rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Austerity comes to B.C.'s health care system

Image: Flickr/bcgovphotos

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

For many years, B.C.'s health care system escaped the austerity imposed on other parts of the public sector. No longer. While total dollars allocated to health care are still increasing somewhat, those increases are not sufficient to keep up with cost drivers in the system, leading to a real reduction in health care services. This needs to be rectified in February's budget.

Let's unpack that a bit. There are three main cost drivers in the public health care system, which together mean that total funding needs to grow by a certain amount each year for the system to provide the same level of services per British Columbian.

The first is inflation. Just as people need wage increases to keep up with a cost of living that goes up over time, the same is true of health care. Public funds allocated to health care need to accommodate rising costs, mostly the wages and salaries paid to health care professionals, but also the operating costs of hospitals and offices, equipment and so forth.

The second cost driver is population growth. If B.C.'s population doubles, we should expect health care costs to roughly double. For economists, adjustments for inflation and population growth are standard practice to ensure we are comparing apples to apples from one year to the next. Population growth and inflation are typically accompanied by proportionate growth in the economy so there is only reason to be concerned if they are accompanied by a massive increase in unemployment.

The third cost driver is demographic: the aging of the population. Average health care costs per person rise with age, from a low of about $1,500 per person per year for children age 1 to 14, to a high of more than $21,000 per person per year for those age 90 and over (in 2012). Senior British Columbians (over age 65) amounted to 16 per cent of the population in 2012, but used 41 per cent of public health care dollars.

As B.C.'s population gets greyer, this has led to some concern about the sustainability of public health care. This is generally misplaced: population aging is a cost driver but a relatively small one, with increases of less than 1 per cent per year needed to accommodate the shift. Far from a silver tsunami, population aging is a slow, rising tide that can be managed in the context of a growing economy. The share of seniors in the population is anticipated to stabilize at just under 25 per cent in the 2030s.

Altogether, over the next decade health care expenditures must increase by 4.2 per cent each year in order to compensate for estimated population growth and aging, and inflation. Historically, B.C.'s economy (nominal GDP) has grown by much more. Even over the past decade, which includes the Great Recession, economic growth averaged 4.5 per cent per year. If this rate of economic growth was to continue, B.C. has the capacity to cover those annual cost drivers, and thus continue to afford the health care system we have.

Here is the problem: due to government austerity policies, funding increases are no longer keeping up with cost drivers, so real health care services are eroding. The figure below shows this in broad historical context by stripping away the impact of population growth, aging, and inflation. What's left is "enrichment," the total amount of health care services per British Columbian going back to 1975 (calculated from data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information), and expressed as an index with 1975=100: 

 

 

The good news is that the typical British Columbian gets way more health care services -- about 60 per cent more -- than four decades years ago. Over time, B.C. has been providing more health care services per person, representing improvements and advances in surgical procedures, prescription drugs, long-term care, home care and so forth. The dip in the mid-1990s is related to a previous era of austerity, but by the late 1990s (thanks to a new federal-provincial health accord) that was corrected and then some.

The current challenge can be seen in the last two years, 2013 and 2014, with a real drop in health care services per British Columbian. That may seem minor in the context of the whole 40 year period, but the downwards pattern is set to continue. B.C. Budget 2015 increased health care spending by 2.8 per cent, less than needed to cover cost drivers, and the baseline increase for the following two years is similar.

B.C. Budget 2016 needs to fix this problem, and ensure that at a minimum we are keeping up with those cost drivers. The new government in Ottawa has promised a renewed health care accord, and that should ease some of the pressure on the provincial government. But it is the B.C. government that must break with its austerity policies, or we will see more erosion of public health care services.

[Note: This post updates data and analysis from a 2006 CCPA publication, Is B.C.'s health care system sustainable?. More details on methodology can be found there. Updated data from CIHI are available here.]

 

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.