{"id":1541,"date":"2026-04-21T14:26:50","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T14:26:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.petal-health.com\/?p=1541"},"modified":"2026-04-22T13:35:37","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T13:35:37","slug":"canada-healthcare-trend-ffs-payments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.petal-health.com\/fr\/blog\/health-authorities\/canada-healthcare-trend-ffs-payments\/","title":{"rendered":"Healthcare trends to know:\u00a0Canada talks value, but still pays for volume"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Key takeaways<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n
  1. Policy and payment are\u00a0out of sync:\u00a0<\/span><\/b>Canada promotes value-based care, but fee-for-service still dominates as providers\u2019 preferred payment model.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Progress is steady but slow:\u00a0<\/span><\/b>While\u00a0<\/span>FFS reliance declined from ~84% to ~70% over two decades, a\u00a0system-wide tipping point\u00a0still awaits.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Physicians face conflicting incentives:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>Providers are\u00a0expected to deliver coordinated and outcome-driven care while being paid for throughput and activity.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Canada\u2019s healthcare system\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0stuck.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    But it is\u00a0conflicted.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    On paper, the direction is clear:\u00a0<\/span>value-based\u00a0healthcare\u00a0(VBC)<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0Across provinces, policies increasingly emphasize outcomes, coordination, and sustainability.\u00a0And\u00a0rightly so\u00a0as it focuses on maximizing patient outcomes\u00a0relative\u00a0to the cost of care, rather than the volume of services delivered.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    This makes\u00a0VBC\u00a0the most sustainable model\u00a0from a long-term perspective.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0dedicated to proactive vs. reactive care that makes patient outcomes\u00a0the\u00a0priority.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    But one number tells a different story:\u00a0<\/span>Nearly 70%<\/span><\/b><\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0physician\u00a0payments are still tied to fee-for-service.<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    That\u2019s\u00a0the defining constraint on how fast the system can change.\u00a0FFS has its merits, but\u00a0relative\u00a0to\u00a0VBC goals, the popularity of FFS holds back Canada\u2019s healthcare potential.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    For health systems, payment is more than funding: it sets the limits for where and how care is provided.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    What\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>changing (and what\u00a0<\/span>isn\u2019t<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Shifting away from FFS\u00a0has taken\u00a0more than\u00a020 years\u00a0to get to where we are now.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

    Canada reduced its reliance on\u00a0FFS\u00a0from\u00a0roughly\u00a084%\u00a0of clinical payments\u00a0in the early 2000s\u00a0to around 69%\u00a0today. That shift reflects years of experimentation with capitation, blended models, and alternative funding arrangements.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

    At the same time, something else happened:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>