Victims of the Canadian Healthcare system

PLJ

Blue:

You seem to be questioning people's experiences, based on your own, and it has almost seemed at times that you think those who have negative things to say must be telling untruths as you are 'skeptical' of what is posted. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but the fact is, not everyone has had your 'easy' experience within the system. I am very happy for you, that you have had proper access and are apparently very satisfied, as some others are who have responded. But not everyone has had your experience, so why do you feel the need to insist that your experience is the status quo?

Not trying to start a war here but just because you are overjoyed with your experience doesn't make my, or anyone else's negative experience any less real.

FYI, my 'fibroadenoma' ended up being cancer. The ultrasound tech who screened me for liver lesions says this type of misdiagnosis 'happens all this time. We're just learning what early breast cancer looks like.' That is not an acceptable standard of care, in my opinion.

Cheers,

PLJ

bluedahlia

PLJ,

Are you saying that I shouldn't share my good experiences because they conflict with the bad ones?  That's not gonna happen.  Shit happens everywhere, not only with our healthcare system and I think on a whole, we have it good.

Booboo2

I don't understand why the new guidelines are discouraging breast exams and self-exams.  Many breast cancers are found that way. Mine was not found that way but I know that a lot are, so why shouldn't women of all ages be encouraged to know their own breasts?  It doesn't make sense to me.

bluedahlia

Me either!  What I do in the privacy of my own home, is my business though.    hahahahahahha!

PLJ

Blue,

I think it is important to acknowledge the good, the bad and the ugly of our system. Not once did I come close to suggesting you shouldn't share your good experiences. They are *your* experiences and I respect that. Although I will quote your response to a post I made 10 hours ago: "So please don't badmouth our health system here." Seems that was you suggestion to me, in spite of the title of this particular thread.

In any case, yes, bad things can happen regardless of the system. BUT if we fail to recognize (or acknowledge) the shortcomings by stifling those who have suffered as a result, we are not only living in a fantasy world of ignorance, but we are failing to progress. It is through somewhat painful critique and evaluation that new discoveries are made, improvements are put in place and advancements are installed for the betterment of the general population.

Enjoy your evening,

PLJ

ricia

bluedahlia:

thanks for sharing your story. it is actually good to hear it. i suspect that we are all relating our own stories with the bigger the picture in mind (ie: with the sense that the issues are bigger than ourselves and may relate to other women, our daughters and sons, their children etc) - so for me there is some relief to know not everyone meets with the dire consequences associated to an over-burdened healthcare system.

 i also suspect that we all count our blessings from whence ever they come (ie: are aware of whether we personally would survive in a private healthcare system or not) - so i dont think its fair when i hear or read of folks infering that criticism represents an un-gratefulness (for the existence of a public system, for eg). i dont direct that at you, singularily, but am recalling the oh-so many times it is suggested in public discourse, generally.

if we dont speak up, and somewhat persistently, the issues many of us face through personal experience wont otherwise be heard or discussed, and certainly wont be addressed in the broader pubic sphere. i view this matter as a citizenry obligation myself, to participate in cultivating those discussions, its a means of contributing and identifying what the problems are, and to compel a search for solutions.

the big deal too is that, at present, our public systems are in fact on a trajectory toward more cuts and restrictions and has been in the process of privatization for many years now. it is not a popular political priority in Canada, thus is not presented such light by our politicians. the emphasis for me is not upon whether or not we have a choice between public versus private, i view this as a discussion that too often serves to water-down the more pertinent topics. the more for-profit incentive shapes our policies, the more our public services are squeezed, the less accessible those services are (this applies to all evidence of privatization in other industry spheres). ironically, however, the poorer our experience with the public services, the more favourable private services appear to us all; the less emphasis and political support there is for reform, the less pressure to allocate fiscal resources (tax dollars).

which may well be why those of us whom would indeed suffer greatly from a swing in political support (for the currently evolving two-tiered system) get pretty passionate in continually insistance the public system is reformed and improved - as opposed to resting on the laurels of gratefulness that it exists at all (whatever the conditions and consequences of it).

  in the midst of many posters expressing this passion, i offer my view here to help diffuse any tensions; im not crticizing your opinion or the value of you offering it. it can be too easy (for us all) to read personal offense into written text (when we cant hear each others tone and see facial expressions, for eg).

  PS: sorry for the bad typing, my keyboard is acting up and liimits what i can type)

bluedahlia

Well I guess I love living in a "fantasy world of ignorance".  I bet I've had more dealings with the medical profession than all of you put together.   So has my 84 year old mother,my 80 year old father, my dd who has a fibroademona and had a c section and early labour, my other dd who has had problems wth endometriosis, my son with a swollen spleen who has seem a multitude of doctors and specalists (which has now resolved), and I can go on and on.  No problems with testing and tests and they are in their 20's and 30's.  I like the world I live in.  I have no agenda and I hope others don't either.

BTW, my parents remember what it was like before Universal Health Care came into effect.  It wasn't a pretty picture.

ricia

as i said, i am glad to hear it; thats encouraging for sure.

i myself am also a veteran with the healthcare system, have experienced several extended phases as a full-time patient in my wee lifetime. i view it as a noble profession - i definitely wouldnt have lived through childhood it wasnt for doctors and a public system taboot. but i have also suffered some very serious consequences, due to protocols premised upon budgetary priorities and the over-taxation-under-resourced state of our healthcare system.  i just cant see why anyone disparage me or others for sharing those experiences and hoping for (if not also expecting) better. 

bluedahlia

I'm not disparaging anyone.

In the last analysis, we see only what we are ready to see, what we have been taught to see. We eliminate and ignore everything that is not a part of our prejudices.

~ Jean-Martin Charcot

pickle

I think we can all agree that the system isn't perfect but overall "I" think it's very good. JMHO. I don't think anyone is dismissing another person's experience and we can all learn from the positive and negative comments about the system. I have been an advocate for both of my parents and myself and I recognize that a person can fall through the cracks, so following up on everything has certainly paid off. As a side note, I saw my GP yesterday and due to ongoing hip and back pain, he gave me the requisition for a bone scan to be on the safe side. I called yesterday the booking dept and they can get me in next Thursday but I can't do it that day so they booked me for Dec 5. I told them I am a breast cancer patient which helped get things booked quickly. I personally have never felt that it all comes down to $$$. I am glad that we don't get scanned incessantly and to be honest I don't know why my onc would need to see a stage 2 like myself every 3 or 6 months. I see my GP every six months unless something comes up. Bloodwork every 6 months including cholostrol and a general exam such as feeling my stomach, breast exam, checking my scarline. I don't feel I need anything more although I was very scared when I was first discharged from the cancer center.



The system does need to be more streamlined and efficient and emergency departments need to be used for emergencies not for runny noses but I think you will find these issues in all systems. That's not to say that it doesn't need fixing but it's a common problem everywhere.



I am thankful that I have never been declined a test or anything that my doctor ordered. I am also

thankful that I don't have co-pays, i don't have to worry about being able to afford insurance and I'mgrateful that I've never been billed for bandages, drains, etc. Not even a Kleenx...lol

painterly

No, the Canadian healthcare system is not perfect and if you have an urgent life-threatening problem you jump the queue otherwise there are long waits. We don't go broke if something major comes along and everyone is entitled to the same treatment. I am very grateful for our system.

Here's the downside:

I played golf a few days ago here in Florida and I must have pulled something because I felt my knee collapse.

I phoned the office of my orthopedic guy in Montreal who did an arthroscopy surgery on my other knee about ten years ago and found that I have to wait until May to see him.

I can't walk now as it is getting worse. I have the permission from my ins. co. to see a doc here in Florida . Everything is closed because of Thanksgiving weekend, so on Monday I will hobble into an orthopedic walk-in clinic and see a doc. I have been to that clinic before about 4 years ago when I broke a bone in my foot. (No I am not accident prone, this was the first break in my life and I was 63 at the time).

I was very impressed with the clinic. Within a short period of time (under an hour, I would say). I had seen the doctor, had xrays and been given the treatment plan. I was amazed to see that there was only one other patient in the room. The first thing out of my mouth was "where is everyone." In Montreal where I live, our walk-in clinics are crowded and often there is a 3 hour wait, otherwise you go to the emergency at the hospital, but the wait is longer unless it is urgent, as mentioned above.

In the meantime, I have my knee strapped up and I am icing every few hours to keep the swelling down. I was hoping that I could get the xrays and fly up to my ortho doc in Montreal to see him, and was disappointed that this won't happen now. The xray may not show any tears and so perhaps only rest will take care of it. But if I need an op to repair a tear, I don't look forward to a 6 month wait.

Booboo2

You shouldn't be subjected to a long wait with an urgent life-threatening problem. I suppose it depends on how you define an urgent problem and how you define a long wait.  You can usually get in right away if you have a true emergency.  My case was classified as "urgent" which is a lower priority than "emergency", I think, and I was in surgery about 4 weeks after my diagnosis. Not everyone in my family has been so fortunate, though.  Two elderly family members, who have both passed on now, waited longer than they should have for medical treatment.  Do you think our health care system is discriminating against elderly people?  I mean people over 80.

My father had an awful time.  He had a lump in his leg, and about one year later he was given a biopsy.  One YEAR, just to get a biopsy?  I couldn't believe it, but apparently his primary care doctor thought he had a vascular problem. Eventually he did get a biopsy and it turned out to be cancer.  Even then he had to go to emergency several times trying to get help, and eventually he did have surgery.  His first surgery was unsuccessful, and a few months later his leg had to be amputated.  He passed away from complications of that surgery.

I don't know how this shabby treatment can be explained, when I was treated so well.  Could it be the fact that I am in my 60s and my father was in his 80s?

NannaBaby

Hey BARBE - check in whenever you want I enjoy your ferosity!  I thought $$$ cuz the health care system will save lots of money by cutting down screening mammos. Please tell me you agree with that! LOL Plus drug companies will make more money cuz breast cancers may be diagnosed at later stages, thus requiring chemo instead of just surgery.

ONTARIANS you might be interested in completing the following study questionnaire...

https://ontariohealthstudy.ca/

Beesie

So the new screening guidelines are being recommended because:

1) The healthcare system saves money because women get fewer mammos.

and 

2) The drug companies make more money because women are diagnosed later and are more likely to need treatments like chemo and Herceptin.

But in Canada - and in most countries except the U.S. - it's the healthcare system that pays for chemo and treatments like Herceptin.  So doesn't this mean that screening women later and having to provide more extensive treatments might end up costing the healthcare system more money?  You can do a whole lot of mammos and ultrasounds for what it costs to give one person chemo.  And Herceptin is hugely expensive.

The simple fact is that these new guidelines are consistent with what's been proposed in the U.S, what's already implemented in the UK (if I'm correct), etc..  It happens to be the exact example that I referenced in one of my earlier posts in this thread - and my post was written a few days before the new guidelines came out.  What I said was:

"The current debate, all around the world, is the age at which women should start getting mammos. 40? 50? Should they be annual or every two years? Setting guidelines is a good idea - and the Canadian healthcare system does set guidelines (as does the insurance industry in the U.S.). But what's critical is that individual doctors be allowed to deviate from those guidelines based on the needs of their patient and based on their best judgement."

I'm not psychic and I didn't know that the announcement about the guidelines would be coming out.  It's just that while this is new news in Canada, it's actually old news.  Canada is late to the party.  I don't agree with the guidelines - for reasons that I've explained in my posts in the thread about the guidelines - but let's be clear that this is not about the Canadian Healthcare system. The new breast cancer screening guidelines are representative of the way that the medical community, at least in many Western nations, is trying addressing the increase in early stage diagnoses.  With better and more precise screening, many more cases of early stage disease are being diagnosed.  This isn't happening just with breast cancer but with prostate cancer and other cancers. The question as to whether all these very early stage diagnoses are serious and whether they all need to be treated is a valid question, especially if you consider that today many patients may being overtreated for conditions that present little risk. Unfortunately the answer that the medical community seems to have come up with - both for breast cancer and for prostate cancer - is to limit screening so that fewer earlier stage cancers are diagnosed.  I think that's a foolhardy solution, since it doesn't separate out those who have an early stage cancer that is high risk vs. those who have an early stage cancer that is low risk. 

Yet another extremely complex issue.  

crazy4carrots

The question as to whether all these very early stage diagnoses are serious and whether they all need to be treated is a valid question, especially if you consider that today many patients may being overtreated for conditions that present little risk.

Indeed -- that's the conundrum.  And since we've been told for years that "early detection is the key", these guidelines seem to throw that meme out the window.

I'm going to suggest that every woman (and man, too) would be smart to check for breast lumps and bumps, and have them checked out -- just as one would for lumps and bumps anywhere else on one's body.  And for women who require testing to ease their minds about possible non-palpable bc, then a frank discussion with their doc would be in order.  Of course there is a small percentage of hypochondriacs who will insist on a mammo (or any other kind of test!) but docs can spot them fairly easily.  I really truly doubt that mammos will be restricted to those 50 and over.  These are only guidelines, not rules.

And Beesie is absolutely right -- limiting these tests has nothing whatsoever to do with saving money; it has only to do with statistical analyses.  Otherwise, the totally cost-free BSE wouldn't be included! 

Sugar77

I can't speak to the science and testing behind the task force's recommendations. However, I know I wouldn't have pushed for a mammogram on my own.  Fortunately my GP likes a baseline for her patients in their mid-forties.  Mine was DCIS with a triple negative invasive tumour.  That 'very routine' mammogram caught it early for me.

crazy4carrots

Sugar, I congratulate your doctor and I'm hoping there are many more like her!  You will no doubt have an interesting discussion about these guidelines with her at your next appt!

barbe1958

I've been having mammos for over 30 years with many doctors agreeing with the test, not just one, as I've moved around over the years. I still believe that we have to be our own advocates. I could never just sit back and wait for someone to save me!

LittleMelons

I think these screening guidelines are about money, i.e. the use of health care resources.  And it is appropriate to evaluate the use of limited resources as long as it not just about the money.  The BSE tests are free, but the fall-out from them is expensive as many women find lumps, often benign.  I was one of those people who cost the system quite a bit of money as I discovered cysts a number of times.  The "lumps" were always taken seriously by my doctor and the cysts were aspirated and in one case surgically removed - until I was finally diagnosed with bc last year, detected on a mammogram.

I think many, but not all, women are capable of advocating for themselves.  I have a friend who is schizophrenic and she would need someone to tell her what to do.

You might find this letter to the editor in today's Star interesting.   http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1092933--confusing-message-on-breast-screening

barbe1958

I agree Melons, but the problem is that no one knows which lumps are benign!! The quideline is basically saying "let's ignore as many lumps as we can until the woman breaks down and demands attention". We know that 80% of lumps are benign, but we don't know WHICH ones.

crazy4carrots

Melons -- I read the letter by Dr. Robin Alter and totally agree with her.

However, I still don't agree with you that the guidelines results are about money and using scarce healthcare resources.  As I understand it, the panelists were asked only to look at data (statistics) over a period of years, and those data were the ONLY criteria to be used.  That's the primary reason no oncologists or radiologists were on the panel, who would no doubt have wanted to bring their own biases and anecdotes into the discussion.

jojoxoxo

Nanababy, thanks for posting this and you have my full sympathy and indignation for the way the medical system has treated you.  I think you should sue.  

I've just arrived back in Ontario after living in the U.S. for over 20 years and at least initially I have found the Canadian healthcare system abyssmal.  I can't even get a referral for my 6 month breast cancer follow-up because I can't find a competent primary care physician.  The first primary care physician I encountered here wouldn't even give me a referral for a colonoscopy even though I am supposed to have a baseline colonoscopy at age 50, according to my U.S. oncologist.  She also complained to me about all the referrals I was needing---well sorry, but that's her job.  So I am choosing not to see her anymore and am now on a long waiting list to see a new one.   I also have problems with depression and was given a referral for an appointment that I might get as soon as June of 2012!  That is a totally unacceptable wait time.  Even being unemployed and poor, I would gladly pay $100 to actually be able get mental health services instead of waiting more than half a year.  

Everything has to be funnelled through a primary care doctor who seems to serve as a kind of gate-keeper to deny you care.  If I've already been diagnosed with breast cancer, or depression, why should I have to see a primary care physician for a referral?  Why can't I self-refer to the necessary specialist?  All I can see here in Canada is that people have to go to see their primary care physician all the time to get referrals, which is just needless doctors visits and expense for the "universal" healthcare system.

I never had health insurance in the U.S. and I was never denied care.  It is illegal for them to deny you care.  Plus I was able to get much needed prescriptions through patient assistance programs that the pharmaceutical companies have in the U.S.  Here I am paying hundreds out each month-- everything out of pocket. (I am applying for the Trillium assistance program.) Prescriptions that cost me $7.99 in the U.S. are $38 here in Canada.  Why is that?---when all I've ever heard is that Canada keeps the price of it's medications down relative to the U.S.   

Anyway I'm sorry if you don't like my criticism of the much praised Canadian healthcare system ---but my own experience in even accessing care has been absolutely terrible. I am scared that I will not be able to get the medical care, both physical and mental, that I need here in Ontario.

crazy4carrots

ellemint -- I'm curious,  You stated that you never carried health insurance in the U.S. and were never denied care.  I understand that hospitals cannot turn you away.  Is this where you received care -- through the emergency department?  What about follow-up care?  And did you receive your drugs through a special government programme?

I am sorry that you haven't found a PCP to your liking.  I hope you'll be able to follow up with the links Beesie gave you.  Another of our posters here (who I've met in person) moved to Burlington from the U.S. a few years ago.  She was able to access both a PCP and an oncologist quite easily and likes them both.  Wishing the same for you. 

cp418

When this recent news came out I remembered not too long ago the terrible outcome of Canadian Breast Cancer patients who were misdiagnosed.  This inquiry was all over the news for quite some time.  I find it quite upsetting and am surprised they pursued these new guidelines after this medical scandal in their health care system.

 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/528496

Breast cancer inquiry ends on alarming testimony

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/03/cameron-report.html

barbe1958

ellemint, referrals are necessary to keep hypochondriacs from bunging up the system!! I'd rather wait for quality care than get a dingbat appointment quickly!! Mental health issues can be dealt with directly in an ER. Drugs could be used until you get your appointment.

As for Canadian drugs being more money, the $7.99 you paid in the USA was probably supllemented by another $50 to the company providing the drugs!! My sister was a nurse in the US and I heard of people begging to not have their wound dressings changed as it cost them too much!! How sick is that? Of course, if you go through the US system as a pauper, you'd never know what the real costs are.

jojoxoxo

Lindasa,

I went to a university medical center in the U.S. -- they charged me only what they would be billing Medicare which is a fraction of their usual charges. I was working, contract research & writing, so no health insurance, so usually I had enough to pay most of the charges. If I couldn't pay they just wrote it off.

Drugs were not through government programs, but through the big pharmaceutical companies. If you cannot pay, 90% of drugs are available free from them if you can prove low income. The big pharmas can afford to do this more than any government can. My 5 years on tamoxifen, 5 years on Aromasin, Actonel for bone loss, Wellbutrin for depression, migraine medication, all paid for my the big pharmas. (so even though most people think the big pharmaceutical companies are evil I love them) Now in Canada my monthly prescription costs are several hundred a month.

Also I could afford to pay some medical because food, gas, mortgages, everything else in the U.S. is so much less than in Canada. I have been in sticker shock ever since I returned. I sold my condo in Kentucky for $69,000 (at a loss, I paid $76K in 2002), and it was a beautiful 1000 sq foot condo by a nature reserve where I could watch deer. A place like that in Burlington or Toronto would cost $450,000 or more. [And it took me 2 years to sell it, house prices are rock bottom in much of the USA ---soooo different from the Canadian housing situation.]

I would be SO GRATEFUL if you would be willing to contact the person in Burlington, and ask if she would be willing to PM me or even respond on this message board---I would like to know where and how she got in---so far I have been turned away from the Princess Margaret in Toronto and the Juravinksi Institute in Hamilton. They are not accepting patients for follow-up care. I'm freaking out. I'm just that kind of person. I'm like --- what if I am never able to get cancer care in Ontario?

Now, I can still drive or fly to the U.S. for follow-up although at great inconvenience, but there have to be people moving to canada from australia, england, India---they can't just hop back there for their cancer follow-up appointments! Surely i am not the only person who has ever moved to Ontario from elsewhere - (even though I spent the first 30 years of my life here.) And if I go to the U.S. and they find something, how would I get treatment in Canada?

And these follow-up appointments are not just fluff -- a family doctor does not have the specialized training to know what to look for during a follow-up visit. Not just for signs of recurrance but because as we all know, as breast cancer survivors we are at higher risk for other cancers and I have chronic permanent side effects like lymphedema and osteopenia and chondritis in my chest from radiation. My current family practioner, the one I have effectively dropped, her refusing to schedule a colonoscopy for me is just a sign of the ignorance she has of the fact that that test is recommended at age 50 for breast cancer survivors.

rachel5738

As a person who went through two cancer diagnosis last year, I have definitely used my fair share of the health care system. I had good family doc who pushed extra tests when I came to her with lower back pain....cervical cancer 1b which was hiding too far up in cervix for reg checks but had to use some contacts to get my MRI sooner than later. I definitely learned to push for what you need and be your own advocate. Being diagnosed with breast cancer shortly thereafter, I think I then jumped the queue in most tests because of the two close diagnosis months apart. Through all of this, I can see how people can get "forgotten" in the midst of it all. I have had a pretty good experience with our health care system. Is there room for improvement? For sure.

NannaBaby

I got a copy of my medical visits and tests from the Ministry of Health and Long Term care/  And it lists ALL the tests and visits I have "used" over the last 5 years.  And it lists the costs that were charged.  It's really not that much.  My mastectomy was only a couple grand. and MRI is under a grand.  Some doctors make you feel like people are wasting thousands for unnecessary" tests.  Do they purposely try and make you feel guilty?!?!

jojoxoxo

Booboo,

I think there is actually a policy in Ontario whereby they will not pay for certain procedures for people in their 80's.  I don't know what the exact cutoffs are.  But my mother was refused a carotid endarterectomy surgery to clear plaque from her carotid artery because she was told they won't do that surgery in folks over 80.   She died of a stroke.   The "death panels" American's fear so much actually already exist in Canada.

barbe1958

elle, that is sad, but she probably would have died on the table, too! They have to consider the risk factor for failure. For example, I've had TWO orthopaedic surgeons refuse to operate on my spine as they cannot guarantee that I'll be pain free! So instead I live on narcotics, but I can walk. I may have had the surgery and become paralyzed or kept the same (or worse!) level of pain. I was 45 and 51 when I was told the big NO, so I don't think age factors in this one. They didn't want to use up the surgery time and doctors to do something that may not work. I can handle that. I know it's not life and death, but I hope you get the idea that your Mom was not alone....

Fast MRIs?? I got one in 20 minutes. As fast as it took me to walk from the surgeons office to the Imaging department! It wasn't an emergency, either. It was a kidney stone and he wanted a more recent pic before surgery. I said I didn't want to wait 3 months. He laughed and said, how fast can you get to Imaging?

If the medical tests are so cheap, you can see that the Canadian system doesn't run on $$$ but on necessity. WHO needs what test? WHO should be seen first?