Doctors opposed to new Ontario fees delay vote on four-year deal

The tentative agreement would increase Ontario’s $11.5-billion physician services budget by 2.5 per cent a year, to $12.9 billion by 2020.

TheStar.com
July 25, 2016
By Rob Ferguson

Doctors unhappy with the terms of a tentative contract reached with the province earlier this month have strong-armed the Ontario Medical Association into giving them a direct vote on it.

Faced with a petition from more than five per cent of its members, the OMA was forced to agree to hold general membership meeting, the first such gathering since one at Maple Leaf Gardens in the 1980s.

The dramatic move scraps OMA plans for a non-binding referendum vote of doctors before an Aug. 6 meeting of the association’s general council, which was to make a final decision on the deal.

“In simple terms, this means that the vote that will occur as part of the general meeting will provide a binding decision by OMA members,” association president Dr. Virginia Walley said in a statement Monday.

In a separate letter to doctors obtained by the Star, Walley acknowledged the deal, which some doctors warn will lead to longer wait lists, “has prompted energetic and thoughtful conversation among members.”

Dissidents in the Coalition of Ontario Doctors were worried the general council might ignore a majority “no” vote from doctors and ratify the deal regardless, given that the OMA hierarchy is recommending acceptance.

A date and location for the general meeting have not been set, but Walley noted it will give “all members an important opportunity to have their voice heard.”

The coalition held a news conference at Queen’s Park last week urging doctors to vote against the deal, which Dr. David Jacobs, a Toronto radiologist, called a “complete surrender” to the government that will leave patients waiting longer for services such as MRIs, CT scans and surgeries.

While the contract includes a small increase to the physician services budget to account for population growth and an aging society, it isn’t enough to keep pace with rising demands from baby-boomers in their retirement years, the coalition warned.

It accused the OMA of “secretly” negotiating the four-year deal to avoid the government imposing another round of unilateral cuts on doctors, ignoring a directive from doctors to seek binding arbitration, instead.

Walley has called that view “misleading” and said the agreement is the best way for doctors to achieve “stability and predictability,” while the OMA goes through the courts to seek binding arbitration - something to which Health Minister Eric Hoskins would not agree.

“This is a big decision and certainly isn’t an easy one,” Walley said Monday in her note to members, as she encouraged doctors to “listen to the facts” about the deal. She asked them for an “openness to engaging in a serious discussion about the future of our profession.”

The ministry had no comment Monday, but has said it hopes doctors ratify the deal, which will increase the $11.6 billion a year now earmarked for payments to doctors by 2.5 per cent annually until 2020.

It took months of protests and recriminations between the OMA and the Liberal government to reach the deal, which does not undo last year’s move by the province to cut unilaterally fees paid to doctors by 6.9 per cent as it struggles to balance the budget by 2018.

In a push to get doctors to sign a petition forcing a general membership meeting, a web site called the deal “one of the most contentious in recent history” and said the ratification process was being rushed during the summer months when many physicians are away or busy.

Under the OMA’s constitution, doctors can force a general membership meeting if five per cent of members sign a petition requesting one.