Part of this discussion on why we need to be making the right decisions is that we are shortly going to be debating and voting on Bill S-5, which is going to be another integral part of developing our medical technology.
We know that, shockingly, about 29% of physicians in Canada are currently exchanging medical records across different points of care. That is one in three physicians. This means that in the overwhelming majority of cases, when a patient is being referred to a family doctor or a specialist, transferred between hospitals or even seen in an urgent care clinic, the receiving provider is working at least partially in the dark. It has been described by some as simply flying blind.
This is not between provinces. This is within provinces. This is sometimes within the same city. This is the status quo that Bill S-5 is designed to change. It's not gradual and not through another round of well-intentioned things that ultimately lack guidance; we do this through an enforceable national legislative framework, which needs proper debate and proper review, as this motion needs proper review prior to approval because it goes further into what we've seen and heard in our testimony. PrescribeIT offered a concrete example of technology and health care action by allowing prescriptions and renewals to move efficiently between providers and pharmacies. It was supposed to be an answer to this problem.
We found out that without the fulsome study it needed, there were failures with it. There hadn't been the proper discussion amongst the end-user providers, and hence there was uptake in some provinces of only 5%, and 20% tops. This tells me that a very well-intentioned initiative did not have the study at all levels that it deserved. Anything done in this committee has to have the proper study.
Many of us who have worked on the legislation in Bill S-5 have drawn inspiration from Greg Price, a young man in Alberta who died in 2021 at the age of 31 from complications from surgery. He was young, otherwise healthy and in the care of what we should have thought was an adequate health care system. His journey was marked from the very beginning by the problems that we seek to address. Health records were lost, information was delayed, and the digital tools and data systems used by the providers involved in his care could not communicate with one another. The providers themselves, despite their best intentions and professional competence, were operating without the full picture. The result was catastrophic and irreversible. Greg is not alone.
In debating such issues and preparing legislation such as Bill S-5, we have to listen to Canadians from across the country who've had their own encounters with gaps in the system. We have to be listening to the health care providers, including the 80% to 95% of health care providers who did not actually use this very expensive system that was brought in.
We have heard from health care providers who order post-surgical lab work for patients that completed results never made it back to the ordering provider. Had they been received in time, the provider would have known that follow-up was urgently needed. They were not received. The patient deteriorated into a life-threatening crisis that never should have been allowed to develop. This is another example of what happens when you don't properly review the actions you have to take in legislation or in committee.
There are numerous examples.