Why I’m going to vote ‘yes’ to the PPSA

Recently, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) announced a Proposed Physicians Services Agreement (PPSA) with the Ontario Ministry of Health. The agreement is a year overdue, one of many delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic. It outlines a three-year framework (retroactive to April 1, 2021) for funding patient services that are provided by physicians. Like every single agreement between physicians and government in my almost 30 year career, it is basically something out of a Clint Eastwood movie. Read: Dr. Sohail Gandhi: Corporatization of medicine continues unabated The good: Increasing the number of family physicians who can be in a capitated model (salary + performance benefits). Increasing/improving the number of alternate funding plans for specialists. Increasing/improving the number of hospital on call coverage plans. Continue support for malpractice insurance. No hard cap. Improved parental benefits. A few others. The bad: Some “aspirational” targets that seek to control physicians’ offices (particularly family physicians). I have absolutely no doubt that these “aspirational” goals will be mandatory goals in the governments opening position for the next round of negotiations. Just look at the governments’ position for arbitration the last time around. The current aspirational goals will seem eerily familiar to those who have been following negotiations in detail. Additionally, there seem to be a whole lot of fairly ambitious goals laid out to try and develop new processes, and redistribute funds at very aggressive timelines. It’s debatable to my mind whether these timelines will be met. (To be clear it is always the ministry team that is unable to meet the timelines, the OMA staff gets things done in time.) The ugly: One per cent increase per year? In a time when inflation is 5.7%? I suggest physicians access the contract and reading materials the OMA staff has put together. The staff have done an excellent job explaining the agreement and putting together a list of FAQs for you to review. Additionally, if you are interested in more of a “big picture” approach about how to review the agreement as a complete package, my friend Paul Hacker has put together a truly excellent, easy to read, and for him quite short, document here. I’m not going to write about any of that stuff. Rather, I’m going to write about the process to reach the agreement, and why after considering that, I personally am going to vote in favour. However, I do reserve the right to pinch my nose while doing so. The negotiation process between physicians and government is laid out in the Binding Arbitration Framework (BAF). The short version is that it requires the government and OMA to start negotiating at least six months before a current agreement expires. It also sets guidelines for minimum time limits for how long negotiations can go on before moving to the next stage (e.g. mediation and arbitration). This time round of course, none of those timelines could be met because of the COVID pandemic. Everything got pushed back (by mutual consent of both parties). What is it about the process this time round that makes me want to support the PPSA? Let’s face it, nobody out there, myself included, is calling this a great agreement. So why support it? Firstly, the government once again opened negotiations with a pretty lowball offer. Not sure how much I can say about the confidential negotiations process, but given the OMA negotiations team has already indicated there was a wide gap to start, and given we didn’t reach an agreement until invoking mediation, well, let’s just say there was a pretty big difference between the two sides to start. Second, the mediator (Mr. William Kaplan) is also the arbitrator if we turn down the agreement, and head to arbitration. I know, I know, the BAF states that there has to be an arbitration “panel.” But the reality is the panel has a government appointee (Kevin Smith) and an OMA appointee (Ron Pink) and lastly Kaplan himself. I think it’s obvious who would make the final decision in such a circumstance. In the 2018 negotiations, the government and OMA were unable to agree to an acceptable deal even through mediation. So we had no choice but to go for arbitration. On this occasion, while many will argue that the OMA should have held out for more, the reality is that the OMA’s team also spent a lot of time with Kaplan. Got a sense of what he’s thinking, and what he’s looking at. There’s no guarantee of what he would do in arbitration of course. I’ve met Kaplan. I think I’d have more luck interpreting the emotions of a stone wall than him. He’s a tough guy to read. That’s probably an important skill to have when you are a mediator/arbitrator. But the OMA's negotiations team is really good at “reading the room” based on decisions Kaplan has made (e.g. extending the timelines and so on) during this process. The choice then, to my mind, is pretty simple. We can vote for this agreement, as unpalatable as it may seem to many, and get on with implementing some of the benefits. Live to fight another day. Or we can reject the PPSA. Which means we go to arbitration. At which point both sides will likely revert to their opening positions in negotiations. Thing is, we already, by virtue of the having a mediated PPSA, have some insight into what the arbitrator is thinking. To my mind, rejecting this agreement will simply kick things down the road six months (or more) at which point we will not get anything better. My personal feeling is it’s time to move on. I’m going to vote in favour. I encourage all of you to read the briefs from the staff, and make your own decision. Dr. Sohail Gandhi is a former president of the OMA and opinions are his and not necessarily the opinions of the OMA Board. This article is a reprint from his blog site: justanoldcountrydoctor.com.

Why I’m going to vote ‘yes’ to the PPSA

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics