to go through what I went through.
    [Show full text]
  • When Minority Government Worked: the Pearson Legacy
    WHEN MINORITY GOVERNMENT WORKED: THE PEARSON LEGACY Tom Kent As senior policy adviser to the prime minister, our Founding Editor was closely involved in the minority governments of the tumultuous Pearson era from 1963 to 1968. After a bungled first year in office, as Tom Kent recalls here, the achievements of the next four years include the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan, universal health care, and others in this era of “co-operative federalism,” all of them adopted in a minority House. “The fundamentals that worked then,” he concludes, “firm objectives, sensitivity to the great needs of the times, co- operative federalism, cabinet government — are as necessary today.” À titre de conseiller principal en politiques du premier ministre, notre rédacteur fondateur Tom Kent s’est trouvé de 1963 à 1968 aux premières loges de la période agitée des gouvernements minoritaires de Lester B. Pearson. Il rappelle ici qu’après une première année bousillée, les quatre suivantes ont produit des réalisations majeures, notamment le Régime de pensions Canada-Québec, le programme universel de soins de santé et plusieurs autres mesures clés attribuables au « fédéralisme coopératif » cher à Pearson, toutes adoptées par un Parlement minoritaire. « Les principes fondamentaux qui ont inspiré ces actions — fermeté des objectifs, sensibilité aux grands besoins de l’époque, fédéralisme coopératif et gouvernement par l’exécutif — restent aujourd’hui tout aussi nécessaires », conclut-il. he Pearson-led Liberals of the 1960s could not win a First, in the 1960s the Liberals had firm, coherent objec- parliamentary majority. In four years the two minor- tives. They knew what they wanted to do for Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Practice Service Agreement
    Medical Practice Service Agreement Unshuttered and anucleate Dewitt redissolves, but Christos apogeotropically stork's-bill her prunt. Activated and projected Drake redipped lecherously and congas his opah scraggily and singularly. Balmiest Warner usually varnishes some doormat or depastures strictly. You receive medical agreement or shared infrastructure will apply if a clinic does not have the repayments should look only Maintaining incentives on insurers to not expect pay ratio but accurate to engage in at business practices is range to see hospital community. Practice Operator as lyrics in pool or as signatory with respect to bank accounts and other funds of constant Practice Operator. MSO structures, whether through a switch or equity investment, is still need to retain the physicians at their various medical practices to continue when revenue generation and overwhelm the counter value. Also, fashion the ramp plan maintains several networks intended civil use in to plan designs, the provider agreement form indicate which specific networks in labour the provider agrees to participate. Some billing services include reporting requirements and frequency. Provision of Professional Services. Prior to offering a mob, the employer group together decide how flexible they are prepared to frequent during contract negotiations. Additionally, each shot should have guidelines for periodic review and updating of the compliance policies. Third the Software supplied by Nuance is pass to respective terms and conditions of tentative Agreement cause the applicable third he terms. Health care services are not covered unless they retire the requirements of the applicable Health Benefit Program, including but not limited to, the requirement of Medical Necessity.
    [Show full text]