In September 2016, a case went to trial in British Columbia that seeks to test the constitutionality of provincial laws that (1) ban private health insurance for medically necessary hospital and physician services; (2) ban extra-billing (physicians cannot charge patients more than the public tariff); and (3) require physicians to work solely for the public system or ‘opt-out’ and practice privately. All provinces have similar laws that have been passed to meet the requirements of federal legislation, the Canada Health Act (and thus qualify for federal funds). Consequently, a finding of unconstitutionality of one or more of these laws could have a very significant impact on the future of Canada’s single-payer system (‘medicare’). However, should the court find that a particular law is not in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the baton is then passed back to the government which may respond with other laws or policies that they believe to be constitutionally compliant. The ultimate impact of any successful Charter challenge to laws protecting medicare from privatization will thus significantly depend on how Canadian governments respond. Provincial governments could allow privatization to undercut equity and access, or they could respond creatively with new legal and policy solutions to both improve equity and access and tackle some of the problems that have long bedeviled Canadian medicare. This paper provides an understanding – grounded in comparative health systems evidence – of law and policy options available to Canadian lawmakers for limiting two-tier care in the wake of any successful challenge to existing laws. The paper presents the results of a large inter-disciplinary, comparative study, started in 2015, that systematically reviewed the legal and broader regulatory schemes used to regulate the public/private divide in 15 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries with a particular eye to what the effect of such regulations would be upon wait times.

Travelling internationally to acquire medical treatments otherwise unavailable or inaccessible in one’s home country is not a novel concept. Conventionally, such medical travel largely entailed patients from developed countries or wealthy patients from the developing world seeking care in Western facilities like the Mayo Clinic in the U.S. and myriad private clinics along Harley Street in London, England. What is different about the topical phenomenon known as “medical tourism” is the growing trend of health services export in the opposite direction. The number of patients travelling from the developed world to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for treatments has ballooned in recent years, primarily driven by difficulties with accessing affordable care at home. According to a liberal estimate by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, the number of Americans travelling abroad for care rose from 750,000 in 2007 to 1.6 million in 2012. On the flip side, Thailand reportedly treated a total of 1.3 million foreign nationals in 2007, which represented a 16% leap from 2001.