Ontario doctors approve controversial contract
A majority of Ontario physicians voted in favour of approving a new contract with the provincial government, despite intense lobbying by critics of the deal in the one month that led up to last week’s vote.
Seventy-nine percent of Ontario Medical Association (OMA) voters approved the deal.
“I’m pleased that doctors have strongly endorsed this new contract,” OMA President Dr Ken Arnold said in . “Over the last four years doctors have been working harder to reduce wait times and improve access to care. This new agreement will build on that progress and help to further improve care for patients.”
According to the OMA, the contract provides for a 12.25% increase in doctors’ pay over four years. But an independent analysis by Canadian Medicine found that actual income will only rise by 10.25% because of the uneven weighting of the contract’s four stages. That means that the increase in ‘real’ income, or income adjusted for projected average Canadian inflation rates, is close to zero.
“I think this is worst contract,”said Dr Douglas Mark, the president of the largest dissenting group of doctors, the Coalition of Family Physicians of Ontario (COFP). “We don’t think it’s adequate.”
In the month between the contract’s tentative endorsement by the OMA’s board of directors and the referendum, the COFP repeatedly warned doctors about what it called the OMA’s “inaccuracies” in explaining the deal and urged voters to ignore the “scare tactics” employed to push them towards ratifying it. Voters may have grudgingly accepted the deal largely because Ontario physicians had been without a contract since the last agreement expired at the end of March. However, this year’s agreement passed with a greater margin of support from OMA members than did the last contract, in 2005, which was approved with 74% of the vote after an earlier version of that contract was rejected the previous year.
As was the case in the Canadian federal election, which fell in the middle of the OMA’s week-long polling, turnout for this year’s vote was very low. Only 34% of doctors cast a ballot -- far fewer than in past years, said Dr Mark. “Maybe doctors were too afraid with the economy turning the way it is to vote,” he said. “Some of them may have felt it was just not worth voting because they don’t think it’s going to make a difference.”
This year’s contract includes funding for a number of health policy initiatives as well as the physicians’ pay adjustments. The government pledged to fully fund 500 nursing positions in some physicians’ offices. Financial incentives will also be made available to physicians for treating diabetic patients, and for physicians who accept certain categories of unattached patients into their practice, including “complex/vulnerable” patients and mothers with newborns.
Another important commitment in the new contract is a promise from the government to pay 100% of the interest on medical residents’ student debt if they agree to practise in Ontario for a minimum of five years following graduation. Ninety percent of interns and residents who voted on the contract cast their vote in favour of approval, but their turnout was a paltry 15%. However, medical students, the majority of whose debt is still in front of them, voted 99% in favour of the contract, with an above-average 43% of eligible voters participating.
The deal also includes new funding models for geriatricians, geneticists, laboratory physicians and government-employed public health specialists.
One controversial aspect of the physicians’ pay aspect of the contract is the structuring of the raises. Half the increase will be distributed evenly across all medical specialties, while the other half will be allocated according to the government’s and the OMA’s priorities. Dr Mark has expressed serious concern with potentially inequitable raises given to certain doctors and not others. “Doctors are struggling in this province to keep things running in their practices. Now they’ll be faced with dealing with the economic reality, not just in terms of their own investments but in terms of how they are going to run their practices given that our increases are going to be so much in the air. Those who are facing leases that are going to be up for renewal in a short time, or looking at trying to hire more staff or giving their staff raises to help manage the volumes -- there’s so much stuff up in the air.”
Inequitable pay raises may create tension within the OMA, suggested Dr Mark. “There will be a number of docs trying to vie for those funds,” he said. “I think it’s going to create a lot of angst among doctors, even infighting, over these fees now. The process of finding out what the relative fee value should be has not been ironed out yet, and we have to trust the OMA to do that and do it right and be fair for all different doctors’ groups.”
Some OMA members also appeared apprehensive about that portion of the deal; the chairperson of the very large Section on General and Family Practice announced ahead of the vote that he would vote against the contract. Only 64% of GPs and FPs voted ‘yes’ on the contract -- well below the overall count of 79%.
Almost all OMA subsections voted ‘yes’ but several medical specialties voted overwhelmingly against the contract. Emergency physicians -- the third largest group of specialists in the province -- as well as hospitalists and nuclear medicine specialists all returned totals of at least 64% of members opposed to the agreement.
During the several weeks leading up to the vote, the COFP raised the question of whether the OMA deserved to be allowed to continue in its role as the sole government-recognized union permitted to negotiate on behalf of physicians. According to Dr Mark, the COFP could potentially begin an effort to convince members to leave the OMA en masse in order to undermine the OMA’s claim to represent all the province’s doctors. “That’s something we are still considering,” he said. “Over the next few weeks we are going to decide where our focus will be.”
Dr Arnold, the OMA president, took issue with the COFP’s broad criticism in a written statement to Canadian Medicine last week. “[T]he COFP has chosen to present a misleading analysis of the information in the agreement,” he wrote. Dr Arnold did not comment on the possibility of a COFP campaign to urge doctors to leave the OMA.
Illustration: Shutterstock