(Quebec) A patient care scenario studied by the Legault government arouses fear and concern.
Healthy Quebecers would thus lose their registration with a family doctor and 1.5 million appointment slots would be taken away from them and allocated to vulnerable patients.
This is one of the hypotheses submitted by the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS), in a study on the first line made public this week.
The Minister of Health and Social Services, Christian Dubé, assures that he is not ready to advance on one scenario or another, but the opposition parties demand clear answers on behalf of the millions of Quebecers who could lose their family doctor.
PHOTO EDOUARD PLANTE-FRÉCHETTE, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Quebec Minister of Health, Christian Dubé
“The Coalition Avenir Québec does not have the mandate to unsubscribe millions of Quebecers who already have a family doctor and who, today, find themselves with the prospect of losing this follow-up, losing this access and continuing to pay for a system that does not provide basic services to the population,” denounced PQ MP Joël Arseneau, in an interview with The Canadian Press on Friday morning.
“Christian Dubé must absolutely clarify his position,” urged Liberal MP André Fortin in a telephone interview.
“Is this a trial balloon or is this really the scenario he is considering today? He will have to make decisions. »
Like Mr. Arseneau, Mr. Fortin maintains that Minister Dubé never asked Quebecers for a mandate to take away their family doctor.
He recalled that the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) had instead committed to assigning a family doctor to every Quebecer who wishes one.
The Liberal MP recognizes that the 500,000 vulnerable Quebecers who do not have a family doctor must obtain one as a “priority” – he even stood up in the House to demand it on Thursday – but according to him, “there is a way to prioritize them without saying to everyone else: “you don’t need them”. »
In addition, this option also carries a risk for healthy populations, noted Mr. Arseneau.
“Those who are not vulnerable could become vulnerable if they do not have monitoring, testing or frontline access. Do we want a healthy society with periodic monitoring to avoid getting sick? »
For its part, the Confederation of National Unions (CSN) believes that this is giving a “gift to the private sector”, since patients who no longer have access to a family doctor will have to turn to private clinics.
“It is much too early to move forward on any scenario proposed by experts,” Minister Dubé responded via the X network.
“We are in a period of negotiation with the Federation of General Practitioners and we will not make any further comments,” he added.
Thursday, in the House, he mentioned the new INESSS “vulnerability criteria” for care that the doctors had asked to revise.
For 2022-2023, 4.9 million people considered healthy made 7.1 million visits, out of a total of 17.6 million consultations in clinics with doctors, specialized nurse practitioners (NPS) or emergency departments , we read in the INESSS study.
The study presents a scenario in which 1.5 million appointments allocated to people who have a family doctor (MDF) would be transferred instead to people who do not have a family doctor.
Currently, there are 2.1 million people who are not registered with an MDF, the study reads.
“People registered with an MDF consult on average between 2 and 6 times more clinics than non-registered people, depending on their health profile. Conversely, people without registration with a family doctor consult the emergency room more often, particularly for non-urgent problems,” we indicate.
Healthy people registered with a doctor would lose 640,000 appointments and those not registered would gain 780,000.
Second category, among people with minor chronic conditions, who account for 1.4 million visits: registered people would lose 170,000 appointments and non-registered people would gain 90,000.
Third category, people with moderate conditions, who account for 5.5 million visits. Those registered would lose 570,000 visits, those not registered would gain 340,000.
Finally, patients dealing with major illnesses: registered people would lose 140,000 appointments, while non-registered people would gain 330,000.
Thus, the redistribution of appointments from registered to non-registered would total 1.5 million.