Initial responses and comments from survey on new agreement

Public

Here are the initial responses and comments received from the survey on the new BC health care agreement with doctors.

The survey is now closed.

Here are the results and comments:

Click on image to view enlarged.

Responses to, Do you have more to say?

--- What do you do when you are in doubt, and no further explanation will be available and there is no benchmark as to what a good agreement is, vote yes or vote no, or abstain ...

--- While GPs seem to have done better than others, the agreement is potentially divisive. I'm deeply concerned that the government is trying to supplant knowledgeable and skilled doctors with practitioners with less comprehensive training and experience. I also think it's silly to agree to limit our ability to take on the government by means of the threat of withdrawal of services. We didn't get enough back anyway in return for that concession. The PMA gives government (non-physicians) increasing control over how we practice; such regulation should only be in the hands of the COPS - College of Physicians and Surgeons.

--- I *may* vote.

--- Typical of the incompetent negotiations of the BCMA. What exactly did we extract from the government for voiding the wage re-opener of the former contract?? The new agreement continues a string of agreements that place our incomes far behind the rate of inflation let alone giving us an increase in take home pay. The teacher's agreement gave them much higher increases, a signing bonus, and other improvements. We get a miniscule increase, and a decreased rate of CMPA reimbursement (at the same time our rates are doubling).

--- voted against

--- Physicians are effectively government employees who lack the protection and benefits that other government workers enjoy.

--- The practice - the art and the science - of medicine has deteriorated over the past 30 to 50 years. It has become formulaic. The management of people and their medical problems has been reduced to following algorithms, with no room for adaptation to the differences, subtle or otherwise, between individuals, cultures and even races. We have allowed it to become mechanical and thus dehumanized and dehumanizing.

--- delays disparity correction while sections wither away. pays high earners before low earners. better deal than expected but BCMA allocation protocol is wrong. money awarded to FTE and overhead is unfairly done based on biased & prejudiced BCMA statistics. The BCMA economics department should hang their heads in shame instead of trying to support flawed statistics that a high school student can recognize as being unsupportable.

--- I will be curious to see if adjustments are made to MOCAP as well as how it handles complex care and clinic fees.

--- I gave up my membership in BCMA as I am near retirement. I may want to join again [CMPA fees have increased]. Better to be a member and able to vote on these issues. If BCMA or whatever they are calling themselves now, had any part of negotiating this agreement it is not satisfactory.

--- There is still not a fair, inclusive process, for doctors who feel the BCMA does not fairly represent them, to participate. I am an anesthesiologist, but there are many non anesthesiologists in this position as well. I wish all doctors could feel comfortable being members of the BCMA, but as long as all decisions are made by the majority, i.e. FP, then only their interests will be served to the detriment of better health care.

--- Not yet- I need to do some homework:)

--- I believe the MOCAP redesign has been mishandled and is an important enough problem that the agreement should be rejected. I also believe that special focus practices have been given far too much in this agreement.

--- I am currently not practicing so this does not affect me.

--- The contract does not address GP/Specialist disparity!

--- We are hearing the same thing we have heard for the nearly 40 years that I have been a member of the BCMA. "it's the best we can hope to get". I have been closely involved with the Divisions of family Practice. The initial work done by the GPSC was fantastic. I am afraid that we have now climbed into bed with Government and have convinced ourselves that we are well compensated for our work and that we are in control. Nothing could be further from the truth. The seemingly wonderful Divisions of Family Practice are nothing more than a new attempt to control doctors. As more and more GPs left the hospital environment, the Provincial Government and the Health Authorities lost control over us. they are slowly but surely regaining that control through the Divisions.

--- I would like to know why the board and GP society is urging me to vote yes to it? I began practice in BC in 1980 and an 00100 was around $15 per patient with no cap on # per day and in  2014 after 34 years of practice it is around $30;  I made a comfortable living working a 6 hour office and was full service rural GP; I left rural practice in 2009. I work 10-11 hours a day and I do a lot of counselling/mental health for mood disorders and now find myself in the middle of an MSP audit and clawback; what am I voting yes to?? I see 30-35 patients in a 10-11 hour day without a single break except 2-3 minutes in the loo;