In a Supreme Court of B.C. ruling released this weekend, British Columbia Nurses’ Union v. Attorney General of British Columbia, nurses have won the latest fight against two-tier healthcare.

The British Columbia Nursing Union (BCNU) filed a suit against the provincial attorney general and Medical Services Commission for allowing the expansion of private clinics that they claim violate the Medicare Protection Act,

The British Columbia Nurses’ Union (the “petitioner” or the “Union”) has brought this petition in which it seeks orders by way of mandamus and declarations with respect to the Medical Services Commission. Its complaint is that the Commission has not been carrying out its statutory duty to enforce the Medicare Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 286 (the “Act“). This includes the duty under s. 5 of the Act to act in a manner consistent with the Canada Health Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-6.

The union explained their claim on their website,

The union contends that by turning a blind eye to so-called facility fees charged by private clinics, the government is neglecting its legal responsibility to protect patients from user fees and extra billing for medicare-insured services.

However, the respondents claimed that,

1. the Union is not a legal entity and lacks the capacity to bring this petition;
2. the Union lacks standing to pursue its claim or if it is a matter of this court’s discretion, should be denied standing; and
3. in any event, the petition does not articulate a reasonable claim.

The court responded by saying that they do have standing and are a legal entity,

[13] Section 154 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244 provides:

154. Every trade union…is a legal entity for the purposes of this Code.

They established that the union had personal standing as a serious issue was raised and it affected the union in direct and indirect ways, but could not advance the case on behalf of patients or the public interest.

BCNU President Debra McPherson said,

He has substantially broadened the rights of unions to bring actions before the courts on matters of broad public interest and turned aside the government’s attempt to restrict us to narrow labour relations matters…

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the government does not have the right to violate the principles of medicare or make up new ones for political or financial expediency as they go along.

The political and financial expediency McPherson cited was BC Premier Gordon Campbell‘s Conversation on Health, which has been accused as a secret agenda to privatize health in the province.

But some reporters point out that Campbell’s conversation is one-sided, and ignores some important facts,

There is no shortage of research in peer-reviewed medical journals highlighting the drawbacks of for-profit health care. In 2004, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a study noting that for-profit U.S. hospitals have 19-percent higher charges than nonprofit facilities.

The study’s research team, headed by McMaster University health-policy expert P. J. Devereaux, had previously concluded that investor-owned hospitals had death rates two-percent higher than nonprofit hospitals. In an accompanying editorial, Harvard Medical School researchers Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein cited several reasons for-profit hospitals are so much more expensive, including “princely” compensation packages for executives; higher administrative costs; and employing strategies to bolster profitability, among them overbilling Medicare.

The same year, McMaster health-policy researcher Stephen Birch ridiculed those who claim that publicly funded health care is not sustainable. Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Birch claimed that “in an age of evidence-based health policy, these claims stand out as a beacon of political hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, disregarding both the theoretical reasons and empirical evidence” supporting a single-payer (i.e., Medicare) system as the most efficient use of health-care resources.