Canukistanian doctors doing alright, eh?

[eridani]

American Journal of Public Health
July 2011
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/7/1198

The Impact of Single-Payer Health Care on Physician Income in Canada,
By Jacalyn Duffin, MD, PhD

Over nearly 60 years, into the 21st century, physician income grew at a rate of increase that outpaced that of other Canadians. Since 1958 through the advent of medicare, until at least 1992 and probably into the present, physicians, as a professional category, were the top earners in the country.

In 2005, US doctors earned about five-and-a-half times the US GDP per capita; Canadian doctors earned about four times their country's GDP per capita.

The observation that Canadian physicians are paid less than their American counterparts invites us to ask, what do Canadians "get" in exchange for paying their physicians less than their American counterparts? A 1990 study showed that, although per capita expenditures on health in the United States were higher than those in Canada, the actual number of services was fewer. In other words, Canadian citizens were getting more and spending less.

From this research, we observe that even when the readjustments resulting from various policy and payment alterations are taken into account, Canadian medicare did not lead to a loss in physician income. Rather, physician incomes grew more quickly than those of other Canadians and are considerably greater. In short, the medical-income argument against moving toward a Canadian-style system is feeble.

The universal, single-payer system has been good not only for Canadians but also for their doctors.

Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: The experience with single payer in Canada has revealed that not only were physicians' incomes not harmed, physicians remain the top earners in the country. This article should allay the fears of U.S. physicians who would like to see us achieve a health care system that ensures quality health care for all but who remain apprehensive that their incomes might be adversely affected. As this report states, "The universal, single-payer system has been good not only for Canadians but also for their doctors."

My comment: The study traced net income, but did not specifically mention the much lower overheads for Canadian doctors. This includes much lower malpractice insurance costs, which are in any case subsidized by the government. Also, they get free tuition at medical school. The government also controls the prices of all their imputs.

[slipslidingaway]

1. knr nt

[Lorien]

2. K & R. Where are all of those posters who said "We'll fix it later"?

Guess what: IT'S LATER!

[slipslidingaway]

3. Once a national HC was not allowed into the discussions people should have ...

realized that Medicare/Medicaid programs would be on the table.

Guess we're fixing it.

:(

[Fool Count]

4. What "medical-income argument against moving toward a Canadian-style system"?

That a single-payer system better controls the costs of healthcare including the physicians' income? I thought it was an argument FOR
moving toward a Canadian-style system. Were we supposed to reject a system because it doesn't allow doctors to make gazzillions of
dollars? We can rejoice now, even in the socialist Canada medical doctors are the richest people. Whew, for a moment I thought this single-
payer thing was a non-starter - imagine the society where not all doctors are millionaires. That would have been just scary. But luckily
we can have socialized healthcare and rich doctors at the same time. Thank god for that.

[eridani]

6. General practitioners here are most certainly NOT millionaires

The average Canadian GP does better. Specialists in Canada get much less than specialists here. And remember that the income spread in Canada is much lower to start with.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. kick