Three significant things about doctors …

THE SPECTATOR’S VIEW

Today, let’s talk about doctors. Specifically, Ontario doctors have voted in favour of a new deal. And the provincial privacy commissioner recently granted a request by the Toronto Star that sought the disclosure of OHIP billings. There’s more: A new national campaign wants to shine a light on the ties between doctors and pharmaceutical companies. All these are very good things indeed. First, the deal. After going three years without a physician services agreement with the province, the Ontario Medical Association voted 65 per cent in favour of a tentative agreement that features a new dispute resolution blueprint. First there will be negotiations. If a deal isn’t reached, the parties will go to mediation. And if that fails, the matter will be assigned to binding arbitration.

The OMA doesn’t like to think if itself as a union, but that certainly sounds like the traditional dispute resolution method employers and unions have been using for years. But this is progress that should bring needed stability and less rancour to doctor-government relations. Patients, and no doubt doctors, too, can use that.

Second: For two years, the Star has battled to get the names of the top 100 OHIP billers, along with the amounts they received. The effort has been fought at every turn by the Ontario Medical Association, and by the provincial health ministry, arguing publicizing the information is an invasion of privacy. That has always been a weak argument. OHIP billings are tax dollars. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is spent. And billings don’t equate to physician salaries. Rather, they are gross amounts from which doctors must deduct office expenses, staff and other costs.

Now the privacy commission has done the right thing and overruled the health ministry. The Ontario Medical Association will no doubt appeal. If it does, it risks furthering the perception of the organization and doctors being secretive and elitist. Better to work with this order and ensure the public really understands what it is seeing when the information comes out.

Finally: The Open Pharma campaign. Spearheaded by Toronto doctor Andrew Boozary, it wants the federal government to embrace regulations that would require pharmaceutical companies to report any money or gifts they give to doctors, medical clinics and organizations like hospitals and universities. These dealings are no secret, but it’s shocking to think that there is no transparency around them.

People have a right to know what drug companies are doing to try to influence medical decision-making. That doesn’t mean the activities are bad, merely that they shouldn’t be shrouded in secrecy.

Why would anyone object to that?

Howard Elliott