Peter Hurd-Watler didn’t use to think about health insurance or benefit plans for older workers as part of the hiring process.
But upcoming changes to Alberta’s Health Statutes Amendment Act have created concerns for the owner of a startup in Calgary that partners with small businesses to help them grow.
“Right now, or at least before this, health care wasn’t really a consideration when we were hiring because it was provided for by the government,” Hurd-Watler said in an interview.
“With the advent of this bill … we would have to seriously consider that, and that would be a new variable in our hiring decisions.”
Doctors, experts and business owners like Hurd-Watler are concerned about potential implications they see in a subtle shift in the bill this fall that changes how benefits are funded for workers older than 65.
Under existing legislation, employers can terminate group benefit plans for employees aged 65 and older and those workers are shifted onto the province’s health-care plan.
With the legislative change, however, employers will no longer be allowed to terminate benefits for any employee “solely on the basis of age” and will have to cover health-care and benefit costs for those over 65 themselves.
In an emailed statement, Alberta’s Ministry of Hospital and Surgical Health Services said that the move is meant to ensure workers over 65 maintain access to existing workplace health benefits.
“Government-sponsored plans are meant to act as a safety net when no other coverage is available, not as the first payer when employer-sponsored or private coverage already exists,” the ministry said.
The nearly 300-page bill covers a wealth of changes coming to the Alberta health-care system, including a “dual practice model” that has drawn the ire of many doctors and organizations, fanning an already hot discussion around privatization of health care in the country.
When it comes to the impact the changes could have on an aging workforce, however, experts like Erin Strumpf, an economics professor at McGill University in Montreal, say it could play a role in how employers provide health benefits to their older workers.
“So it means that Alberta employers and their employees are going to be looking at the possibility of premium costs going up over time, as those plans are responsible for paying for more health care,” she said in an interview.
“Employers have to find that money somewhere or they start, you know, trimming back a little bit the generosity of their insurance coverage.”
The changes employers make around the edges of benefits plans could also prompt public insurance providers or even other provinces to explore more ways to trim their costs, Strumpf said.
“It may make [them] say … ‘What are we allowed to do given the constraints of the Canada Health Act and how can we bring more financing into the health system so we’re not bearing all the costs ourselves?'”
Data from Statistics Canada shows that between 2021 and 2025 the labour participation rate of people aged 65 and over increased from 14.2 per cent to 15.2 per cent. In Alberta, it oscillated between 17 and 18 per cent.
This fall, Alberta shifts primary health and drug coverage for workers 65 and older directly onto employers in a move that observers say could significantly drive up the costs for companies, prompting them to reduce or cap coverage.
Alberta’s Hospital and Surgical Services Ministry told CBC News that in 2025-26, it spent about $1.1 billion on “pharmaceutical and supplementary health benefits for more than 843,000 Albertans 65 and over.”
Strumpf said that with the aging population growing, the legislative change could also create a rift between older job seekers and employers.
“It kind of creates a weird disincentive to employ people who have the higher risk of high-cost health events and high-cost health-care needs, right?” she said.
“It’s not to say that everybody over age 65 has high health-care costs, but the chance of those things, you know, the risks certainly go up.”
Future concerns
The potential for the changes to have an impact on his company’s budget is also a concern for Hurd-Watler.
“If a health insurance plan or more of it is on the burden of the employer, then that’s going to increase costs for employers, and therefore they wouldn’t be able to hire as much or grow their companies as well,” he said.
An update from insurance company Hub International for 2026 says that Alberta’s change “has been projected to increase drug and health claims for active employees by two per cent to five per cent.”
The insurance company’s report also notes that under the new conditions, when a claim is eligible under both a workplace benefits plan and a government-sponsored one, the claim will now be billed to the private plan first.
Another ‘irritant for employers’
Kenneth MacDonald, an associate vice-president at Hub International, said with costs shifting from the government onto plans provided by employers, the next question is who will be paying the lion’s share.
“Whether or not your employer decides to pass on some of those costs to employees is really going to be up to the employer.”
MacDonald doesn’t think the amendment will be enough to stop workplaces from offering benefits packages.
“With all kinds of costs increasing, this is just one more irritant for employers.”
Still, some health-care professionals remain skeptical of the move and worry about the potential domino effect it may have across Canada.
‘A dangerous precedent’
Dr. Danyaal Raza, a family doctor and University of Toronto professor, has also been outspoken about the bill’s provision for the “dual practice model” and its potential to provide what he says is a bad example that other provinces might follow.
He said the federal government needs to speak up on that provision.
“The prime minister’s silence for me is a significant cause for concern. And I think it is a tacit permission for Alberta to proceed with this and sets a dangerous precedent for other provincial governments who also want to pursue private health care to do so.”
The full impact of the changes won’t be fully realized until they take effect on Oct. 1.
Hurd-Watler said ultimately they’ll be felt widely.
“I would say it impacts quite a bit. It impacts ourselves who are hiring. It impacts our clients. We help our clients get grants and get jobs … and they have to create jobs,” he said.
“We just don’t want to make sure it could go like the United States, where employers have to provide private insurance to remain competitive in their recruitment.”
About the Author
