1. Friends of Medicare’s Submission
to
Fred Horne, MLA and Chair,
Minister’s Advisory Committee
on
The Proposed Alberta Health Act
Friends of Medicare

2. July 9th, 2010

3.
Friends
of
Medicare
has
a
difficult
time
trying
to
understand
what
is
the
rationale
for
proposing
this
Alberta
Health
Act
legislation.
The
document
“A
Foundation
for
Alberta’s
Health
System”
does
not
provide
an
explanation
as
to
why
over-­‐arching
legislation
is
required.
Furthermore,
the
language
of
this
Foundation
document
is
similar
in
scope
and
tone
to
the
2002
Mazankowski
report
and
the
government’s
2005
“Third
Way”
initiative,
both
of
which
were
designed
to
expand
private
health
care
in
the
province.
We
very
strongly
believe
that
this
legislation
should
be
changed
only
if
it
is
a
serious
attempt
to
strengthen
the
public
health
system
and
to
redouble
restrictions
on
for-­‐profit
delivery.
Otherwise,
there
is
little
to
be
gained
that
could
not
be
accomplished
with
current
legislation
working
in
concert
with
the
Canada
Health
Act.
1.
Increase
accountability
for
Quality.
This
is
an
important
goal.
Friends
of
Medicare
recommends
that
this
should
be
addressed
through
an
expanded
role
of
the
health
quality
council.
2. Patient
centered
health.
Again,
a
very
good
concept,
as
long
as
it
is
pursued
in
a
sincere
manner.
For
example,
the
government
must
hold
its
policy
of
private
health
delivery
up
to
the
light
and
make
an
honest
determination
as
to
whether
private
health
is
the
best
choice
for
the
patient.
3. Patient
Charter.
This
label
is
misleading,
since
by
all
indications
the
government
has
no
intention
of
introducing
an
actual
charter.
What
the
government
is
more
likely
to
introduce
is
broad
language
about
the
right
to
timely
access
to
medical
services,
along
with
a
list
of
personal
responsibilities
Albertans
should
undertake
to
improve
their
health.
It
is
our
view
that
this
“patient
charter”
should
not
proceed
as
outlined
in
the
survey.
At
the
very
least
the
responsibilities
section
should
be
removed,
and
the
timeliness
section
should
be
constrained
to
acknowledge
the
limitations
of
the
health
system.
This
“Charter”
should
not
be
used
a
vehicle
to
expand
private
health
care.
The
concept
has
a
very
poor
record
in
other
jurisdictions,
and
flies
in
face
of
the
“no-­‐fault”
single
payer
system
that
lies
at
the
heart
of
public
health
system.
4. It
is
clear
the
intention
of
the
Alberta
Health
Act
is
to
merge
a
number
of
Acts
and
to
standardize
definitions.
We
are
very
concerned
that
this
new
act
will
go
after
legislation
that
protects
Albertans
from
expanded
private
insurance,
private
delivery,
and
two
tier,
private
health
care.
It
is
simplistic
and
misleading
to
assert
that
current
legislation
is
“obsolete
and
inefficient”
when
it
fact
it
protects
Albertans
from
expensive
and
unnecessary
two
tier
private
health
care.

4.
5. Expansion
of
for-­‐profit
delivery.
We
suspect
this
aspect
of
the
report
is
driving
force
behind
the
Alberta
Health
Act.
Investor
owned
health
companies
are
applying
pressure
to
expand
private
contracts
to
deliver
all
aspects
of
health
care
system
.
We
assert
mostly
strongly
that
these
private
contracts
result
in
higher
costs,
lower
quality
health
outcomes,
and
adverse
conditions
for
staff.
They
also
hand
over
resources,
buildings
and
decision
making
over
to
a
private
provider,
and
make
it
much
more
difficult
to
audit
how
public
funds
are
being
spent.
The
government’s
health
policy
has
caused
chaos
and
confusion
for
the
past
two
years.
What
is
emerging
is
a
vision
of
greatly
expanded
private
for
profit
health
care.
It
is
clear
that
the
Alberta
health
act
is
a
way
to
move
our
public
health
care
system
into
being
a
publicly
funded
health
system,
with
a
universe
of
private
contracts
actually
delivering
the
services.
The
model
that
should
be
used
to
bring
this
legislation
forward
is
a
full
discussion
paper
that
outlines
the
legislation
and
what
are
the
government’s
intentions
surrounding
the
proposal.
Most
Albertans
are
simply
confused
and
suspicious
of
the
government’s
intentions
concerning
this
legislation,
so
it
is
important
to
lay
out
a
clear,
concise
process
that
allows
proper
debate.
The
very
idea
that
the
government
would
“consult”
for
three
of
four
months
on
a
bill
that
has
neither
form
nor
shape
is
a
deeply
cynical
and
confused
exercise.
We
would
suggest
that
the
committee
delivers
its
report,
the
government
develops
draft
legislation,
and
the
public
is
given
its
due
with
a
white
paper
outlining
the
intentions
of
the
government,
with
the
legislation
to
move
forward
(or
not)
in
2011,
_____________________
David
Eggen,
Executive
Director
Friends
of
Medicare