In Canada, treatment is paid for by provincial governments, and doctors’ fees are usually set in negotiations with their organisations. When negotiations stall, a provincial government can turn to legislation or a unilateral decision: cut fees, terminate the agreement, ban joint protests and threaten penalties. The most recent case was Quebec in the autumn of 2025.
We describe what Quebec’s act contained, how doctors and institutions responded to it and what was left of it half a year later. For comparison we present the disputes in Ontario and Alberta and three older conflicts. Finally, we look at the role that disclosure of payments to doctors played in these disputes and what follows from it for Poland.
How Canada pays doctors
Canada has no single national payer. Each province and each territory runs its own public insurance plan, while the federal government sets common rules and contributes money.1 The rules are laid down in the federal Canada Health Act of 1984. A plan must be public and non-profit, cover all medically necessary hospital and physician services and all insured residents, remain valid after a move to another province and not create barriers to access, including financial ones. The act does not explicitly prohibit charges to patients for visits. If a province allows them, however, the federal government cuts its transfer by the amount patients paid — which is why the provinces themselves ban such charges.2
Most doctors are not salaried employees of a hospital or a ministry. They bill the provincial plan as independent service providers,3 according to a fee schedule that the province usually agrees with the doctors’ organisation. It does not always have to: in Ontario the government is not obliged to negotiate fees, and doctors do not form a trade union and have no right to collective bargaining. When talks collapse, the government can set the fee schedule itself.4
In the 2023–24 fiscal year the provinces paid doctors a total of CAD 34.58 billion (about PLN 107.7 billion5) in clinical payments. Fee-for-service payments accounted for 71.8% of this sum, and the rest were alternative payments, such as lump sums and salaries.6 These are gross amounts, out of which a doctor covers the costs of running a practice.7
In 2023–24 the average doctor in Quebec received less from the public plan than the Canadian average
| Average payment per physician | Fee-for-service share | |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | CAD 383,497 (about PLN 1.19 million) | 71.8% |
| Alberta | CAD 429,362 (about PLN 1.34 million) | 87.4% |
| Ontario | at least CAD 390,588 (about PLN 1.22 million) | 66.1% |
| Quebec | CAD 353,385 (about PLN 1.10 million) | 79.3% |
A doctor who is not an employee also lacks the usual right to strike. What doctors can do is reduce their work together with others — close their offices, give up on-call shifts — or leave the public plan. It was precisely such “concerted actions” that Quebec’s special laws targeted.
Quebec 2025: an act passed in a single night
Where it came from
The Quebec government was negotiating new agreements with the federation of family doctors (FMOQ) and the federation of specialists (FMSQ). In May 2025, in the middle of these talks, the minister of health tabled Bill 106, which made part of doctors’ pay depend on indicators of access to care.8 No agreement was reached. The government argued that about 1.5 million residents of the province, or 17%, had no family doctor, including 200,000 people with a particular need for care. The premier spoke of CAD 9 billion (about PLN 24.2 billion) spent on doctors every year9 — a figure from a political speech. According to CIHI, clinical payments to doctors in Quebec amounted to CAD 6.99 billion (about PLN 21.8 billion) in 2023–24, and they do not include all spending on doctors.6
The government introduced Bill 2 on 24 October 2025. The National Assembly passed it under the bâillon procedure, i.e. with closure of debate and without detailed committee work, shortly before 4:00 a.m. the next day, by 63 votes to 27.10 The act has 214 sections.11
What it contained
Bill 2 combined a fee cut, pay tied to targets and a ban on joint protests
| What it provided | Provision | |
|---|---|---|
| Pay tied to targets | Up to 15% of pay as a “collective supplement” for groups of doctors for meeting targets for access to care | s. 65 (new s. 29.20) |
| Fee cut | Every fee paid to doctors by the public insurer (RAMQ) replaced with a fee equal to 86.96% of the previous one, i.e. 13.04% lower, with exceptions, including family doctors on fixed fees and salaried specialists. Effective date: 1 January 2026; after the amendment by Bill 16 — 28 February 2026 | s. 108 |
| Extension of agreements and the specialists’ budget | Agreements with doctors extended to 31 March 2028. Budget for specialists’ pay: CAD 5,316.2 million in 2024–25 (about PLN 14.29 billion) and CAD 4,578.6 million in 2027–28 (about PLN 12.31 billion) | ss. 107, 124 |
| Ban on concerted action | A ban on jointly reducing work and on jointly leaving the public plan. The act presumed concerted action when several doctors acted at the same time or in line with a suggestion from a doctors’ organisation | ss. 131–134 |
| Sanctions | Fines for each day of participation, doubled for a repeat offence (table below). In addition, half a year of professional practice deducted for each day, and disciplinary proceedings for an act derogatory to the dignity of the profession | ss. 183–185, 201 |
| Capitation | A fee for each registered patient for family doctors; the government could set the method of paying doctors by regulation | amendments to the Health Insurance Act |
The dates on which the act applied changed several times, so they are worth setting out. In its original wording the act came into force on the day it was passed, 25 October 2025, but many provisions were to take effect later: the fee cut on 1 January 2026, other changes in April 2026 or April 2028. The act required the ban on concerted action to apply retroactively, from 8:00 a.m. on 24 October, the day the bill was introduced, although it provided no sanctions for violations before 25 October.11
Bill 16 of 12 December 2025 replaced both main dates — 25 October and 1 January — with 28 February 2026, with effect from 25 October. At the same time it repealed the entire chapter on concerted action (ss. 130–207), together with the penalties.12 The penal provisions were subject to the general effective date, and that date was — retroactively — moved to 28 February. They were repealed before that date, so formally they never took effect. Nor did the fee cut: Bill 19 repealed it on 26 February 2026, two days before the new date.13
Penalties four times higher than in 2002
The fines under Bill 2 were charged for each day of participation in concerted action and doubled for a repeat offence. In addition, a doctor lost half a year of professional practice for each such day, and participation itself was an act derogatory to the dignity of the profession, for which the professional body’s disciplinary council had to impose a penalty.11
Quebec had used such a mechanism before. In June 2002 in Shawinigan-Sud a patient died who reached the emergency department a few minutes after it had closed for the night because there was no one to staff the on-call shift.14 Five weeks later the National Assembly passed Bill 114 in a single day. At the minister’s request, regional medical authorities drew up mandatory on-call rosters, and collective action by doctors was banned; the on-call provisions applied until the end of 2002.1516 Each penalty in the 2025 act is exactly four times the penalty from 2002.
Fine for each day of participation in concerted action
| Bill 114 (2002) | Bill 2 (2025) | |
|---|---|---|
| Doctor | CAD 1,000–5,000 (about PLN 2.6–13.0 thousand) | CAD 4,000–20,000 (about PLN 10.8–53.8 thousand) |
| Officer or employee of a doctors’ organisation | CAD 7,000–35,000 (about PLN 18.2–91.0 thousand) | CAD 28,000–140,000 (about PLN 75.3–376.3 thousand) |
| Doctors’ organisation (federation) | CAD 25,000–125,000 (about PLN 65.0–324.9 thousand) | CAD 100,000–500,000 (about PLN 268.8 thousand–1.34 million) |
How doctors and institutions responded
The response is easiest to measure in the neighbouring province. From 23 October to the morning of 10 November 2025 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario received 263 applications for a licence to practise from doctors in Quebec. In almost five earlier months, from 1 June to 22 October, there had been 19 such applications. The pace therefore rose from roughly one application a week to about 14 a day. More than half of the applicants were family doctors, and 35 people had received a certificate by that date. The College noted that applicants did not give reasons and that some applications might be withdrawn or cancelled.17
Quebec’s professional self-regulatory body for doctors (Collège des médecins) called for the application of the act to be suspended and for a return to talks, citing the lack of consultation and the risk to access to care.18 Both federations and the medical students’ associations challenged the act in court, invoking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court did not suspend it pending trial, but found that the students’ challenge deserved to be heard on the merits.19
Residents were divided. In a Léger poll, 65% of respondents said the reform would make care worse or change nothing.20 In a Pollara survey a slim majority of Quebecers opposed the act, and about four in ten supported it.21
What was left of the act
Quebec, 2025–2026: from the bill to agreements with doctors
Government
The minister of health tables Bill 106, which links part of doctors’ pay to access to care.
Government
Bill 2 is introduced and passed within a single night under closure (bâillon).
Doctors
The doctors’ professional self-regulatory body calls for the application of the act to be suspended and for a return to talks.
Court or arbitrator
The Superior Court does not suspend the act at the request of medical students; the challenge will be heard on the merits.
Government
Bill 16 repeals the chapter on concerted action and penalties and postpones the effective dates of Bill 2.
Government
The minister of health who introduced Bill 2 leaves the government and the governing party.
Government
Bill 19 is passed and in force: the fee cut and pay tied to targets are among the provisions that disappear.
Agreement
Agreement with the federation of specialists; delegates approve it with 86% of the vote.
Government
The government announces that the target for new patient registrations with family doctors has been reached ahead of schedule.
The government backed down gradually. It repealed the chapter on concerted action and penalties 48 days after the act was passed, a day after a preliminary agreement with family doctors.12 The agreement approved later gives them a budget 14.5% higher, i.e. CAD 435 million (about PLN 1.17 billion) more, and from June 2026 a new pay structure: 50% capitation, 30% fee-for-service and 20% hourly rate.2223
The financial core of Bill 2 disappeared in February 2026. Bill 19, prepared by the new minister of health,24 repealed, among other things, the 15% of pay tied to targets, the 13.04% fee cut, the extension of agreements to 2028 with a lower specialists’ budget and the government’s power to set the method of paying doctors by regulation.13
What survived was the idea that part of pay should depend on access to care — but in a version agreed with doctors. The agreement with family doctors provides CAD 75 million (about PLN 202 million) in bonuses for voluntary patient registrations,22 and the preamble to Bill 19 sets a target: 500,000 new registrations by 30 June 2026, including 180,000 patients with a particular need for care.13 At the end of May the government announced that the target had been reached ahead of schedule.25 The April 2026 agreement with specialists for the first time writes access targets into their pay; no amounts were given.2627
Whether the act pushed doctors out of the public system cannot yet be determined. According to Quebec government data, 518 family doctors left the public network in 2025–26, and 489 a year earlier. Both figures include all departures, including retirements. The minister of health said that not all of them could be attributed to the act and that there had been no mass exodus.28 Canada-wide CIHI data on physician flows end in 2024.29
Ontario 2012–2019: cuts ended by an arbitrator
Ontario twice cut doctors’ fees without their consent. In 2012, after talks with the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) broke down, the government changed 37 items of the public insurance (OHIP) fee schedule. It expected savings of CAD 338 million (about PLN 1.10 billion) in 2012–13 and CAD 440 million (about PLN 1.35 billion) in 2013–14.30 An interim agreement in November softened 6 of these cuts,31 and OMA members approved it with 81% of the vote.4
In 2015 the government turned to across-the-board cuts, introduced in two steps.4 Together they amounted to 3.95% in fee-for-service payments and 2.65% in other payments. A 0.5% cut, agreed in the 2012 agreement, had already applied since April 2013.32 The OHIP budget for fee-for-service payments was then about CAD 11.5 billion (about PLN 34.2 billion). Doctors rejected the agreement negotiated in 2016, which would have raised it by 2.5% a year (63.1% voted against). Their reasons varied; the loudest opposition came from the best-paid specialists, and the government was not obliged to negotiate fees with doctors.4 A year later doctors accepted a framework that referred disputes over the agreement to binding arbitration (65% voted in favour).33
The arbitrator ruled in February 2019. He granted raises for 2017–2021 of 0.75%, 1.25%, 1% and 1% respectively. In the third year half of the 1%, i.e. 0.5 percentage points, went towards removing the 2012 cut.34 The across-the-board cuts from the 2012 agreement and from 2015 were lifted from 1 April 2019.32 The arbitrator also rejected the hard cap on the budget for physician services that the government wanted, noting that no other province uses one. Instead he required the parties to find CAD 460 million (about PLN 1.33 billion) in savings on services deemed inappropriate.35 Almost seven years passed from the first unilateral cut to the award.
Ontario, 2012–2019: from unilateral cuts to the arbitration award
Government
After talks with the doctors’ organisation (OMA) break down, the government unilaterally cuts the OHIP fee schedule.
Government
The government imposes an across-the-board cut to fee-for-service payments; from June it also covers other forms of payment.
Government
The minister of health makes consent to arbitration conditional on, among other things, full transparency of doctors’ pay.
Court or arbitrator
Court of Appeal: the billings of the 100 highest-billing doctors may be disclosed with their names.
Government
A new government terminates the arbitration framework, citing a lack of trust; the proceedings already under way continue.
Court or arbitrator
Arbitration award: raises for 2017–2021 and, from 1 April 2019, an end to the across-the-board cuts.
Court or arbitrator
The Supreme Court of Canada declines to hear the case on disclosure of billings; the 2018 ruling is final.
Alberta 2020–2022: a terminated agreement and a power given up
The Alberta government began by changing the law. In December 2019 it added section 40.2 to the health insurance act, which allowed the minister of health to terminate the agreement with the Alberta Medical Association (AMA).36 He used it in February 2020 and announced that total physician compensation would stay at CAD 5.4 billion (about PLN 15.7 billion) a year, and that the new rules would avoid CAD 2 billion (about PLN 5.8 billion) of additional costs over four years. The strongest opposition was to the add-on payment for a visit longer than 15 minutes: it was to fall from CAD 18 to CAD 9 (from about PLN 52 to PLN 26), and from 1 April 2021 return to CAD 18, but only from the 25th minute of the visit.37
The government suspended the change to the add-on payment after less than four weeks, at the start of the pandemic.38 When doctors in small communities announced that they would give up on-call shifts in emergency and obstetric departments, it changed the billing rules to keep them. Some doctors stayed; some went ahead with their plan to withdraw from hospital work.39 In an AMA survey in July 2020, 42% of 1,740 respondents said they would leave the province, and at least 10 communities reduced services or announced that doctors were leaving. The ministry of health disputed the scale of the problem.40 We have not found data on actual departures.
The AMA sued the government for CAD 255 million (about PLN 741 million), alleging a violation of freedom of association.36 Doctors rejected the first proposal for a new agreement (53% voted against).41 They accepted the second one, for 2022–26 (70.2% voted in favour). It provides CAD 252 million (about PLN 864 million) in new spending and fee increases of 1% a year for three years.42 In December 2022 the legislature repealed section 40.2, and in return the AMA undertook to withdraw its lawsuit once that change came into force.4344
Alberta, 2019–2022: from termination of the agreement to a new deal
Government
A new section 40.2 of the provincial health insurance act allows the minister to terminate the agreement with the doctors’ organisation (AMA).
Government
At the start of the pandemic the government suspends the cut to the add-on payment for longer visits.
Government
A regulation on disclosure of fee-for-service payments to individual doctors.
Agreement
The legislature repeals section 40.2; the AMA undertakes to withdraw its lawsuit once the change comes into force.
Earlier disputes: Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario
Saskatchewan 1962. When Canada’s first universal medical care insurance came into force on 1 July, about 90% of the province’s doctors closed their offices. The strike lasted 23 days.45 The government brought in doctors from outside, including about 90 from the United Kingdom.46 The Saskatoon Agreement of 23 July kept insurance universal and public, and left doctors fee-for-service payment and the right to practise outside the plan.47
Quebec 1970. Specialists protested against the public insurance plan, and the National Assembly ordered them back to work with Bill 41. According to the press at the time, they first announced that they would ignore the act. They returned at the height of the October Crisis, after an appeal by the Canadian Medical Association.48
Ontario 1986. The 1984 federal act cut a province’s transfer by every dollar of charges collected from patients. By 1986 Ontario had lost CAD 100 million in this way. The province banned such charges by statute, and doctors went on strike from 12 June to 7 July 1986, longer in some hospitals. The ban stayed.49 We do not convert amounts from before the redenomination of the zloty.
Disclosure of payments in these disputes
In several of these disputes the question kept returning of how much the public payer pays specific doctors. The answer depended on whether disclosure was required by statute or was a matter of current policy.
Ontario: one request, one ruling. A Toronto Star journalist asked, under freedom of information law, for the names, specialties and billing amounts of the 100 doctors who billed OHIP the most in the 2008–2012 fiscal years. The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, and in August 2018 the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by the OMA and groups of doctors. It held reasonable the finding that in this case gross billings are not information about a doctor’s personal finances, because with large and variable practice costs they do not reliably indicate the doctor’s income.50 The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case in 2019.51 According to the Toronto Star, which obtained the data from the ministry of health, in 2012–13 the hundred highest-billing doctors received a total of CAD 191 million (about PLN 622 million).52 The ruling, however, concerned a single request. We have not found a government list that would publish doctors’ billings in Ontario every year.
Ontario and Alberta: disclosure as an argument in the dispute. In Ontario the minister of health in 2016 made consent to arbitration conditional on, among other things, full transparency of doctors’ pay.53 In Alberta the minister of health threatened, at the height of the dispute, to disclose the billings of individual doctors,40 and in September 2020 the government issued a regulation on disclosure of payments for services. The AMA responded that the gross amount is not a doctor’s income.54 We have not established whether a named list was ever published.
British Columbia and New Brunswick: disclosure by statute. In British Columbia the ministry of health, under the Financial Information Act, publishes every year a list (the so-called Blue Book) naming every doctor who received at least CAD 25,000 (about PLN 72.7 thousand) gross from the public plan.55 Data for successive years are also available in an open format.56 New Brunswick publishes an annual list of payments to doctors. For 2022–23 it covered 1,816 doctors, 48 of whom received at least CAD 1 million (about PLN 3.43 million).57 The province’s medical society does not dispute the publication; it only points out that the amounts are usually the practice’s revenue, not the doctor’s income.58
Each of these lists covers payments from one provincial plan. None shows how much public money in total goes to one doctor from different payers.
Conclusions
In three contemporary disputes provincial governments imposed terms on doctors: Ontario in 2012 and 2015, Alberta in 2020, Quebec in 2025. In all three, the final shape of pay was set by an agreement with doctors or by an arbitrator. Neither the penalties nor the fee cut survived from the Quebec act. In Ontario the arbitrator lifted the across-the-board cuts and rejected the hard budget cap. In Alberta the minister lost the power to terminate agreements, and the doctors’ organisation undertook to withdraw its lawsuit.
Changes to the rules of the system as a whole proved more lasting: universal insurance in Saskatchewan and the ban on extra charges in Ontario survived doctors’ strikes.
Staffing effects are easier to predict than to measure. After the Quebec act, licence applications in Ontario rose sharply, but only slightly more family doctors left Quebec’s public network in 2025–26 than a year earlier. In Alberta, we know of planned departures only from a survey.
What follows for Poland
In Canada, total payments to doctors from public plans and the average amount per doctor in each province are public,6 and in two provinces so is the amount for each doctor. The disputes described above show two routes by which disclosure of payments enters health policy. In Ontario and Alberta ministers reached for it during disputes — as a condition for arbitration or as a threat — and no permanent annual list came of it. In British Columbia and New Brunswick publication is required by law, so it appears every year, regardless of how negotiations are going.
The argument that a gross amount says nothing about a doctor’s income did not block disclosure. The court in Ontario held reasonable the finding that it is precisely for this reason that billings from the public plan are not information about a doctor’s personal finances.50 In New Brunswick the doctors’ organisation does not dispute the publication; it only reminds readers that the amounts are the practice’s revenue.58
The Canadian lists have a limit, though: each shows payments from one provincial plan, not the total public money that goes to one person. In Poland a doctor can receive public money from several hospitals and clinics at the same time, and nobody publishes the total (more on this mechanism). That is why we call for the total paid to each person from public money to be public, under a permanent identifier, without names. Such a publication would show a total that no Canadian list gives, without naming doctors as British Columbia does.
Method
We describe the content of Bills 2, 16, 19 and 114 on the basis of the official texts published by Publications du Québec, the Ontario ruling on the basis of the text on the Ontario courts’ website, and payments and physician flows on the basis of CIHI tables. We describe the course of negotiations and the parties’ positions according to reports by public broadcasters and news agencies and statements by governments and doctors’ organisations. We describe events up to the end of May 2026.
Amounts are given in Canadian dollars (CAD). As in the Polish original, we convert them into zloty at the average annual NBP rate for the year the amount refers to: for fiscal years, the year in which they begin; for legal provisions, the year the act was passed.5 We write about mechanisms, not individuals, so the text names functions rather than people.
Notes 58laws, data and statements we relied on
-
Health Canada, Canada’s health care system. ↩
-
Canada Health Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-6, ss. 7–12 (conditions for provincial plans) and 18–20 (deductions from the transfer for extra charges). ↩
-
Health Canada, How publicly funded coverage works. ↩
-
CBC News, report on Ontario doctors’ vote on the 2016 agreement, August 2016 — among other things, no obligation to negotiate, the 2012 and 2015 cuts, the OHIP budget for fee-for-service payments. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
-
National Bank of Poland, average CAD exchange rates from table A (NBP API). Annual averages calculated from daily quotations: 2002 — 2.5991; 2012 — 3.2584; 2013 — 3.0701; 2016 — 2.9777; 2019 — 2.8942; 2020 — 2.9058; 2022 — 3.4267; 2023 — 3.1142; 2024 — 2.9071; 2025 — 2.6882 PLN per 1 CAD. Zloty amounts on this page are calculated at these annual rates, as in the Polish original, not at the current rate given at the bottom of the page. ↩ ↩2
-
CIHI, National Physician Database — Payments Data, 2023–2024, tables A.1.1–A.1.3 and A.3.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
CIHI, definition of the indicator Average gross clinical payment per physician. ↩
-
Le Soleil, article on Bill 106 (in French), 8.05.2025. ↩
-
Le Soleil, article on the introduction of the special law (in French), 24.10.2025. ↩
-
Radio-Canada, report on the passing of Bill 2 (in French), 25.10.2025. ↩
-
Bill 2: Loi visant principalement à instaurer la responsabilité collective quant à l’amélioration de l’accès aux services médicaux et à assurer la continuité de la prestation de ces services (in French), LQ 2025, c. 25, Publications du Québec — among others ss. 65 (s. 29.20), 107–108, 124, 131–134, 183–185, 201, 212 and 214. ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
Bill 16: Loi reportant l’entrée en vigueur de certaines dispositions de la Loi visant principalement à instaurer la responsabilité collective… (in French), LQ 2025, c. 39, passed on 12.12.2025 — s. 1 (new dates in s. 214 of Bill 2), s. 2(5) (date of the fee cut), s. 3 (repeal of ss. 130–207) and s. 4 (effect from 25.10.2025). ↩ ↩2
-
Bill 19: Loi visant notamment l’amélioration de l’accès aux services médicaux et la prise en charge médicale de la population (in French), LQ 2026, c. 2 — preamble, ss. 12 and 14 (repeal of, among others, ss. 59–66 and 106–128 of Bill 2) and s. 23 (entry into force on 26.02.2026). ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
CMAJ, editorial on emergency department closures, 2002. ↩
-
CMAJ, article on Bill 114, 2002. ↩
-
Bill 114: Loi visant la prestation continue de services médicaux d’urgence (in French), LQ 2002, c. 39, ss. 2, 20 and 26. ↩
-
Radio-Canada International, article on Quebec doctors’ applications in Ontario, 11.11.2025. The pace is our own calculation: 19 applications in 144 days (1.06–22.10) against 263 in about 18 days (23.10 – morning of 10.11). ↩
-
Collège des médecins du Québec, statement by the president (in French), 7.11.2025. ↩
-
Le Devoir, article on the refusal to suspend the act (in French), 13.11.2025. ↩
-
Noovo Info, article on the Léger poll (in French). ↩
-
Pollara Strategic Insights, survey of opinion on Bill 2, November 2025. ↩
-
Radio-Canada, details of the agreement with family doctors (in French), 11.12.2025. ↩ ↩2
-
Noovo Info, article on family doctors’ approval of the agreement (in French), 19.12.2025. ↩
-
La Presse, article on Bill 19 (in French), 4.02.2026. ↩
-
Gouvernement du Québec, statement on the targets of the agreement with family doctors (in French), 27.05.2026. ↩
-
Gouvernement du Québec, statement on the agreement with the federation of specialists (in French), April 2026. ↩
-
CBC News, article on the agreement with specialists, April 2026. ↩
-
Le Devoir, article on departures of family doctors (in French), 26.05.2026; Radio-Canada, article on the same data (in French). ↩
-
CIHI, Supply, Distribution and Migration of Physicians in Canada, 2024 — data tables. ↩
-
The Commonwealth Fund, article on fee schedule cuts in Ontario, 2012. ↩
-
Fasken, Health Law Bulletin, 12.12.2012. ↩
-
Ontario Ministry of Health, OHIP INFOBulletin No. 4721 — Payment Discounts Effective April 1, 2019, 28.03.2019. ↩ ↩2
-
CBC News, article on the acceptance of the arbitration framework, June 2017. ↩
-
Ontario Ministry of Health, bulletins on implementing the arbitration award (Kaplan Board): OHIP INFOBulletin No. 4751 (year 1: 0.75%, year 2: 1.25%), No. 210107 (year 3: 1%, of which 0.5% to remove the cut from the 2012 agreement) and No. 11249 (year 4: cumulative increase of 3.5446% against 2.5194% after year 3, i.e. 1% — our calculation: 1.025194 × 1.01 = 1.035446). ↩
-
CBC News, article on the arbitration award, 19.02.2019 — gives only the average raise of about 1% a year over the term of the agreement, without a breakdown by year. ↩
-
Alberta Worker, article on the AMA lawsuit against the government. ↩ ↩2
-
CBC News, article on the termination of the agreement with doctors, 20.02.2020. ↩
-
CBC News, article on the suspension of the change to the add-on payment, 17.03.2020. ↩
-
Global News, article on changes for doctors in small communities, 28.04.2020. ↩
-
CBC News, article on the AMA survey and the threat to disclose billings, 24.08.2020. ↩ ↩2
-
Global News, article on the rejection of the proposed agreement, March 2021. ↩
-
Alberta Medical Association, letter on the ratification of the agreement, September 2022; CBC News, article on the vote. ↩
-
CBC News, article on the repeal of section 40.2, December 2022. ↩
-
Alberta Medical Association, Repealing 40.2, 5.12.2022 — the lawsuit will be withdrawn once the act is passed and proclaimed. ↩
-
Parks Canada, Saskatchewan Doctors’ Strike — national historic event. ↩
-
The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, entry on a doctor brought in during the strike. ↩
-
The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, Doctors’ Strike. ↩
-
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, press of 19.10.1970 (in French). ↩
-
CMAJ, article on the 1986 Ontario doctors’ strike, 2018. ↩
-
Ontario Medical Association v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 673, 3.08.2018, paras. 1–3 (request for data for the 2008–2012 fiscal years) and 25–27. ↩ ↩2
-
Supreme Court of Canada, case No. 38343. ↩
-
Toronto Star, “Transparency is key”, 5.07.2017 (edition on PressReader) — total billings of the 100 doctors with the highest amounts in 2012–13, according to ministry of health data obtained by the newspaper under freedom of information law. ↩
-
CBC News, article on the minister’s conditions for arbitration, 13.09.2016. ↩
-
Alberta Medical Association, letter on the disclosure regulation; Bennett Jones, overview of the regulation. ↩
-
British Columbia Ministry of Health, Medical Services Plan — Blue Book 2024/25. ↩
-
Open Government Canada, dataset of the payment lists. ↩
-
Country 94, article on the report on payments to doctors in New Brunswick, 2.01.2024. ↩
-
New Brunswick Medical Society, statement on the publication of payments. ↩ ↩2