Medical slavery

In the midst of all the outrage and controversy regarding the fee 'agreement' and its revised version, did anyone notice the new 'defined term' on page GP 37 of the fee schedule? I haven't seen a thing about it from the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), or my regular source of info, The Toronto Star — have you noticed they're the only ones with the details of the revised fee 'agreement'?

The Ministry, in a true Orwellian doublethink classic move, has come up with the 'not eligible for payment' service. This is a service that's 'insured' but not paid for. The definition published is followed by a commentary, specifying that "patients cannot be charged for services described as 'not eligible for payment' as they remain insured services." That means, fellow medical slaves, that we must provide it for free.

As far as I can see, this definition has only been applied to "Any service rendered by the same physician to the same patient on the same day that the physician renders major eye examination ...". But that's not to say it ends there. I shudder to speculate what's next on the 'not eligible for payment' but still 'insured' list. And what will we do about it? Nothing as usual. We can't seem to pull together to accomplish anything, and our erstwhile leaders at the OMA seem to be as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to dealing with the Ministry and its frightening agenda to reform medicine in Ontario.

— Dr Barbara Watts, Orangeville, ON