Alberta Bill 203 would amend the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act to prohibit private organizations from using membership, periodic or other advance fees to obtain publicly insured medical services from physicians enrolled in Alberta’s health plan. It would also prohibit any person from charging patients more than the provincial benefit for an insured service provided by an opted-in physician or dentist.
The bill targets a structure that can sit between public and private care: a fee-based organization may not itself be the physician delivering the insured service, but it can collect a block fee from patients and contract with participating physicians. The proposal would treat that arrangement as extra billing when the insured service occurs during the fee period or when the fee was connected to access to that service.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines “block billing fee,” “fee-based private health organization” and “non-insured medical service.” It prohibits extra charges for insured services and treats a block fee as an unlawful condition of receiving an insured service when the organization and physician meet specified criteria.
Who It Affects
Private clinics, membership-based medical organizations and other entities that contract with physicians enrolled in Alberta’s health plan face the most direct effect. Opted-in physicians and dentists, patients using those organizations, and the Minister responsible for administering the plan would also be affected.
Why It Matters
The proposal moves beyond rules aimed at individual practitioners and addresses the corporate or organizational structure through which private fees may be collected. It would draw a sharper line between permissible charges for non-insured services and prohibited payment arrangements linked to insured care.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill replaces the Act’s enacting preamble with an explicit statement of policy. It identifies the Canada Health Act criteria—public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility—as principles Alberta intends to protect, and expressly rejects two-tier medicine, extra billing, queue-jumping through private payment and private insurance for insured services.
The preamble does not itself create the main prohibition, but it supplies the statutory context for the operative amendments.
The central mechanism is a set of new definitions. A block billing fee includes a membership fee, periodic fee or other advance payment covering two or more non-insured medical services, as well as fees later prescribed by regulation.
A fee-based private health organization is generally a non-physician person that has an arrangement with one or more opted-in physicians and collects such a fee. The bill separately defines non-insured medical services as professional services that Alberta’s plan does not cover, while preserving exclusions for services covered under federal programs, workers’ compensation legislation or specified statutory categories.The bill adds a direct prohibition on any person charging or collecting an amount above the Minister’s benefit for an insured service provided by an opted-in physician or dentist.
It then applies a more specific test to fee-based organizations: a block fee counts as an additional charge imposed as a condition of receiving insured care when the organization collected it, the participating physician provided the insured service, and the service occurred during the relevant fee period or was reasonably connected to the fee. Emergency services and services provided before the legislation takes effect are excluded from that specific rule.The enforcement framework preserves offence status under the Act and applies it to the new prohibition.
A first offence carries a maximum fine of $10,000; a second or later offence carries a maximum fine of $20,000. The Minister must commence a prosecution within two years after evidence of the alleged offence first comes to the Minister’s attention.
The bill also gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council authority to refine the new definitions and prescribe additional fees or covered persons by regulation.Finally, the bill removes an existing statutory exception that allowed practitioners to make certain advance agreements for additional payments, provided the agreement preceded the goods or services. It also updates related references so the new prohibition applies within the Act’s rights-and-exceptions provisions.
The proposed effective date is January 1, 2020, and the Minister could create regulatory exceptions for some patients who paid a block fee before the new provision came into force.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A block billing fee can include a membership or periodic fee paid in advance for two or more non-insured medical services, plus any additional fee established by regulation.
The bill captures a non-physician organization that contracts with opted-in physicians and collects a block fee, even if the organization does not itself deliver the insured service.
The specific prohibition does not apply to an insured service provided in an emergency or to a service provided before the Act comes into force.
A contravention carries a maximum fine of $10,000 for a first offence and $20,000 for a second or subsequent offence; prosecution must begin within two years after evidence reaches the Minister.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council could expand or clarify the new definitions and identify additional persons or fees through regulation, while the Minister could create limited exceptions for certain pre-existing block-fee arrangements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Amends the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act
This clause identifies the statute being changed: the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act. The bill operates primarily by inserting new definitions, prohibitions and enforcement rules into that existing framework rather than creating a separate regulatory regime.
Sets out public-health-care principles
The replacement preamble commits Alberta to a single-tier publicly funded system in which access to necessary medical care depends on need rather than ability to pay. It specifically references the Canada Health Act criteria and states opposition to extra billing, private-payment queue jumping and private insurance for insured services.
Because this is a preamble, its practical role is interpretive and policy-setting rather than an independent offence provision. It makes the bill’s intended boundary between insured public services and private payment unusually explicit.
Defines block fees and private health organizations
The bill defines the payment structures and organizations it intends to regulate. A block billing fee is not limited to a label such as “membership”; it covers advance payments for two or more non-insured medical services and any fee later specified by regulation.
The definition of fee-based private health organization focuses on the relationship between the organization, its payment collection and physicians who participate in the public plan. That structure allows the Act to reach arrangements in which the physician is not the party collecting the patient’s fee.
Prohibits extra billing by any person
New section 9.1 prohibits any person from charging or collecting an amount above the Minister’s benefit for an insured service provided by an opted-in physician or dentist. The provision closes the possibility that a non-physician intermediary could avoid the Act’s existing extra-billing rule simply because it did not personally provide the medical service.
Links block fees to access to insured care
New section 11.1 establishes when a fee-based private health organization is treated as charging for insured care. The required connection includes collection of the block fee, delivery of the insured service by an opted-in physician who has an arrangement with the organization, and delivery during the applicable fee period or in circumstances indicating that the fee related to access to the service.
The section excludes emergencies and pre-commencement services. It also permits the Minister to create regulatory exceptions for people who paid a block fee before the section came into force, subject to conditions set by regulation.
Maintains offence penalties and adds a limitation period
The bill rewrites the Act’s offence provision so contraventions of sections 9, 9.1, 10, 11 or 12 remain punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine for a first offence and $20,000 for later offences. The new section 9.1 therefore carries the same penalty structure as the existing listed prohibitions.
The two-year prosecution period runs from the date evidence of the alleged offence first came to the Minister’s attention, rather than simply from the date of the conduct. That trigger affects how long organizations may face enforcement exposure after a payment arrangement occurs.
Expands regulation-making authority
The bill authorizes regulations that further define or describe block billing fees and fee-based private health organizations, prescribe additional fees, designate additional persons and govern how sections 11 and 11.1 apply to them. This gives the executive branch flexibility to address payment models that may not fit the initial statutory wording.
It also changes a related regulation-making reference so agreements or arrangements made before health services are provided—not only arrangements of the type previously referenced in section 21(1)(b)—can be addressed by regulation.
Removes the advance-agreement exception
The bill repeals section 21(1)(b), which had preserved a practitioner’s ability to make an agreement before services were provided to collect an amount beyond the provincial benefit, subject to the Act’s existing exceptions. It correspondingly adds section 9.1 to the cross-reference in section 21(1)(c).
The practical effect is to remove a statutory safe harbour based solely on signing the payment agreement in advance. Timing alone would no longer protect an arrangement that falls within the Act’s prohibitions.
Sets the effective date
The bill provides that its amendments come into force on January 1, 2020. The date determines when the new organization-level prohibition applies and supports the separate exclusion for insured services provided before commencement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Patients who rely on opted-in physicians and cannot afford membership fees benefit from a clearer prohibition on paying extra to obtain publicly insured care.
- Physicians who operate without private membership models gain a more level competitive environment because organizations cannot use block fees to package access to insured services.
- Public health administrators gain a statutory basis to investigate payment structures involving intermediaries, rather than focusing only on the individual practitioner who delivered care.
- Patients seeking non-insured services retain a path for lawful payment where the service genuinely falls outside the provincial benefit and is not being used as a condition for insured care.
- The Alberta health system benefits from a clearer legislative statement that public-plan access should not depend on private payment or organizational queue-jumping.
Who Bears the Cost
- Fee-based private health organizations may need to eliminate, restructure or carefully separate membership programs that involve opted-in physicians and insured services.
- Opted-in physicians who contract with private organizations face additional due-diligence obligations because an organization’s fee collection can trigger liability even when the physician did not collect the payment.
- Patients who value bundled private services may lose access to arrangements that combine non-insured offerings with convenient access to insured care, even if the bundle is marketed primarily as a membership product.
- The Minister and enforcement staff must develop guidance, investigate organizational payment flows and decide when a fee is sufficiently connected to an insured service to support prosecution.
- Organizations with pre-existing block-fee contracts may face uncertainty while waiting for regulations that could establish conditions for transitional exceptions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to preserve payment for genuinely non-insured medical services while preventing private fees from becoming a gateway to publicly insured care. A bright-line ban would be easier to administer but could disrupt legitimate bundled services; a fact-based test is more flexible but makes compliance depend on the practical connection between a fee and insured care, creating uncertainty for organizations, physicians and patients.
The bill’s key line-drawing problem is the relationship between non-insured services and insured access. It permits the definition of non-insured medical services and does not ban every fee charged by a private organization.
But a broad membership arrangement can become unlawful if the surrounding facts make it reasonable to conclude that the fee was charged in connection with, or as a condition of receiving, insured care. That fact-based test may require regulators and courts to examine marketing, contracts, service timing and the actual operation of a clinic rather than relying on labels.
The regulatory powers cut both ways. They allow the government to address new business models and prevent organizations from exploiting technical gaps in the definitions, but they leave important boundaries to future regulations.
The bill also creates transitional complexity: it excludes pre-commencement services and allows conditional exceptions for people who paid earlier fees, while offering no detailed statutory formula for how existing memberships, renewals or partially used service bundles should be treated. The enforcement model relies on fines and a knowledge-based prosecution clock, but the text does not specify additional remedies such as refunds, injunctions or administrative penalties.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.