Private Insurance and Mixed Practice: Canada Bans Solutions That Improve Access to Care

• In Canada, 1.4 million medical procedures were still pending in 2025.
• In Australia, nearly 45 per cent of the population holds duplicative private insurance.

Montreal, July 2, 2026 – Canada has one of the highest healthcare spending rates in the world, yet its patients still face some of the longest wait times for treatment. Solutions do exist, but Canada simply refuses to apply them, argues an MEI researcher in an Economic Note published this morning.

“Despite the colossal sums we devote to our healthcare systems, Canadians still struggle to get the care they need in a timely manner,” says Conrad Eder, a research associate at the MEI and author of the study. “We should adopt proven solutions, such as the Australian and Danish models of duplicative insurance, to make sure health care is more accessible, whether public or private.”

Despite Record Spending, the System is Failing

Canadians spend an average of $9,626 per year on health care including out-of-pocket expenses and taxes paid. This makes us the eighth-highest health care spender in the OECD, tied with New Zealand.

Despite this high spending, Canadians still struggle to receive timely care. According to data compiled by the Fraser Institute, 1.4 million patients were waiting for a medical procedure last year, with the national average wait time between referral and treatment reaching 28.6 weeks.

Data obtained through freedom of information requests indicate that during 2025 23,746 patients died while waiting for care.

Examples That Work: Australia and Denmark

The MEI researcher explained that countries comparable to Canada have shown that greater flexibility in care leads to better outcomes for patients:

“By allowing duplicative insurance, Australia and Denmark have lowered the financial barriers to accessing the private sector, thus enabling it to help support the public system,” explains Mr. Eder. “This increases the treatment capacity of local healthcare systems, which benefits all patients.”

In practical terms, duplicative private insurance works just like any other group insurance plan. The patient pays a premium, and the insurance plan covers medical care in accordance with the contract between the insurer and the patient. What sets it apart is that it covers services already provided by the public insurance system.

Both Australia and Denmark have universal healthcare systems, and both countries allow duplicative private insurance. In Australia, monthly premiums start at the equivalent of $84 Canadian, and in Denmark, at $65 Canadian.

In Australia, nearly 45 per cent of the population carries such insurance, and in 2024 private hospitals accounted for 40 per cent of total hospital admissions. An Australian study found a slight correlation between the prevalence of duplicative insurance coverage in the population and shorter wait times in public hospitals.

In Denmark, the use of private hospitals coincided with a 36.7 per cent reduction in surgical wait times. In both countries, universal coverage remained in place.

Furthermore, group insurance plans offered by employers reduced public hospital use among the privately insured by 10 per cent, thus easing the strain on the public system.

“Allowing private supplementary insurance and mixed practice, as is the case in Australia and Denmark, is the simplest decision Canada can make to improve access to care,” Mr. Eder points out. “Other countries have done it, it works, and universal coverage has remained intact.”

Toward a More Effective Healthcare System

Six Canadian provinces functionally prohibit duplicative private insurance for medically necessary services: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec.

The MEI researcher argues that these restrictions go beyond what is required by the federal Canada Health Act, and that authorization of these insurance plans, combined with mixed practice, should become the norm rather than the exception.

In Denmark, doctors in mixed practice provide an average of 5.2 additional hours of care per week, without reducing their responsibilities in the public system. This means more doctors seeing more patients, and at no cost to the public system.

“The goal is not to replace the public system, but to complement it,” concludes Mr. Eder. “When the private and public sectors work together, more patients get treated, and faster. That’s what a truly universal system looks like.”

You can read the MEI Economic Note by clicking here.

***

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

— 30 —

Interview requests
Florence Plourde
Manager, Communications
Cell: 418-670-5939