In the midst of Canada’s growing primary care crisis, it’s time we take a hard look at how patient rosters are handled, or mishandled, when physicians transition or leave their practices. Across the country, millions of Canadians are without a family doctor. Against this backdrop, we can no longer tolerate a system in which doctors purchase entire rosters of patients only to turn around and drop half of them, not based on clinical need, but lifestyle preference.

This is not a matter of gender. It is a matter of professional accountability and ethical stewardship. Patients are not chattel. They are people, often elderly, immunocompromised, managing multiple chronic conditions, who place their trust in a system that is supposed to protect their continuity of care. When a physician acquires a patient list, they are not buying a gym membership or a book of business. They are assuming responsibility for the long-term health of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of human beings.

Let’s be clear: physicians have every right to structure their practice in a way that supports their well-being. Burnout is real, and work-life balance matters, but that personal balance cannot come at the expense of vulnerable patients being systematically cast adrift.

Professional colleges, including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), do provide formal mechanisms for a doctor to reduce their patient list. These guidelines exist to allow flexibility, but they were never meant to be a loophole for roster triage based on convenience. If the intention was always to serve only a part-time practice, why was the entire roster purchased? Why was the community not informed in advance? And why are regulatory bodies permitting what amounts to a public harm, wrapped in private contractual terms?

These are not just hypothetical concerns. The abandonment of patients, especially those without alternatives, has ripple effects throughout the entire healthcare system. Walk-in clinics become overwhelmed. Emergency rooms fill with non-emergency cases. Preventable conditions go unmanaged until they become acute, and meanwhile, the public’s trust in the integrity of primary care continues to erode.

If physicians wish to buy a practice, that is a valid path to establishing their career; but there must be clear, enforceable rules to ensure that patient care is not commodified in the process. A few policy options worth considering:

• Conditional licensing of roster transfers: Require binding disclosure of the incoming physician’s intended working hours and patient capacity before the sale is finalized, with oversight by a neutral third party such as the local health authority.
• Mandatory transition plans: If a physician intends to offload more than 10% of a newly acquired roster, they should be required to demonstrate how those patients will be supported in finding alternate care – not simply left to fend for themselves – meaning that there is actually an alternative primary caregiver available who is willing and able to add them to their existing roster.
• Public-interest reviews of large roster changes: Just as utility companies can’t hike rates without justification, physicians shouldn’t be able to restructure public-facing services without transparent public reasoning.

Ultimately, the issue is not about lifestyle choices. It’s about stewardship. Every doctor, upon licensing, accepts a social contract with the people they serve. That contract includes not just the right to treat patients, but the responsibility to do so with equity, consistency, and integrity.

We wouldn’t accept it if a public school principal took over a school and expelled half the students because they only wanted to work mornings. We shouldn’t accept it in primary care either.