This private member's bill tasks the provincial Minister of Health and Wellness with systematically identifying access barriers affecting women and gender‑diverse people and evaluating a range of possible system changes to improve care. It requires a findings report within one year and ongoing annual reporting on actions taken and average wait times for the clinical areas identified.
The measure is primarily diagnostic and transparency‑focused: it does not itself allocate funding or change regulation, but it creates an administrative trigger that could shape policy decisions on workforce roles, surgical capacity, billing, and compensation for providers specializing in women's and gender‑diverse care.
At a Glance
What It Does
Mandates a Ministerial review of access barriers across named clinical areas (screening, surgery, reproductive care, menopause, endometriosis and related conditions) and an assessment of potential system changes such as expanding midwifery roles, increasing operating room time, updating billing codes, and re‑evaluating provider pay. Requires publication of a findings report within one year and annual reports thereafter that include average wait times for the listed services.
Who It Affects
Provincial Department of Health and Wellness staff who must run the review and produce reports, health authorities responsible for operational data (wait times, OR scheduling, billing), regulated clinicians (midwives, gynecologists, surgeons), and patients who use screening, reproductive and gynecologic services—particularly women and gender‑diverse individuals experiencing access barriers.
Why It Matters
It establishes statutory transparency and an evidence base specifically for women's and gender‑diverse healthcare in Nova Scotia—areas that stakeholders long say suffer longer waits and gaps in services. The reporting requirement could reframe resource and workforce discussions, influence bargaining over provider pay, and provide a recurring metric (annual wait times) to track change over time.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a formal, Minister‑led exercise: identify where the health system is failing or underperforming for women and gender‑diverse people and lay out what changes might help. The text lists clinical areas to be reviewed — from cancer screening and reproductive care to pelvic pain and menopause — and asks the Minister to evaluate specific levers such as expanding midwives' roles, boosting training, reallocating operating room time, revising billing codes, and re‑examining specialist salaries.
That combination signals the legislature wants a practical menu of policy options rather than only descriptive findings.
Practically, the bill imposes two reporting duties. First, within 12 months the Minister must publish findings from the review and the assessments of the listed policy levers.
Second, the Minister must publish an annual report covering actions taken in the previous year and the annual average wait times for the named procedures. Those reports create recurring public records that health planners, unions, clinicians and patient advocates can use when pressing for funding or operational change.Because the Act is diagnostic, its immediate effect will be administrative: ministries and health authorities will need to assemble data, define which procedures map to the listed areas, and design methodologies for average wait‑time calculations.
The law does not itself change scopes of practice, funding formulas, or collective agreement obligations; it creates a structured process intended to surface options and track progress that others—government decision makers, health authorities, bargaining agents—would have to act upon to change service delivery.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 enumerates six clinical categories to be reviewed: gynecologic and breast cancer screening and treatment; menopause and hormonal care; gynecologic surgery (including pelvic floor repair and hysterectomy); endometriosis and pelvic pain; reproductive care; and a catch‑all for other minister‑identified access barriers.
Section 3 lists specific policy levers for assessment: expanding midwifery roles; enhanced training for students and workers; increased operating room time for related surgeries; updating billing codes; and re‑evaluating salaries for specialists in these fields.
Section 4 requires the Minister to publish a findings report within one year of the Act coming into force.
Section 5 requires an annual public report that details actions taken in the prior year and publishes annual average wait times for the procedures referenced in Section 2.
Section 6 fixes the Act's start date to the later of October 1, 2026, or the day it receives Royal Assent, triggering the one‑year reporting clock.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act's citation: Improving Access to Women's Healthcare Act. This is a technical provision but signals the government's framing: the statute's scope is gender‑focused and framed around improving access rather than prescribing specific interventions.
Scope of review — clinical areas
Specifies the clinical categories the Minister must examine. By naming screening, surgical procedures (pelvic floor repair, hysterectomy), menopause care, endometriosis/pelvic pain and reproductive care, the bill narrows the review to discrete, high‑priority service lines rather than an open‑ended study. That matters operationally: health authorities will need to map existing service codes and clinical pathways to these categories to produce comparable metrics.
Policy levers to assess
Requires the Minister to assess a menu of potential system changes — expanding midwifery roles, training enhancements, OR time increases, billing‑code updates, and salary re‑evaluations — and allows for other measures the Minister deems relevant. The mix spans workforce, education, capacity and payment mechanisms, indicating the review should consider both supply‑side and administrative reforms.
One‑year findings report
Imposes a fixed deadline (within one year of coming into force) for publishing the Minister's findings under Sections 2 and 3. That timeline creates urgency and requires the department to prioritize data gathering and stakeholder engagement quickly; it also shapes expectations for the scope and depth of analysis possible within that interval.
Annual action and wait‑time reports
Creates an ongoing transparency obligation: each calendar year the Minister must report on actions taken the previous year and publish annual average wait times for the procedures listed in Section 2. Operationalizing this will require consistent definitions of 'wait times' and reliable data feeds from regional health authorities to produce comparable year‑to‑year statistics.
Commencement
Sets the commencement date to the later of October 1, 2026, or Royal Assent. That clause fixes an earliest possible start and anchors the statutory deadlines (notably the one‑year report) to a specific timeframe the department can plan against.
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
- Women and gender‑diverse patients experiencing access gaps — will gain legally mandated, public reporting that can be used to press for service improvements and track system performance across defined clinical areas.
- Patient advocacy groups and clinicians focused on women's health — receive recurring, standardized wait‑time data and annual action reports to support policy advocacy and quality improvement efforts.
- Midwives and midwifery proponents — the bill explicitly asks the Minister to assess expanding midwives' roles, potentially opening policy pathways to broaden practice or funding for midwifery services if the review recommends it.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Health and Wellness — must allocate staff time and analytic resources to design the review, collect and validate data, run stakeholder consultations, produce the one‑year and annual reports, and maintain reporting processes going forward.
- Regional health authorities and hospital administration — will need to extract, standardize and submit wait‑time and procedural data, adjust OR scheduling if recommendations follow, and potentially implement billing code or staffing changes at operational cost.
- Clinicians and professional associations (gynecologists, surgeons, midwives) — may face new administrative burdens if billing codes are revised or if pay re‑evaluations trigger bargaining or legislative/regulatory changes; any scope‑of‑practice shifts will require training and governance work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between creating an evidence‑based, transparent account of gaps (and proposed fixes) and the reality that identifying problems does not automatically supply the resources or regulatory authority needed to fix them; the Act forces diagnosis and public scrutiny but leaves implementation—and its fiscal and labour implications—to subsequent policy choices.
The Act is intentionally diagnostic and non‑prescriptive, which creates both strength and ambiguity. Its value depends on the quality of the data, the clarity of wait‑time definitions, and the political will to act on recommendations.
Ministries will need to decide which procedures map to the statutory categories and how to calculate 'annual average wait times' (referral‑to‑consult, consult‑to‑treatment, or total wait times), decisions that materially affect reported results and public perceptions.
The Minister is given broad discretion to identify 'other access barriers' and to determine which additional changes to assess. That flexibility allows tailoring to local realities but raises questions about comparability and transparency: different Ministers could produce reports with different emphases, making longitudinal tracking harder.
Finally, because the Act does not appropriate funds or change regulatory regimes, its reports may identify remedies (more OR time, higher salaries, expanded midwifery) that require separate policy actions and funding commitments to implement — a gap between diagnosis and deliverable solutions that stakeholders should anticipate.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.