Update the Canada Health Act
After four decades, the landmark law still protects universal care – but U of T experts argue it must evolve to face modern pressures
They arrived before the sun. On a snowy January morning in Walkerton, Ontario, hundreds of people began 2025 by lining up, bundled in scarves and winter coats, hoping to score the hottest ticket in town: the chance to register with a family doctor.
The crowd represented only a fraction of the more than six million Canadians who currently lack a family physician, and their presence was a stark reminder that, despite its reputation, the country’s universal health-care system has gaps big enough for millions to slip through.
For many Canadians, universal health care is a point of pride. The Canada Health Act, passed by Parliament in 1984,1 is the legislative backbone of this system. It ensures that most residents can see a doctor or visit a hospital without worrying about the bill. Yet in the more than 40 years since its passage, the act has never been substantially updated.
Now, with the health system strained by long wait times, a critical shortage of family doctors and rising rates of mental illness and addiction, some health experts argue the time has come for a Canada Health Act 2.0.
“We need to fundamentally alter our thinking because not all Canadians have access to the medically necessary care they need,” says Gregory Marchildon, a professor emeritus at the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and one of the country’s leading voices on health policy. He wants us to rethink what it means to have “reasonable access to health services” and to redefine which health professionals can provide care.
One standard for all
The Canada Health Act was designed to ensure that no matter where in the country someone lives they receive the same standard of health care without having to pay out of pocket. This ethos is opposite to what airlines use, says Marchildon: “There’s no business class, there’s no economy class, there’s just one class.”
The legislation, only 13 pages long, sets out criteria for what services must be publicly covered. Provinces and territories then receive federal funding via the Canada Health Transfer, based on how they meet those criteria. Marchildon, who has written extensively about the introduction of Medicare in Canada, compares the act to a house: it provides the basic layout, and the furniture and appliances required, but leaves the provinces and territories free to add extras. He says the act was initially effective in making health care more accessible for those who previously couldn’t afford it.
Back then, however, the focus was on medically necessary hospital and physician care. Services from nurse practitioners, addictions specialists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists were not included under the act. Neither were First Nations’ traditional healing and treatments. Some provinces and territories have since passed legislation to cover these services, but access depends on where a person lives – and their ability to pay. Ontario, for example, saw several private nurse practitioner-led clinics pop up last year, with fees ranging from $70 a visit to more than $400 for a yearly membership.
Having moved to a new city, Marchildon himself is among those without a doctor. The last time he was sick, he simply didn’t receive care. “But we can’t just keep adding more doctors,” he says. “That doesn’t do the trick.
“Good primary health care requires the contributions of many others. Nurse practitioners, for example, can more easily provide services to people living in areas chronically underserved by traditional family physicians.”
Modern pressures
The cracks in the system show up in many ways. In addition to the difficulty of finding a family doctor, many Canadians report exceedingly long wait times or barriers to care – delays that have been intensified by backlogs from the pandemic. In 2024, at least one in four people waiting for a hip or knee replacement didn’t get surgery within the recommended six-month window. More than half of young adults with early signs of mental health issues said cost kept them from seeking care. And one in 20 Canadians took measures such as skipping doses or delaying refills because of the out-of-pocket expense of prescription medication. The house, as Marchildon described, needs renovations.
“The act was groundbreaking in its time, but the care we need now goes far beyond hospitals and doctors,” says Sara Allin, an associate professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and co-editor of the journal Healthcare Papers, which devoted a recent issue to reimagining the Canada Health Act.
Allin explains that changing the act is “the only real tool the federal government has to influence and shape the way the health system is organized.”
Marchildon agrees, noting that the current definition of “reasonable access” focuses almost entirely on eliminating user fees. “If access in the Canada Health Act was defined to include timely access, then provinces and territories would strive to reduce the most unacceptably long waiting times and barriers, since none would want to lose part of their cash under the Canada Health Transfer,” or, more significantly, he adds, “the bad publicity that comes with being in breach of the Canada Health Act.” 2
What reform could look like
Revising the act could mean expanding insured services to include a broader range of health professionals – from nurse practitioners and midwives to addiction specialists – no matter where you live.
Marchildon argues that it could also mean building in greater accountability and transparency measures. In 2024, for example, the Canadian Medical Association called for a Chief Health Accountability Officer to monitor how the provinces and territories are meeting their obligations under the act – and to publicly report outcomes. “So much of our taxes go toward this transfer,” says Allin. “Updating the act could help ensure we get more out of that investment.”
Critics will raise concerns about the cost associated with adding more services to an already pricey publicly funded bill. But supporters counter that many changes could be achieved through more efficient organization, not just more spending. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can often provide high-quality primary care less expensively than physicians, while expanded roles for pharmacists or midwives could also achieve savings and relieve some of the workload falling solely to family doctors.
The politics of change
Revising such an iconic piece of legislation, let alone one that hasn’t been significantly updated in 40-plus years, is not simple. In that time, governments have sidestepped the issue by creating parallel legislation or “letters of interpretation” that adjust definitions without changing the act.
Last January, then federal Health Minister Mark Holland released an interpretation letter (effective next spring) to add health professionals including nurse practitioners, pharmacists and midwives to the list of “insured services” providers. Marchildon says steps like this are helpful but warns that these changes can be easily reversed as politics or parties change.
“One of the protections of the Canada Health Act is that it’s of such great importance to Canadians that it is very difficult, for good reason, for the government to make major changes,” says Marchildon.
Building consensus for change among provinces, territories, political parties, various stakeholders and the public will be a daunting task.
But Allin and Marchildon argue that the moment may be right. After four decades, Canadians have a clearer sense of the system’s strengths and weaknesses. And the pandemic underscored both the value of universal health care and the urgent need for modernization. The act has ensured generations of Canadians access to care without paying out of pocket. The question now is how to protect that principle while adapting to 21st-century realities.
“Yes, there are challenges – but we’ve built something worth protecting, and we can make it better, from the bottom up with improvements to service delivery at a local level facilitated by provincial reforms, and from the top down through improvements to the Canada Health Act, initiated by the federal government,” says Marchildon.
“It’s all about strengthening the system we have and building on our success.”
This story is one of a six-part feature on big, bold Canadian ideas.
No Responses to “ Update the Canada Health Act ”
Well-intentioned, publicly funded health care with no competition will always be inefficient, costly and have long wait times. The idea that we can be the only major western country without parallel private acute care is ignoring the reality of the limitations that exist in all government programs. Yes, make it better through more efficiencies but we need a parallel system to provide competition.
This article fails to include long-term care, which is also left out of the Canada Health Act. Let us not forget the horrific reports provided by the military during the pandemic. I would respectfully submit that long-term care (or nursing homes) should also be included in the Canada Health Act.
I don't believe that health-care providers should be paid based only on time per person. There should be a reasonable fee schedule based on time, difficulty and complications -- or a salary.
Family practitioners have extensive, comprehensive training -- including some surgical procedures. They really have an almost unlimited scope. Let’s support them by having assistants look after the forms and mountains of paperwork to allow them to see more patients and do what they do best.
Why is English Canada practically the only part of the world that does not have a hybrid system of health care? A monopoly is not the way to go. Competition is necessary for improvement.
In all other OECD countries there are also private facilities, which makes for a much greater number of health providers. Some of these private facilities charge an additional fee, disclosed up front. Since many patients are willing to pay modestly extra, there are shorter wait times for those who are unable or unwilling to pay a supplementary fee
Nobody disputes that the intent of the Canadian Health Act in assuring that everybody gets equal medical care without a financial consideration is admirable.
However the following facts should be considered in assessing its existential effectiveness:
- By the standards of the advanced countries, Canada's health-care cost is the second-highest per capita, while its effectiveness rates 27th out of 30 countries.
- Private hospitals in the countries with more cost-effective health care systems force the public hospitals to be more efficient and competitive, while the private hospitals have to charge reasonable fees if they want to to attract patients.
- Not everybody in Canada receives equal medical service. Politicians, professional athletes and people that can afford to travel to other jurisdictions can and do receive more timely care and can receive some treatments that are rationed in Canada.
- it is a Canadian myth that we have a superior health-care system and that it is effective in treating everybody equally. Until Canadians wake up to these facts we will continue to pay more for inferior medical service compared to most other wealthy countries (with the exception of the United States).
Prof. Sara Allin responds:
Thank you for your comments about public-private health-care in Canada. Moving toward a two-tier system would require a far stronger regulatory framework than we currently have, along with substantial investment in policy capacity to protect equity and workforce standards. Without these measures, private options could pull doctors, nurses and other health professionals away from the public system, worsening wait times and staffing shortages. Wealthier patients would gain faster or better care, undermining the principle of equal access for all, while splitting services across public and private providers could complicate coordination and make it harder to maintain high standards.
Private care also tends to raise administrative costs and reduce efficiency, often leading to higher spending without better outcomes. As more people opt for private care, political pressure to adequately fund and improve the public system may diminish.
If Canada is committed to a single-payer system, the priority should be improving the quality and timeliness of care, along with supporting better working conditions for health-care professionals. Strengthening the public system ensures equity, efficiency and access for all Canadians – goals that a hybrid system would struggle to achieve.
The comment by Sara Allin doesn’t address the facts raised by Michael Cruikshank. The system and legislation need a complete overhaul. Parallel systems seem to work for the 27 countries whose medical care effectiveness is better than Canada’s. Just ask the thousands in waiting lines if they’d be prepared to pay for more timely treatment. Just like our military spending has fallen behind what’s needed, our single payer system underfunds medical care. Without adding to the tax burden in Canada, a hybrid system can raise our standards and attract more medical professionals into Canada.
I’m surprised that a two-tier system is still being proposed as a more efficient solution, given that every study I’ve seen shows the opposite—administration and the push for profits only add costs.
Profit models can create efficiencies when the market is open and consumers have choices, but true efficiency also depends on consumers making clear-headed decisions. In matters of health, that’s often not possible.
Someone dealing with an ailment can be vulnerable to suggestions that aren’t in their best interest, especially from a health-care provider. Just look south of the border, where unnecessary procedures and higher costs haven’t led to better life expectancy.
Ontario’s current experiment shows more tax dollars going to subsidize private clinics without reducing wait times, and Alberta seems poised to follow or go further. The reality is that only those who can afford the extra cost are jumping the queue, with no new health care workers or capacity being added.
A better approach would be to modernize the Canadian health-care system, identify bottlenecks, and take a holistic approach within a single system, which would likely be more efficient — and more Canadian.
Looking to the past won’t solve today’s challenges. The publicly funded health care model needs an update, both in how services are delivered and what’s covered. At the University of Toronto, many practical solutions could be developed. Too much non-medical time is wasted by providers; doctors, nurses and PSWs spend a large portion of their hours filling out forms. Multiple visits to doctors, especially family physicians, to get a diagnosis and the most effective treatment are just one example. AI could boost efficiency up to tenfold by taking notes, analyzing test results, and sharing successful treatments. This could effectively expand our current medical workforce and reduce costs within a publicly funded health care system -- something a private, for-profit model couldn’t match as privacy issue for one be a concern.