Health Law Blog

Cutting funding for virtual care – The wrong move

March 28, 2023

As reported in the Toronto Star, provincial funding for virtual care provided by emergency room physicians will stop at the end of March. This move, combined with reducing OHIP fees for family doctors to provide virtual care, is the wrong one. Eliminating innovative pathways to provide care to the public is not the way to crack the case of our desperate healthcare system.

The provision of our publicly funded healthcare system is governed by both provincial and federal legislation. The purpose of which is to ensure that the government provides timely, accessible and effective medically necessary care to the public.

On a provincial level, the purpose of the Health Protection and Promotion Act is to “provide for the organization and delivery of public health programs and services, the prevention of the spread of disease and the promotion and protection of the health of the people of Ontario.”

The preamble of the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, another piece of provincial legislation, states that the “people of Ontario and their Government…[r]ecognize that access to community based health care, including primary health care…are cornerstones of an effective health care system”. [emphasis added].

The preamble also states that the “people of Ontario and their Government…[b]elieve in public accountability to demonstrate that the health system is governed and managed in a way that reflects the public interest and that promotes efficient delivery of high quality health services to all Ontarians.” [emphasis added].

Making it financially impossible for physicians to provide virtual care to reduce wait times in our severely strained ERs is, arguably, not promoting an effective health care system.

In addition to being bound by the provincial legislation, our provincial government must also comply with the provisions of the federal Canada Health Act, in connection with the governance of our public healthcare system.

Under section 5 of the Canada Health Act, each province is eligible to receive a full cash contribution payable by the federal government, to the province, for each fiscal year. However, as outlined under section 7, in order for the province to qualify for such a contribution, the province is legally required to provide “reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners”

The decision from the province to pay physicians, under OHIP, an insulting $15 for a phone consultation (or a whopping $20 for a virtual visit), or to cut fees for virtual ER care altogether, is arguably contrary not only to the provincial legislation but also to the provisions of the Canada  Health Act, which requires the province to provide “reasonable compensation” to physicians.

Cutting OHIP fees for physicians to provide virtual care does not make a lot of sense for our public system. But the juxtaposition is undeniable when compared to the apparent support from the Ministry of Health for private arrangements between corporations and public hospitals to utilize operating rooms on weekends, in the name of reducing wait times (as reported by the Star). The apparent contradiction in support for our physicians starts to send the message that our provincial government will only value our physicians if they are able to buy into the system. This would be contrary to the explicit legislative directive to the provincial government to promote “efficient delivery of high quality health services to all Ontarians” and that access is a cornerstone of our publicly funded system. 


Several years ago I was fortunate enough to have been selected as a Tremayne-Lloyd Fellow here at Western Law. I used the funds to finish a book and to begin work on a new one. It dawned on me far too late that I had never thanked you for that splendid gift. The new book is to be published by Harvard Press in 2010. The TTL Fellowships provided ritual seed capital for this project, which required me to spend a good deal of time and money at The National Archive in Washington. Again, with many thanks.

R. W. Kostal Professor of Law and History

Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd Health Law