Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


7 records – page 1 of 1.

The Right Drugs, at the Right Times, for the Right Prices: Toward a Prescription Drug Policy for Canada : CMA Presentation to House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1955
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2003-11-06
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2003-11-06
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Every year, three hundred million prescriptions – about 10 for every man, woman and child – are filled in Canada. Prescription drugs have benefited both the health of Canadians, and the health care system itself; they have meant dramatically improved quality of life for many Canadians, and have saved the country a great deal in hospitalization, social benefits and other expenses. However, it could be questioned whether all of Canada’s prescription drug use is appropriate; patients may be receiving too few medications, too many medications or suboptimal medications for their conditions. In addition, prescription drugs carry a price tag of their own. Since 1975, expenditures on prescription medication have risen faster than any other category in the health sector in Canada, and more is now spent on prescription drugs than on physician services. Governments, health care providers, drug manufacturers and the public must constantly strive to ensure that Canadians receive optimal and appropriate prescription drug therapy: the right drugs, at the right times, for the right prices. A considered, coherent, comprehensive, “made in Canada” approach to prescription drug policy should: * Put the health of the patient first; * Promote and enhance quality prescribing; * Respect, sustain and enhance the therapeutic relationship between patients and health professionals; * Promote patient compliance with drug therapy; * Respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. Prescription drug policy in Canada should address: Access: to * efficacious new drugs within an appropriate time; * coverage for medically necessary drugs for catastrophic care; * generic drugs at reasonable prices; * a patient/physician consultation as part of the prescribing process; * continued research and development capacity in Canada. Information for health care providers and the public that is balanced and accurate. Safety: through mechanisms for the systematic monitoring of prescription drugs and their effects. Canada’s doctors are committed to working with others to ensure that Canadians receive the right drugs, at the right times, for the right prices. Summary of CMA Recommendations: 1. That the federal government implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce review times to a level at or better than that in other OECD countries. 2. That the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on drugs and delivery mechanisms that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 3. That Health Canada apply a priority review process to all drugs that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 4. That governments and insurance providers conduct research to identify the current gaps in prescription drug coverage for all Canadians, and develop policy options for providing this coverage, including consideration of the roles of public and private payers. 5. That the federal government monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of prescription medications to ensure their continued availability to Canadians. 6. That prescribing of medication be done within the context of the therapeutic relationship which exists between the patient and the physician. 7. That brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA) not be permitted in Canada. 8. That the federal government enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act to the full extent of the law. 9. That the federal government develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. 10. That all stakeholders join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in prescribing. 11. That government accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a systems approach to support a culture of safety. 12. That a post-marketing surveillance system be implemented to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. PURPOSE The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has prepared this submission for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health’s review of prescription drugs in Canada. We applaud this review and welcome the opportunity to present the views of Canada’s medical community. Our vision is simple: that all Canadians should receive, if appropriate, the right drugs for their conditions, at the right times, for the right prices. Governments, health care providers, drug manufacturers and the public should all work together to develop a “made in Canada” prescription drug policy to realize this vision. This policy must be considered, coherent and comprehensive, and should: * Put the health of the patient first; * Promote and enhance quality prescribing; * Respect, sustain and enhance the therapeutic relationship between patients and health professionals; * Promote patient compliance with drug therapy; * Respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. In developing this policy we consider it particularly important to address the issues of: Access to quality health care In this context, the CMA’s vision of a National Access Strategy includes appropriate access to * efficacious new drugs within an appropriate time, * coverage for medically necessary drugs for catastrophic care, * generic drugs at reasonable prices, * a patient/physician consultation as part of the prescribing process, * continued research and development capacity in Canada. * Information for health care providers and the public that is balanced and accurate. * Safety: through mechanisms for the systematic monitoring of prescription drugs and their effects. Canada’s doctors look forward to working with others to realize our vision. In this submission we will discuss the steps that the CMA recommends be taken. INTRODUCTION The value of prescription medications Prescription drugs play an important role in preventing and treating health conditions. Every year, three hundred million prescriptions – about 10 for every man, woman and child – are filled in Canada1. In recent years, powerful new medications have meant dramatically improved quality of life, or substantial change in modes and patterns of treatment, for many Canadians. Anti-retroviral treatment has saved thousands of people with HIV infection from rapid, fatal progression to AIDS. Thanks to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) millions of people with chronic depression who might otherwise have been incapacitated or institutionalized can lead normal, productive lives in the community. Drugs to treat peptic ulcer disease have changed its treatment profile from one based mainly on surgery to a largely medical one. Though the cumulative savings on hospital care, lost workforce productivity, social benefits and disability insurance payments due to prescription drug use have not been quantified, they have undoubtedly been significant. Areas of Concern In short, prescription drugs have benefited both the health of Canadians, and the health care system itself. However, they have also created concerns that must be addressed. Utilization: is it Appropriate? Experts have questioned whether all of Canada’s prescription drug use is appropriate: are patients receiving too many medications, too few medications, or suboptimal medications for their conditions? Over-utilization of prescription drugs has been a topic of some attention, but under-utilization also exists. For example, as many as 60% of people with high blood pressure may not be receiving treatment; many of these people do not even know they have the condition.2 In addition, patient compliance with prescription drug therapy is increasingly recognized as a problem, especially for long-term or chronic conditions. Compliance is a potential issue in all treatments but is of special concern in conditions where few clinical symptoms are present: for example in hypertension, where lack of treatment over the long term may result in kidney damage, vascular and opthalmological damage, stroke or heart disease. One study found that only 50% of patients comply with long-term drug therapy, and an even smaller percentage comply with lifestyle alterations.3 Partial compliance with antibiotic therapy for infectious diseases is well recognized as one cause of anti-microbial resistance to common infectious pathogens. Cost: is it too high? More is now spent on prescription medicine than on physician services. Since 1975, expenditures on prescription medication have risen faster than any other category;4 during the 1990’s they rose more than twice as quickly as overall spending on health care.5 In 2002 retail spending on drugs in Canada (prescribed and non-prescribed) was estimated to be at least 16% of total health care spending. Prescription medication accounts for 80% of this category, up from 70.3% in 1990. What drives drug expenditure in Canada? There is considerable debate on this subject, but some of the drivers are believed to be: * Increased utilization: as the population ages there is an increased prevalence of conditions such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis, which often require pharmacological treatment. * Newer (patented) drugs, which are more expensive than generics, dominate the prescription market. Between 1995 and 2000, five drug categories (including cholesterol lowering agents, high blood pressure drugs, acid-reducing agents and anti-depressants) contributed significantly to the overall rise in drug costs.5 These categories are dominated by newer, patented drugs, many of which are heavily promoted. * Prices of generic drugs, though lower than those of patented drugs, are higher in Canada than in some other countries. For example, generic drug prices are 26% lower in Germany and 68% lower in New Zealand.6 * Marketing practices such as mass media direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) in the United States, and its attendant “spillover” into the Canadian marketplace, may contribute to increased utilization. In Canada the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) maintains price controls on brand-name drugs. Similar price-control mechanisms exist in European Union countries. However, no such controls exist for generic medications in Canada. All in all, prescription medications can be costly for Canadians, especially for those who lack any kind of insurance coverage. The Role of Physicians and the Canadian Medical Association Canada’s doctors are committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to the right drugs, at the right times, at the right prices, to help them achieve the right results – in other words, the best possible health outcomes. The goal of drug therapy is to improve patients’ health and quality of life by preventing, eliminating or controlling diseases or symptoms. Patients, physicians and pharmacists must work in collaboration to achieve this goal. The physician’s role in drug therapy goes well beyond the act of writing out a prescription; it encompasses: * Diagnosing diseases, assessing the need for drug therapy and designing the medication regime; * Working with patients to set treatment goals and monitor progress toward them; * Monitoring the patient’s response to drug therapy, revising the care plan when necessary to support compliance and achieve the best possible health outcomes; * Sharing with the patient specific information about the diseases and the drug therapy, including its effects and potential side effects (including, in some cases, the potential for prescription drug addiction).7 The CMA’s activity has been focused on promoting excellence in prescribing, and on disseminating drug information to physicians.8 In 1999, the CMA worked with Health Canada and the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) to convene an expert roundtable on the subject of “Best Practices in Prescribing”. This was but one effort of the profession to explore why some therapies appear to be under-prescribed, while others may be over-prescribed. CMA has developed principles on the issues of physician information and of providing information on prescription drugs to consumers; both these documents will be discussed later in this submission. CMA and CPhA have also developed a joint policy statement on approaches to enhancing the quality of drug therapy (attached as Appendix I). In addition CMA is co-funding, with the Canadian Institute of Health Research, an interdisciplinary research team focussed on Drug Policy Futures. The team’s identified areas of study include: financing and public expectations; improving quality; health care evaluation and technology assessment; and public advice-seeking in the era of e-health. The CMA publishes Drugs of Choice, a definitive Canadian guide to first- and second-line drug therapies for hundreds of clinical conditions. It is now in its third edition. In addition CMA maintains an extensive database of clinical practice guidelines, including prescribing guidelines, available to physicians and the public through the CMA Web site, and has developed an on line course for physicians on Safe Medication Practices. The cma.ca web site also provides access to a Canadian online drug database that can be downloaded and used with state-of-the-art PDA (personal device) technology at the point of clinical care. CMA’S PRIORITIES FOR ACTION A) Access to quality health care CMA’s history of advocating for access to needed health care services goes back many years. In 2004, a National Access Strategy will be one of the association’s highest-priority activities. With respect to prescription drugs there are several access-related problems: slow approval of new drugs, uneven insurance coverage, and the possible consequences of cross-border shopping on the availability of drugs in Canada. i) Drug Approvals: The Right Drug at the Right Time CMA recommends: 1. That the federal government implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce review times to a level at or better than that in other OECD countries. 2. That the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on drugs and delivery mechanisms that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 3. That Health Canada apply a priority review process to drugs that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. Stakeholders have repeatedly drawn attention to the slowness of Canada’s drug review process. Between 1996 and 1998 Canadian approval times (median 518 days) were significantly longer than Sweden (median 371 days), the UK (median 308 days) and the United States (median 369 days). These have not improved significantly even after Health Canada implemented a cost-recovery approach to funding the drug review process. Delays in the drug review process mean delays in access to new, potentially life-saving medications. For example, 15 other countries approved Singulair, a major breakthrough in asthma therapy, before it was approved in Canada, even though the drug was developed in Montreal! Approximately 10% of children between 5 and 14 years of age have asthma and could have benefited from this relatively safe drug. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a medication for treatment of acute stroke, was approved for use in the United States in 1996 but was not approved in Canada until 1999. Canada’s long drug review times are mainly attributed to lack of resources at Health Canada. CMA recommends that Canada implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce these times to an appropriate level. The 2003 federal budget announcement of $190 million over five years to improve the timeliness of the regulatory process was encouraging. We hope that this will soon translate into a significant reduction in drug review times. Many drugs submitted for approval are not genuinely innovative; some are virtual copies of drugs already on the market. Others, however, could offer substantial improvement over what is currently available. They could be more clinically effective; or they could have fewer side effects; or their mechanism of delivery could increase compliance (for example, medication that can be taken only once a day instead of three or four times a day). CMA recommends that the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on products and delivery mechanisms that offer substantial additional benefit to Canadian patients. It seems logical that drugs that offer benefits not yet available to Canadians should reach patients who need them more quickly. Recently, Health Canada implemented a priority review process for drugs to treat serious, life threatening or debilitating conditions, for which there is substantial evidence that the drug is a significant improvement over existing therapies. This is a promising step. CMA recommends that Health Canada apply a priority review process to all drugs deemed to offer substantial improvement over what is already on the market. This will also serve as an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to emphasize drugs that offer substantial benefit in their research and development plans. ii) Coverage: Making the System Work CMA recommends: 4. That governments and insurance providers conduct research to identify the current gaps in prescription drug coverage for Canadians, and develop policy options for providing this coverage, including consideration of the roles of public and private payers. Coverage for all Canadians. Prescription drugs are Canada’s most notable example of a public/ private partnership in health services delivery. Our country’s blend of public and private drug insurance coverage has worked reasonably well; but there is room for improvement. The Canada Health Act’s mandate covers “drugs, biologicals and related preparations when administered in the hospital”. Provincial and territorial drug programs vary with most covering only seniors and people on social assistance.9 Many Canadians get their drug coverage through private plans offered by their employers. But many people in Canada lack any kind of drug coverage. We do not know exactly how many. According to a report prepared for the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, 2% to 4% of Canadians have no coverage, but other reports place the number closer to 10%.10,11 At a minimum, 1 million to 3 million Canadians are in need of basic prescription drug coverage. Drug therapy may be more cost-efficient than some forms of hospital care. Is the current health care system promoting inefficiency by covering hospital services more completely than prescription drug therapy? In 1997 the National Forum on Health recommended that drugs become part of the publicly funded system. However, such a system would be prohibitively expensive; estimates range from $12.4 billion for a combined public and private model (with co-payments) to $13.8 billion for fully funded, public only model (no co-payments).12 The report of the Romanow Commission acknowledged this when it emphasized the need to “move in a gradual but deliberate and dedicated way to integrate prescription drugs more fully into the continuum of care”. For the short term, the report recommended a Catastrophic Drug Transfer to ensure that Canadians who face the greatest financial burden can continue to access the medications they need. The Trillium program in Ontario is an example of such a program. We need to know more about both the number of people who need drug coverage and the best means of providing them with it. As a first step, CMA recommends that the government, insurance providers and all partners in the public and private sectors conduct research to more accurately identify current gaps in prescription drug coverage, and develop policy options for bridging them. Given the ever larger role that prescription drug therapy is playing in health care in Canada, governments should consider expanding the current basket of “core services” to include prescription drugs. Under the Canada Health Act provinces and territories must ensure that medically necessary physician and hospital services are provided on a first-dollar basis. CMA has recommended that the scope of the basket of core services be updated regularly to reflect the realities of health care delivery and the needs of Canadians. Given the potential of prescription drugs to improve the system’s cost-effectiveness, we believe that Canadian governments must consider whether the concept of “core services” needs to be revised to reflect their importance, provided that this does not further compromise access to medically necessary hospital and physician services. Drug Pricing Policies: Toward a Policy for All Drugs in Canada. As mentioned previously, PMPRB controls the prices of brand-name patent medications in Canada. However, generic drug make up 40% of the drugs prescribed in this country. Canada has no mechanism to control the prices of generic drugs, as do some other countries (France, for example, has a decree stating that the price of a generic product must be at least 30% less than the price of the original patented brand.) 6 Most provinces have policies encouraging substitution of a brand drug by a comparable generic where appropriate. CMA believes it is time for Canadian governments to explore mechanisms for ensuring appropriate pricing of generic medications. Product Substitution: Making health the first priority. Even under their current system of limited coverage, federal and provincial governments have expressed concern about the cost of their drug programs, and implemented measures to reduce this cost. One of these is drug product substitution. Generic substitution, discussed in the previous section, is now commonplace; British Columbia has taken the concept further with its system of reference-based pricing. While CMA recognizes the motives behind drug product substitution, we believe that it should only be implemented if it does not jeopardize quality of care or patient confidentiality. Doctors would be happy to participate in discussion of initiatives around drug product substitution, to ensure that the health of the patient continues to be the highest priority to all stakeholders. iii) Access and Cross-Border Prescribing CMA recommends: 5. That the federal government monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of prescription medications to ensure their continued availability to Canadians. 6. That prescribing of medication be done within the context of the therapeutic relationship that exists between the patient and the physician. Prices of brand-name prescription drugs prices are higher in the US, where no price review body exists, than they are in Canada. As a result access to the need for prescription medication can pose considerable financial hardship, particularly for America’s elderly and poor. The rising cost of brand-name medications in the United States has led many Americans to look to Canada for less expensive alternatives. At least one US city, Springfield, Massachusetts, has begun a voluntary program to purchase prescription medication from Canada for its workers and retirees13 and the State of Illinois is examining the feasibility of following Springfield’s lead.14 US drug costs have also spurred a growth industry in Canada: Internet pharmacies. According to estimates in US media, approximately $650 million (US) worth of prescriptions are sold online every year.15 The prospect of accessing cheaper Canadian drugs is particularly appealing to elderly Americans who have turned to the Internet to purchase prescriptions they would be unable to afford at home. The burgeoning cross-border export of pharmaceuticals has had its consequences. Several brand-name multinational pharmaceutical manufactures have moved to stop or limit supplies to those Canadian pharmacies they believe are selling drugs over the Internet. They must now order directly from the manufacturer instead of from wholesalers.16 The brand-name companies have also held out the prospect of boycotting Canada in response to legislation passed by the US House of Representatives that would allow the importation of drugs by Americans.17 This legislation is now before the US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The US Food and Drug Administration has opposed importation on safety grounds. The CMA shares the increasingly prevalent concern that cross-border export will result in reduced access to prescription drugs in Canada, and damage the research and development capacity of brand-name prescription drug manufacturers in Canada. Therefore the CMA recommends that Canada monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of brand-name drugs to ensure their continued availability in this country. Many Internet pharmacies offer the services of physicians who will sign prescriptions without seeing the patient in a consultation. This is not acceptable to the CMA, or to the regulatory Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons or the Canadian Medical Protective Association. It is clear that, in principle, to form an appropriate therapeutic relationship a physician must take a history, perform an appropriate physical examination, and order and interpret appropriate diagnostic tests on her patients. The role of the physician in drug therapy is a complex one; to be most effective it requires a strong ongoing professional relationship between patient and physician. This relationship is the foundation of medical practice; it is key to a prescribing decision and it must be maintained. Our position is discussed in greater detail in CMA’s Statement on Internet Prescribing (attached as Appendix II). B) Consumer Drug Information: From DTCA to DTCI CMA recommends: 7. That brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA) not be permitted in Canada. 8. That the federal government enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act to the full extent of the law. 9. That the federal government develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. In the past few years an increasing amount of information on prescription medication has become available to consumers. Much of this reaches Canadians in the form of direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) for specific brands, transmitted across the border from the United States, where it is a billion-dollar-a-year business. DTCA is not legal in Canada, except for notification of price, quantity and the name of the drug. However, advertisers have taken advantage of loopholes in the law to promote brand-name drugs in this country – for example, the controversial television campaign for Viagra. DTCA is also transmitted by print and TV across the border from the United States, and worldwide through the Internet. There is a strong lobby for a relaxation of the DTCA restrictions in Canada. DTCA boosts sales of advertised drugs. In 1999, 25 drugs accounted for 40% of that year’s increase in retail drug spending in the US; all these drugs were advertised to the public.18 Further, DTCA adversely affects the patient/physician relationship. Doctors report feeling pressure and ambivalence when patients ask them to prescribe a specific brand-name drug. 19,20 About 20% of respondents to the CMA’s 2003 physician survey felt patients’ request for advertised drugs had a negative impact on the patient/physician relationship.21 Advocates for DTCA maintain that it provides “consumers” with the information they need to become partners in their own health care. They maintain that DTCA does not undermine the patient/physician relationship, because it does not alter the fact that ultimate prescribing authority remains in the hands of the physician. However, the CMA believes that direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is inappropriate. DTCA * does not communicate risk adequately, or provide enough information to allow the consumer to make appropriate drug selections. Generally it does not provide information about other products or therapies that could be used to treat the same condition, * stimulates demand by exaggerating the risks of a disease and generating unnecessary fear, * contributes to a culture of “overmedicalization” by treating normal human conditions such as aging and baldness as diseases, and offering “a pill for every ill”. Brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising should not be permitted in Canada. CMA calls on the federal government to enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act and its regulations to the full extent of the law. We believe that the public has a right to accurate, unbiased direct to consumer information (DTCI) on drugs and other therapies, to enable patients to make decisions regarding their own health care. This information may increase the appropriateness of prescription drug use. For example, it may encourage consumers to get treatment for conditions that are currently under-treated. However, there are more effective ways to provide this information than brand-name advertising. CMA has developed “Principles for Providing Information about Prescription Drugs to Consumers” as an alternative to DTCA; these are attached as Appendix III. We call on Canadian stakeholders, including governments, health professionals, consumer groups and industry, to work together to provide information for the public based on these principles. Further, the CMA calls on the federal government to develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. C) Safety: Ensuring Best Practices in Prescribing CMA recommends: 10. That all stakeholders join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in prescribing. 11. That government accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a systems approach to support a culture of safety. 12. That a post-marketing surveillance system be implemented to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. The health care system is complex, involving many inter-related and interdependent factors which could influence the frequency and intensity of medication incidents. Such “systems factors” might include * shortage of qualified health professionals (physicians, nurses and others), * inappropriate use of new technology, * unclear labeling or similar-looking drug preparations, * prescription drug misuse, including over-prescribing or under-prescribing of certain medications. Canada’s doctors are working to promote drug safety on a number of fronts. For example, CMA is working with governments at all levels to ensure that we do not “enrich the nation’s urine” through unnecessary prescribing. The Canadian Medical Association Journal regularly publishes research on prescribing practices. CMA also publishes Safe Medication Practices, a physician guide to patient safety; a companion online course is available on the cma.ca web site. We propose that the health care system work to create a culture that promotes optimal prescribing, by fostering outcomes research, creating supportive infrastructures, strengthening the capacity for post-marketing surveillance, and making the best possible use of technology. Our suggestions are discussed below. Closing the Care Gap. Given our present knowledge base, it is often difficult to ascertain whether current drug utilization patterns lead to improvements in health. For example, research on compliance with drug therapy, and the factors that improve it, is in its infancy and though we know that direct-to-consumer advertising affects drug sales we have yet to determine whether it affects health outcomes. A commitment to outcome-based research on drug utilization would help us find the answers to these and other questions. Research on prescribing patterns should respect the conditions outlined in CMA’s “Principles Concerning Physician Information” (attached as Appendix IV). The CMA calls on all stakeholders (governments, health professionals and the private sector) to join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in drug utilization and prescribing, and close care gaps when they are identified. Creating an infrastructure for safety. The CMA has no doubt of the overall quality of the prescription medications approved for use in Canada. However, the more drugs are used, the greater their potential for unintended harm. Studies in the United States have found that almost 2% of patients admitted to hospitals experienced a significant adverse drug event, and that the number of deaths due to medications increased over 200% over five years.22 Though studies are still in progress in Canada, we assume that rates of adverse medication events are similar in the two countries. The 2003 federal budget committed $10 million per year to establish a Patient Safety Institute to monitor and prevent medical incidents. This is an important step toward building a safer health care system, and Canada’s doctors are committed to moving this initiative forward. The CMA, with 11 other health care organizations, is a member of the Canadian Coalition on Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention. This initiative is led by Health Canada and has recently been funded through the Patient Safety Initiative. The federal government has also recently funded the Canadian Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention System to collect data on medication incidents and disseminate information designed to reduce their risk. The CMA believes that to be effective a patient safety initiative must * be voluntary, * be non-punitive; and * protect the privacy and confidentiality of physicians and patients. Further, efforts towards ensuring patient safety should address in a timely manner the “systems” issues referred to above, supporting and fostering a culture of safety. CMA is calling on governments to accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a “systems” approach. Strengthening Post-Marketing Surveillance. No matter how rigourous the drug approval and review process, it cannot identify all of a medication’s effects; many of these are only identified once the drug is in widespread use in the general population. A strong post-marketing surveillance system is needed to gather this knowledge and ensure patient safety. A post marketing surveillance system should include timely collection of data related to * adverse drug reactions, * medication incidents, * targeted drug effectiveness studies, * optimal utilization of medications. The goal of an enhanced post-marketing surveillance system is to monitor the ongoing safety and risk/benefit ratio of medications once they have been approved and are being used in the broad population. An ideal surveillance system would go beyond collecting and collating data, to analyze it and produce information that health care professionals and policy makers can use in decision-making at the population level. For example, data could be used to * communicate product related risks to health professionals and patients, * determine the incidence of adverse drug reactions and medication incidents in the Canadian population as a whole and various subgroups over time, as well as their health and economic impact. Currently post-marketing surveillance of drugs in Canada is inadequate, relying on reporting which is often erratic and inconsistent, and for which reporters are not compensated. Canada needs a coordinated post-marketing surveillance system to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. Surveillance should include medication incidents and adverse drug reactions, and should document and consider the effect of the “systems factors” contributing to these events. Making use of supportive technology. We mentioned that the current reporting system is erratic and inconsistent. An investment in supportive technology would reduce inconsistencies by increasing physicians’ capacity to report and even prevent medication incidents. Under the September 2000 federal/provincial Health Accord, the Government of Canada announced $500 million to expand the use of health information and communications technologies, including the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). One of the advantages cited for a pan-Canadian EHR is that it could reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events – for example, handwritten prescription and interpretation errors. Progress has been slow, but CMA will follow with interest the pilot EHR program just announced in Alberta. While we expect improvement in prescribing practices and outcomes under such programs, we expect them to respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the right of prescribers to the privacy of their prescribing information. Technology can also make real-time communication within the health care system much easier. and CMA strongly recommends an investment in systems that can link physicians to one another and to the rest of the health care system. In its 2003 brief to the Finance Committee’s pre budget hearings, CMA recommended that the federal government immediately fund dedicated Internet connectivity for all physicians in Canada. CMA has also repeatedly called for sustained and substantial investment in a “REAL” (rapid, effective, accessible and linked) Health Communications and Coordination Initiative to improve technical capacity to communicate with front-line health providers in real time. Real-time information is essential for effective day-to-day health care and will form the cornerstone of an adverse drug reaction communication program for the 21st century. Conclusion It is vital to Canada’s physicians that our patients receive the right medications for their condition, at the right times, at the right prices. CMA calls on the federal government and all other stakeholders to work together to develop a comprehensive “made in Canada” prescription drug policy to realize this vision – one that promotes optimal prescribing, puts the health of patients first, respects the relationships of patient and physician and of patient and pharmacist, and honours the principle of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. The reports of the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada and the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Social Affairs and Technology review discussed issues surrounding prescription drug policy in Canada. We hope that the review by this parliamentary committee will lead to prompt and decisive action. APPENDIX I CMA POLICY APPROACHES TO ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF DRUG THERAPY A JOINT STATEMENT BY THE CMA ANDTHE CANADIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION This joint statement was developed by the CMA and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, a national association of pharmacists, and includes the goal of drug therapy, strategies for collaboration to optimize drug therapy and physicians' and pharmacists' responsibilities in drug therapy. The statement recognizes the importance of patients, physicians and pharmacists working in close collaboration and partnership to achieve optimal outcomes from drug therapy. Goal of This Joint Statement The goal of this joint statement is to promote optimal drug therapy by enhancing communication and working relationships among patients, physicians and pharmacists. It is also meant to serve as an educational resource for pharmacists and physicians so that they will have a clearer understanding of each other's responsibilities in drug therapy. In the context of this statement, a "patient" may include a designated patient representative, such as a parent, spouse, other family member, patient advocate or health care provider. Physicians and pharmacists have a responsibility to work with their patients to achieve optimal outcomes by providing high-quality drug therapy. The important contribution of all members of the health care team and the need for cooperative working relationships are recognized; however, this statement focuses on the specific relationships among pharmacists, physicians and patients with respect to drug therapy. This statement is a general guide and is not intended to describe all aspects of physicians' or pharmacists' activities. It is not intended to be restrictive, nor should it inhibit positive developments in pharmacist-physician relationships or in their respective practices that contribute to optimal drug therapy. Furthermore, this statement should be used and interpreted in accordance with applicable legislation and other legal requirements. This statement will be reviewed and assessed regularly to ensure its continuing applicability to medical and pharmacy practices. Goal of Drug Therapy The goal of drug therapy is to improve patients' health and quality of life by preventing, eliminating or controlling diseases or symptoms. Optimal drug therapy is safe, effective, appropriate, affordable, cost-effective and tailored to meet the needs of patients, who participate, to the best of their ability, in making informed decisions about their therapy. Patients require access to necessary drug therapy and specific, unbiased drug information to meet their individual needs. Providing optimal drug therapy also requires a valid and accessible information base generated by basic, clinical, pharmaceutical and other scientific research. Working Together for Optimal Drug Therapy Physicians and pharmacists have complementary and supportive responsibilities in providing optimal drug therapy. To achieve this goal, and to ensure that patients receive consistent information, patients, pharmacists and physicians must work cooperatively and in partnership. This requires effective communication, respect, trust, and mutual recognition and understanding of each other's complementary responsibilities. The role of each profession in drug therapy depends on numerous factors, including the specific patient and his or her drug therapy, the prescription status of the drug concerned, the setting and the patient physician pharmacist relationship. However, it is recognized that, in general, each profession may focus on certain areas more than others. For example, when counselling patients on their drug therapy, a physician may focus on disease-specific counselling, goals of therapy, risks and benefits and rare side effects, whereas a pharmacist may focus on correct usage, treatment adherence, dosage, precautions, dietary restrictions and storage. Areas of overlap may include purpose, common side effects and their management and warnings regarding drug interactions and lifestyle concerns. Similarly, when monitoring drug therapy, a physician would focus on clinical progress toward treatment goals, whereas a pharmacist may focus on drug effects, interactions and treatment adherence; both would monitor adverse effects. Both professions should tailor drug therapy, including education, to meet the needs of individual patients. To provide continuity of care and to promote consistency in the information being provided, it is important that both pharmacists and physicians assess the patients' knowledge and identify and reinforce the educational component provided by the other. Strategies for Collaborating to Optimize Drug Therapy Patients, physicians and pharmacists need to work in close collaboration and partnership to achieve optimal drug therapy. Strategies to facilitate such teamwork include the following. Respecting and supporting patients' rights to make informed decisions regarding their drug therapy. Promoting knowledge, understanding and acceptance by physicians and pharmacists of their responsibilities in drug therapy and fostering widespread communication of these responsibilities so they are clearly understood by all. Supporting both professions' relationship with patients, and promoting a collaborative approach to drug therapy within the health care team. Care must be taken to maintain patients' trust and their relationship with other caregivers. Sharing relevant patient information for the enhancement of patient care, in accordance and compliance with all of the following: ethical standards to protect patient privacy, accepted medical and pharmacy practice, and the law. Patients should inform their physician and pharmacist of any information that may assist in providing optimal drug therapy. Increasing physicians' and pharmacists' awareness that it is important to make themselves readily available to each other to communicate about a patient for whom they are both providing care. Enhancing documentation (e.g., clearly written prescriptions and communication forms) and optimizing the use of technology (e.g., e-mail, voice mail and fax) in individual practices to enhance communication, improve efficiency and support consistency in information provided to patients. Developing effective communication and administrative procedures between health care institutions and community-based pharmacists and physicians to support continuity of care. Developing local communication channels and encouraging dialogue between the professions (e.g., through joint continuing education programs and local meetings) to promote a peer-review-based approach to local prescribing and drug-use issues. Teaching a collaborative approach to patient care as early as possible in the training of pharmacists and physicians. Developing effective communication channels and encouraging dialogue among patients, physicians and pharmacists at the regional, provincial, territorial and national levels to address issues such as drug-use policy, prescribing guidelines and continuing professional education. Collaborating in the development of technology to enhance communication in practices (e.g., shared patient databases relevant to drug therapy). Working jointly on committees and projects concerned with issues in drug therapy such as patient education, treatment adherence, formularies and practice guidelines, hospital-to-community care, cost-control strategies, sampling and other relevant policy issues concerning drug therapy. Fostering the development and utilization of a high-quality clinical and scientific information base to support evidence-based decision making. The Physician's Responsibilities Physicians and pharmacists recognize the following responsibilities in drug therapy as being within the scope of physicians' practice, on the basis of such factors as physicians' education and specialized skills, relationship with patients and practice environment. Some responsibilities may overlap with those of pharmacists (see The Pharmacist's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that practice environments within medicine may differ and may affect the physician's role. Assessing health status, diagnosing diseases, assessing the need for drug therapy and providing curative, preventive, palliative and rehabilitative drug therapy in consultation with patients and in collaboration with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care professionals, when appropriate. Working with patients to set therapeutic goals and monitor progress toward such goals in consultation with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care providers, when appropriate. Monitoring and assessing response to drug therapy, progress toward therapeutic goals and patient adherence to the therapeutic plan; when necessary, revising the plan on the basis of outcomes of current therapy and progress toward goals of therapy, in consultation with patients and in collaboration with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care providers, when appropriate. Carrying out surveillance of and assessing patients for adverse reactions to drugs and other unanticipated problems related to drug therapy, revising therapy and, when appropriate, reporting adverse reactions and other complications to health authorities. Providing specific information to patients and caregivers about diagnosis, indications and treatment goals, and the action, benefits, risks and potential side effects of drug therapy. Providing and sharing general and specific information and advice about disease and drugs with patients, caregivers, health care providers and the public. Maintaining adequate records of drug therapy for each patient, including, when applicable, goals of therapy, therapy prescribed, progress toward goals, revisions of therapy, a list of drugs (both prescription and over-the-counter drugs) currently taken, adverse reactions to therapy, history of known drug allergies, smoking history, occupational exposure or risk, known patterns of alcohol or substance use that may influence response to drugs, history of treatment adherence and attitudes toward drugs. Records should also document patient counselling and advice given, when appropriate. Ensuring safe procurement, storage, handling, preparation, distribution, dispensing and record keeping of drugs (in keeping with federal and provincial regulations and the CMA policy summary "Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Update 1994)" (Can Med Assoc J 1994;150:256A-C.) when the patient cannot reasonably receive such services from a pharmacist. Maintaining a high level of knowledge about drug therapy through critical appraisal of the literature and continuing professional development. Care must be provided in accordance with legislation and in an atmosphere of privacy, and patient confidentiality must be maintained. Care also should be provided in accordance with accepted scientific and ethical standards and procedures. The Pharmacist's Responsibilities Pharmacists and physicians recognize the following responsibilities as being within the scope of pharmacists' practice, on the basis of such factors as pharmacists' education and specialized skills, relationship with patients and practice environment. Some responsibilities may overlap with those of physicians (see The Physician's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that, in selected practice environments, the pharmacists' role may differ considerably. Evaluating the patients' drug-therapy record ("drug profile") and reviewing prescription orders to ensure that a prescribed therapy is safe and to identify, solve or prevent actual or potential drug-related problems or concerns. Examples include possible contraindications, drug interactions or therapeutic duplication, allergic reactions and patient nonadherence to treatment. Significant concerns should be discussed with the prescriber. Ensuring safe procurement, storage, preparation, distribution and dispensing of pharmaceutical products (in keeping with federal, provincial and other applicable regulations). Discussing actual or potential drug-related problems or concerns and the purpose of drug therapy with patients, in consultation with caregivers, physicians and health care providers, when appropriate. Monitoring drug therapy to identify drug-related problems or concerns, such as lack of symptomatic response, lack of adherence to treatment plans and suspected adverse effects. Significant concerns should be discussed with the physician. Advising patients and caregivers on the selection and use of nonprescription drugs and the management of minor symptoms or ailments. Directing patients to consult their physician for diagnosis and treatment when required. Pharmacists may be the first contact for health advice. Through basic patient assessment (i.e., observation and interview) they should identify the need for referral to a physician or an emergency department. Notifying physicians of actual or suspected adverse reactions to drugs and, when appropriate, reporting such reactions to health authorities. Providing specific information to patients and caregivers about drug therapy, taking into account patients' existing knowledge about their drug therapy. This information may include the name of the drug, its purpose, potential interactions or side effects, precautions, correct usage, methods to promote adherence to the treatment plan and any other health information appropriate to the needs of the patient. Providing and sharing general and specific drug-related information and advice with patients, caregivers, physicians, health care providers and the public. Maintaining adequate records of drug therapy to facilitate the prevention, identification and management of drug-related problems or concerns. These records should contain, but are not limited to, each patient's current and past drug therapy (including both prescribed and selected over-the-counter drugs), drug-allergy history, appropriate demographic data and, if known, the purpose of therapy and progress toward treatment goals, adverse reactions to therapy, the patient's history of adherence to treatment, attitudes toward drugs, smoking history, occupational exposure or risk, and known patterns of alcohol or substance use that may influence his or her response to drugs. Records should also document patient counselling and advice given, when appropriate. Maintaining a high level of knowledge about drug therapy through critical appraisal of the literature and continuing professional development. Care must be provided in accordance with legislation and in an atmosphere of privacy, and patient confidentiality must be maintained. Products and services should be provided in accordance with accepted scientific and ethical standards and procedures. APPENDIX II CMA POLICY Statement on Internet Prescribing The act of prescribing medication is a medical act carried out in the context of a patient-physician relationship. As such, it is subject to the clinical standards of practice, as well as the ethical guidelines of the medical profession and applicable law. Physicians should be aware of and comply with the legal requirements in their province or territory. If a physician wishes to sign a prescription for an individual who has not previously been his/her patient or a patient of his/her group practice or shared call group, basic principles of assessment and diagnosis must be applied. It is incumbent upon the physician to obtain an adequate history and perform an appropriate physical examination to reach a diagnosis which will ensure that the prescribed medications are appropriate. The physician should be expected to provide advice about any prescribed medication, and, where appropriate, would be expected to provide advice about appropriate monitoring requirements. The physician is advised to fully document the encounter. It is not acceptable for a physician to sign a prescription without properly assessing the patient. APPENDIX III CMA POLICY Principles for Providing Information about Prescription Drugs to Consumers Approved by the CMA Board of Directors, March 2003 Since the late 1990’s expenditures on direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs in the United States have increased many-fold. Though U.S.-style DTCA is not legal in Canada23, it reaches Canadians through cross-border transmission of print and broadcast media, and through the Internet. It is believed to have affected drug sales and patient behaviour in Canada. Other therapeutic products, such as vaccines and diagnostic tests, are also being marketed directly to the public. Proponents of DTCA argue that they are providing consumers with much-needed information on drugs and the conditions they treat. Others argue that the underlying intent of such advertising is to increase revenue or market share, and that it therefore cannot be interpreted as unbiased information. The CMA believes that consumers have a right to accurate information on prescription medications and other therapeutic interventions, to enable them to make informed decisions about their own health. This information is especially necessary as more and more Canadians live with chronic conditions, and as we anticipate the availability of new products that may accompany the “biological revolution”, e.g. gene therapies. The CMA recommends a review of current mechanisms, including mass media communications, for providing this information to the public. CMA believes that consumer information on prescription drugs should be provided according to the following principles. 24 Principle #1: The Goal is Good Health The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of consumer drug information should be its impact on the health and well-being of Canadians and the quality of health care. Principle #2: Ready Access Canadians should have ready access to credible, high-quality information about prescription drugs. The primary purpose of this information should be education; sales of drugs must not be a concern to the originator. Principle #3: Patient Involvement Consumer drug information should help Canadians make informed decisions regarding management of their health, and facilitate informed discussion with their physicians and other health professionals. CMA encourages Canadians to become educated about their own health and health care, and to appraise health information critically. Principle #4: Evidence-Based Content Consumer drug information should be evidence based, using generally accepted prescribing guidelines as a source where available. Principle #5: Appropriate Information Consumer drug information should be based as much as possible on drug classes and use of generic names; if discussing brand-name drugs the discussion should not be limited to a single specific brand, and brand names should always be preceded by generic names. It should provide information on the following: * indications for use of the drug * contraindications * side effects * relative cost. In addition, consumer drug information should discuss the drug in the context of overall management of the condition for which it is indicated (for example, information about other therapies, lifestyle management and coping strategies). Principle #6: Objectivity of Information Sources Consumer drug information should be provided in such a way as to minimize the impact of vested commercial interests on the information content. Possible sources include health care providers, or independent research agencies. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and patient or consumer groups can be valuable partners in this process but must not be the sole providers of information. Federal and provincial/territorial governments should provide appropriate sustaining support for the development and maintenance of up-to-date consumer drug information. Principle #7: Endorsement/ Accreditation Consumer drug information should be endorsed or accredited by a reputable and unbiased body. Information that is provided to the public through mass media channels should be pre-cleared by an independent board. Principle #8: Monitoring and Revision Consumer drug information should be continually monitored to ensure that it correctly reflects current evidence, and updated when research findings dictate. Principle #9: Physicians as Partners Consumer drug information should support and encourage open patient-physician communication, so that the resulting plan of care, including drug therapy, is mutually satisfactory. Physicians play a vital role in working with patients and other health-care providers to achieve optimal drug therapy, not only through writing prescriptions but through discussing proposed drugs and their use in the context of the overall management of the patient’s condition. In addition, physicians and other health care providers, and their associations, can play a valuable part in disseminating drug and other health information to the public. Principle #10: Research and Evaluation Ongoing research should be conducted into the impact of drug information and DTCA on the health care system, with particular emphasis on its effect on appropriateness of prescribing, and on health outcomes. APPENDIX IV CMA POLICY PRINCIPLES CONCERNING PHYSICIAN INFORMATION In an environment in which the capacity to capture, link and transmit information is growing and the need for fuller accountability is being created, the demand for physician information, and the number of people and organizations seeking to collect it, is increasing. Physician information, that is, information that includes personal health information about and information that relates or may relate to the professional activity of an identifiable physician or group of physicians, is valuable for a variety of purposes. The legitimacy and importance of these purposes varies a great deal, and therefore the rationale and rules related to the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information also varies. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) developed this policy to provide guiding principles to those who collect, use, have access to or disclose physician information. Such people are termed “custodians,” and they should be held publicly accountable. These principles complement and act in concert with the CMA Health Information Privacy Code,25 which holds patient health information sacrosanct. Physicians have legitimate interests in what information about them is collected, on what authority, by whom and for what purposes it is collected, and what safeguards and controls are in place. These interests include privacy and the right to exercise some control over the information; protection from the possibility that information will cause unwarranted harm, either at the individual or the group level; and assurance that interpretation of the information is accurate and unbiased. These legitimate interests extend to information about physicians that has been rendered in non-identifiable or aggregate format (e.g., to protect against the possibility of individual physicians being identified or of physician groups being unjustly stigmatized). Information in these formats, however, may be less sensitive than information from which an individual physician can be readily identified and, therefore, may warrant less protection. The purposes for the use of physician information may be more or less compelling. One compelling use is related to the fact that physicians, as members of a self-regulating profession, are professionally accountable to their patients, their profession and society. Physicians support this professional accountability purpose through the legislated mandate of their regulatory colleges. Physicians also recognize the importance of peer review in the context of professional development and maintenance of competence. The CMA supports the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. Purpose(s): The purpose(s) for the collection of physician information, and any other purpose(s) for which physician information may be subsequently used, accessed or disclosed, should be precisely specified at or before the collection. There should be a reasonable expectation that the information will achieve the stated purpose(s). The policy does not prevent the use of information for purposes that were not intended and not reasonably anticipated if principles 3 and 4 of this policy are met. 2. Consent: As a rule, information should be collected directly from the physician. Subject to principle 4, consent should be sought from the physician for the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information. The physician should be informed about all intended and anticipated uses, accesses or disclosures of the information. 3. Conditions for collection, use, access and disclosure: The information should: * be limited to the minimum necessary to carry out the stated purpose(s), * be in the least intrusive format required for the stated purpose(s), and its collection, use, access and disclosure should not infringe on the physician’s duty of confidentiality with respect to that information. 4. Use of information without consent: There may be justification for the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information without the physician’s consent if, in addition to the conditions in principle 3 being met, the custodian publicly demonstrates with respect to the purpose(s), generically construed, that: * the stated purpose(s) could not be met or would be seriously compromised if consent were required, * the stated purpose(s) is(are) of sufficient importance that the public interest outweighs to a substantial degree the physician’s right to privacy and right of consent in a free and democratic society, and * that the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information with respect to the stated purpose(s) always ensures justice and fairness to the physician by being consistent with principle 6 of this policy. 5. Physician’s access to his or her own information: Physicians have a right to view and ensure, in a timely manner, the accuracy of the information collected about them. This principle does not apply if there is reason to believe that the disclosure to the physician will cause substantial adverse effect to others. The onus is on the custodian to justify a denial of access. 6. Information quality and interpretation: Custodians must take reasonable steps to ensure that the information they collect, use, gain access to or disclose is accurate, complete and correct. Custodians must use valid and reliable collection methods and, as appropriate, involve physicians to interpret the information; these physicians must have practice characteristics and credentials similar to those of the physician whose information is being interpreted. 7. Security: Physical and human safeguards must exist to ensure the integrity and reliability of physician information and to protect against unauthorized collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information. 8. Retention and destruction: Physician information should be retained only for the length of time necessary to fulfill the specified purpose(s), after which time it should be destroyed. 9. Inquiries and complaints: Custodians must have in place a process whereby inquiries and complaints can be received, processed and adjudicated in a fair and timely way. The complaint process, including how to initiate a complaint, must be made known to physicians. 10. Openness and transparency: Custodians must have transparent and explicit record-keeping or database management policies, practices and systems that are open to public scrutiny, including the purpose(s) for the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information. The existence of any physician information record-keeping systems or database systems must be made known and available upon request to physicians. 11. Accountability: Custodians of physician information must ensure that they have proper authority and mandate to collect, use, gain access to or disclose physician information. Custodians must have policies and procedures in place that give effect to the principles in this document. Custodians must have a designated person who is responsible for monitoring practices and ensuring compliance with the policies and procedures. 1 Romanow R. Building on Values: the Future of Health Care in Canada. Report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; November 2002. 2 Chobanian et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 2003; 289. 3 Butler C, Rollnick S, Stott N. The practitioner, the patient and resistance to change. Recent Ideas on Compliance 1996;14(9):1357-62. 4 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health spending to top $112 billion in 2002, reports CIHI. Media release. December 18, 2002. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_18dec2002_e 5 Patent Medicine Prices Review Board. Pharmaceutical Trends, 1995/96 – 1999/00. Prepared for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Drug Prices; September 2001. 6 Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, A study of the Prices of the Top Selling Multiple Source Medicines in Canada. November 2002. 7 Approaches to Enhancing the Quality of Drug Therapy.” Joint policy of the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Pharmacists Association. 8 It should be noted that the CMA does not have the authority to enforce directives on physicians with regard to prescribing. The provincial and Territorial Colleges of Physicians handle licensing and regulatory matters. 9 Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan provide some coverage to all residents after the co-payments and deductibles are paid. Quebec provides universal coverage to those not in a private plan. 10 Fraser Group/Tristat Resources. Drug Expense Coverage in the Canadian Population – Protection from Severe Drug Expenses. CLHIA. August 2002. 11 Palmer D’Angelo Consulting Inc. National Pharmacare Cost Impact Update Study. Executive Summary. September 4, 2002. 12 Ibid 13 Tynan T. Cash-strapped Springfield, Mass., begins buying Canadian prescription drugs. Edmonton Journal July 29, 2003. http://www.canada.com/edmonton/story.asp?id=21FB8445-1143-4C13-B282-76F380CB4FE1 14 CBSNews.com. Illinois looks to Canada for drugs. CBS News September 15, 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/health/main565611.shtml 15Kedrosky P. Dangerous popularity of online pharmacies. National Post August 13, 2003. 16 Harris G. Pfizer moves to stem Canadian drug imports. New York Times August 7, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/07DRUG.html 17 Cusack B., Stinson S. US drug firms set to boycott Canada. National Post August 7, 2003. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=363CC2EA-1832-42F2-954C-0F52D1828E23 18 “Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising.” National Institute for Health Care Management Research. Washington, DC, 2001. 19 Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL at al. How does direct to consumer advertising affect prescribing? a survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. CMAJ 169 (2003): 405 –412. 20 Food and Drug Administration. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: physician survey preliminary results. Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac. 21Survey shows strong opposition to direct to consumer advertising. Accessed at http://www.cma.ca/cma/ 22 Canadian Coalition on Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention. A medication incident reporting and prevention system for Canada: business Plan. March 2002. 23 DTCA is not legal in Canada, except for notification of price, quantity and the name of the drug. However, “information-seeking” advertisements for prescription drugs, which may provide the name of the drug without mentioning its indications, or announce that treatments are available for specific indications without mentioning drugs by name, have appeared in Canadian mass media. 24 Though the paper applies primarily to prescription drug information, its principles are also applicable to health information in general. 25 Canadian Medical Association. Health Information Privacy Code. CMAJ 1998;159(8):997-1016.
Documents
Less detail

Equitable and comprehensive national pharmacare program

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11652
Date
2015-08-26
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Resolution
GC15-72
The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of an equitable and comprehensive national pharmacare program.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Date
2015-08-26
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Resolution
GC15-72
The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of an equitable and comprehensive national pharmacare program.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of an equitable and comprehensive national pharmacare program.
Less detail

National pharmacare in Canada: Getting there from here

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11959
Date
2016-06-01
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2016-06-01
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
On behalf of 83,000 physician members, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health study on the Development of a National Pharmacare Program. Recognizing that the term “pharmacare” is used in different contexts, for the purposes of this brief, pharmacare is defined as a program whereby Canadians have comparable access to medically necessary prescription medications, irrespective of their ability to pay, wherever they live in Canada. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Founded in 1867, the CMA’s mission is helping physicians care for patients. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease/injury prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. Key Facts According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), in 2014, of the estimated $28.8 billion spent in Canada on prescription medications (representing 13.4% of total health spending), governmentsi accounted for 42.0%, and private insurers and out-of-pocket (OOP) payment accounted for 35.8% and 22.2% respectively.1 The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada’s physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and over 60 national medical organizations. i Includes federal. Social security fund and provincial/territorial spending 1 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Prescribed drug spending in Canada, 2013: a focus on public drug programs. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/Prescribed%20Drug%20Spending%20in%20Canada_2014_EN.pdf. Accessed 05/15/16. 2 Royal Commission on Health Services. Report Volume One. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964. 3 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Health Expenditure Database 1975 to 2015. Table D 3.1.1-D3.13.1 https://www.cihi.ca/en/spending-and-health-workforce/spending/national-health-expenditure-trends. Accessed 05/08/16. 4 Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 203-0022 Survey of household spending (SHS), household spending, Canada, regions and provinces, by household income quintile. Accessed 05/18/16. 5 Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada. 2014-15 Report Card on Cancer in Canada. http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/reportcard/2014/Report%20Card%20on%20Cancer%20in%20Canada%202014-2015.pdf. Accessed 05/08/16. 6 Canadian Cancer Society. Cancer drug access for Canadians. http://www.colorectal-cancer.ca/IMG/pdf/cancer_drug_access_report_en.pdf. Accessed 05/08/16. 7Schoen C, Osborn R, Squires D, Doty M. Access, affordability, and insurance complexity are often worse in the United States compared to ten other countries. Health Affairs 2013;32(12):2205-15. 8 Himmelstein D, Woolhandler S, Sarra J, Guyatt G. Health issues and health care expenses in Canadian bankruptices and insolvencies. International Journal of Health Services 2014;44(1):7-23. 9 Law M, Cheng L, Dhalla I, Heard D, Morgan S. The effect of cost on adherence to prescription medications in Canada. CMAJ 2012. 184)3):297-302. 10 Tamblyn R, Eguale T, Huang A, Winslade N, Doran P. The incidence and determinants of primary nonadherence with prescribed medication in primary care. Ann Inter Med 2014;160:441-50. Pharmacare is clearly part of the unfinished business of Medicare. Numerous authors have pointed out that Canada is the only developed country that does not include prescription medications as part of its universal health program. Table 1 below shows how Canada compares with the 22 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the proportion of public spending for major categories of health expenditure in 2012. Table 1. Public spending as % of total spending: Major health spending categories, Canada and 22 OECD country average, 2012 % Public Spending Prescription Drugs Hospitals Doctors’ Offices Canada 42 91 99 OECD Average 70 88 72 Source: OECD.Stat, Doctors’ offices figure for Sweden is 2009 In the case of prescription medications, Canada was more than one-third (40%) below the OECD average. The Patchwork Quilt of Public-Private Coverage In 1964 the Hall Commission recommended 50/50 cost-sharing between the federal and provincial governments toward the establishment of a prescription drug program, with a $1.00 charge for each prescription. At the time, prescription medications represented 6.5% of spending on personal health services.2 This recommendation was not implemented. It might be further added that the Hall report contained 25 forward-looking recommendations on pharmaceuticals that remain current to this day, including bulk purchasing, generic substitution and a national formulary.2 As a result of the lack of inclusion of prescription medications in Medicare, there is wide variation today in public per capita spending on prescription drugs across the provinces. It may be seen in Table 2 that, for 2014, CIHI has estimated that public per capita expenditure ranged from $219 in British Columbia and $255 in Prince Edward Island (PE) to $369 in Saskatchewan and $437 in Quebec.3 CIHI does not provide estimates of private per capita prescription drug spending (private insurance plus OOP) below the national level. Table 2: Spending on prescription drugs: Selected indicators by province and territory, 2014 Province/ Territory Public spendinga ($ million) Public per capita spendinga ($ ) Private insuranceb ($ million) Average household out-of-pocketc $ NL 156.7 297 177 454 PE 37.3 255 32 516 NS 302.2 321 337 429 NB 210.8 280 284 477 QC 3,588.7 437 2,369 466 ON 4,730.4 346 4,626 324 MB 411.3 321 249 516 SK 415.4 369 192 514 AB 1,383.7 336 1,065 409 BC 1,015.8 219 894 456 YT 14.0 383 - - NT 17.5 400 - - NU 13.6 372 - - Territories 45.1 385 23 - Canada 12,297.4 334d 10,247 408 a CIHI, National Health Expenditure Database 1975-2015, includes all public funding sources b Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association c Statistics Canada, Survey of Household Spending, 2014 d Provincial/territorial average Table 2 also shows the significant role of private insurance in every region of Canada. Data provided by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, shown in Column 3 of Table 2, show that private health insurance companies paid out $10.2 billion for prescription drug claims in 2014, representing 83% of the $12.3 billion paid for by governments. In three provinces — Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — the amount paid by private insurance exceeds that paid by governments. Table 2 also shows that there is wide variation in average household OOP spending on prescription drugs, according to Statistics Canada’s Survey of Household Spending (SHS). In 2014 this ranged from a low of $324 in Ontario to a high of $516 in PE and Manitoba.4 Even more striking variation is evident when looking at household out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs by income quintile (detailed data not shown). According to the 2014 SHS the poorest one-fifth (lowest income quintile) of PE households spent more than twice as much ($645) OOP on prescription drugs than the poorest one-fifth in Ontario ($300).4 Aside from overall differences in public spending there are also differences in which medications are covered, particularly in the case of cancer drugs. The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada reported in 2014 that four provinces have fully funded access to cancer medications taken at home. In Ontario and Atlantic Canada however, cancer drugs that must be taken in a hospital setting and are on the provincial formulary are fully funded by the provincial government; if the drug is taken outside of hospital (oral or injectable), the patient and family may have to pay significant costs out-of-pocket.5 More generally the Canadian Cancer Society has reported that persons moving from one province to another may find that a medication covered in their former province may not be covered in the new one. 6 Other sources confirm that prescription medication spending is an issue for many Canadians. On the Commonwealth Fund’s 2013 International Health Policy Survey, 8% of the Canadian respondents said that they had either not filled a prescription or skipped doses because of cost issues.7 Himmelstein et al. reported on a survey of Canadians who experienced bankruptcy between 2008 and 2010. They found that 74.5% of the respondents who had had a medical bill within the last two years reported that prescription drugs was their biggest medical expense.8 At least two Canadian studies have documented the impact that out-of-pocket costs, lack of insurance and low income have on non-adherenceii to prescription regimens. Law et al. examined cost-related non-adherence in the 2007 Canadian Community Health Survey and found that those without drug insurance were more than four times as likely to report non-adherence than those with insurance. The predicted rate of non-adherence among those with high household incomes and drug insurance was almost 10 times as high as that among those with low incomes and no insurance (35.6% vs. 3.6%).9 Based on a large-scale study of the incidence of primary non-adherence (defined as not filing a new prescription within nine months) in a group of some 70,000 Quebec patients, Tamblyn et al. reported that there was a 63% reduction in the odds of non-adherence among those with free medication over those with the maximum level of co-payment. They also reported that the odds of non-adherence increased with the cost of the medication prescribed.10 ii Non-adherence can be defined as doing something to make a medication last longer or failing to fill or renew a prescription. Previous Pharmacare Proposals In a recent monograph Katherine Boothe has contrasted the development of national prescription medication programs in Australia and the United Kingdom with the failure to do so in Canada.11 11 Boothe K. Ideas and the pace of change: national pharmaceutical insurance in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. 12 National Forum on Health. Directions for a pharmaceutical policy in Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/renewal-renouv/1997-nfoh-fnss-v2/index-eng.php. Accessed 05/18/16. 13 National Forum on Health. Canada health action: building on the legacy. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 1997. 14 Bank of Canada. Inflation calculator. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/?page_moved=1. Accessed 05/18/16. 15 Statistics Canada. Table 051-0001 Estimates of population, by age group and sex for July 1, Canada, provinces and territories. Accessed 05/15/16. 16 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure database 1975 to 2015. Table C.3.1. Public health expenditure by use of funds, Canada, 1975 to 2015. https://www.cihi.ca/en/spending-and-health-workforce/spending/national-health-expenditure-trends. Accessed 05/25/16. 17 Berry C. Voluntary medical insurance and prepayment. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965. 18 Receiver General for Canada. Volume I Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada, 1969. 19 Receiver General for Canada. Volume I Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972. 20 Privy Council Office. Speech from the Throne to open the first session thirty-sixth Parliament of Canada. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information&sub=publications&doc=aarchives/sft-ddt/1997-eng.htm. Accessed 05/18/16. 21 Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The health of Canadians – the federal role. Volume six: recommendations for reform. Ottawa, 2002. 22 Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada. Ottawa, 2002. 23 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. 2003 First Ministers’ accord on health care renewal. http://www.scics.gc.ca/CMFiles/800039004_e1GTC-352011-6102.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 24 Council of the Federation. Premiers’ action plan for better health care: resolving issues in the spirit of true federalism. Communiqué July 30, 2004. http://canadaspremiers.ca/phocadownload/newsroom-2004/healtheng.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 25 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. A 10-year plan to strengthen health care. http://www.scics.gc.ca/CMFiles/800042005_e1JXB-342011-6611.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 26 National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. National Pharmaceuticals Strategy progress report. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/2006-nps-snpp/2006-nps-snpp-eng.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 27 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Backgrounder: national pharmaceutical strategy decision points. http://www.scics.gc.ca/english/conferences.asp?a=viewdocument&id=112. Accessed 05/18/16. 28 Canada’s Premiers. The pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance: April 2016 Update. http://www.pmprovincesterritoires.ca/en/initiatives/358-pan-canadian-pharmaceutical-alliance. Accessed 05/18/16. 29 Canadian Medical Association. General Council Resolution GC15-C16, August 26, 2015. 30 Gagnon M. The economic case for universal pharmacare. 2010. https://s3.amazonaws.com/policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2010/09/Universal_Pharmacare.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 31 Gagnon M. A roadmap to a rational pharmacare policy in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, 2014. 32 Morgan S, Law M, Daw J, Abraham L, Martin D. Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. CMAJ. 2015 Apr 21;187(7):491-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.141564. 33 Morgan S, Martin D, Gagnon M, Mintzes B, Daw, J, Lexchin, J. Pharmacare 2020. The future of drug coverage in Canada. http://pharmacare2020.ca/assets/pdf/The_Future_of_Drug_Coverage_in_Canada.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 34 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC15-C19, August 26, 2015. 35 Conference Board of Canada. Federal policy action to support the health care needs of Canada’s aging population. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/conference-board-rep-sept-2015-embargo-en.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 36 Government of the United Kingdom. Written statement to Parliament NHS charges from April 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nhs-charges-from-april-2016. Accessed 05/18/16. 37 Appleby J. Prescription charges: are they worth it? BMJ 2014;348:g3944 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3944. Among the several Canadian attempts that she describes, the most activity occurred in the decade following the National Forum on Health (NFH), which was struck in 1994 and reported in 1997. A NFH working group paper on pharmaceutical policy recommended first dollar coverage for prescription medications, but acknowledged that it could not occur overnight: “over time we propose to shift private funding on prescribed pharmaceuticals (estimated at $3.6 billion in 1994) to public funding”.12 The NFH included this recommendation in its final report, noting that “the absorption of currently operating plans by a public system may involve transfer of funding sources as well as administrative apparatus”.13 It is instructive to place the 1994 prescription drug expenditure cited by the NFH in today’s context. According to the Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator, the $6.5 billion in 1994 would have cost $9.5 billion in 2014.14 CIHI estimates that actual spending in 2014 was $28.7 billion1 – 203% above the level of 1994 spending, compared to population growth of 23% over the same time period.15 Annual prescription drug spending increases averaged 7.3% over the period, although they have averaged just over 1% since 2009. 16 A significant shift from private to public funding is not without precedent. A study prepared for the Hall Commission estimated that 9.6 million Canadians, representing 53% of the total population, had some form of not-for-profit or commercial insurance coverage for medical and/or surgical services in 1961.17 With the passage of the Medical Care Act in 1966 these plans were all displaced as the provinces joined Medicare. The funding shift did not occur overnight, although it did move quickly. In the first year, 1968/69, Ottawa paid out $33 million to the provinces pursuant to the Medical Care Act, which grew quickly to $181 million in 1969/70, and reaching $576.5 million in 1971/72.18,19 Since the 1997 NFH report the closest that the federal government has come to acting on pharmacare was a commitment in the 1997 Speech from the Throne to “develop a national plan, timetable and a fiscal framework for providing Canadians with better access to medically necessary drugs”, but nothing further was ever made public.20 Pharmacare was subsequently examined in two national studies, both of which recommended federal involvement in reimbursing “catastrophic” prescription drug expenditures above a threshold of household income. The Senate study on the State of the Health Care System in Canada, chaired by Michael Kirby, was authorized in March 2001 and the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, headed by Roy Romanow, was approved in April 2001. Both issued their final reports in 2002. The Kirby plan was designed so as to avoid the necessity of eliminating existing private plans or the provincial/territorial public plans, not unlike the approach taken by Quebec in 1997. In the Kirby plan, in the case of public plans, personal prescription medication expenses for any family would be capped at 3% of total family income. The federal government would then pay 90% of prescription drug expenses in excess of $5,000. In the case of private plans, sponsors would have to agree to limit out-of-pocket costs to $1,500 per year, or 3% of family incomes, whichever was less. The federal government would then agree to pay 90% of drug costs in excess of $5,000 per year. Both public and private plans would be responsible for the difference between out-of-pocket costs and $5,000, and private plans would be encouraged to pool their risk. Kirby estimated that this plan would cost approximately $500 million per year.21 The Romanow Commission recommended a $1 billion Catastrophic Drug Transfer through which the federal government would reimburse 50% of the costs of provincial and territorial drug insurance plans above a threshold of $1,500 per person per year.22 The advantage of these proposals is that they are fully scalable. The federal government could adjust either the out-of-pocket household income threshold, the ceiling above which it would assume costs, or the percentage of costs that it would pay above the ceiling. Following the Kirby and Romanow reports there was a back and forth exchange between the federal and provincial-territorial (PT) governments on a plan for catastrophic coverage. In their February 2003 Accord, First Ministers agreed to ensure that Canadians would have reasonable access to catastrophic drug coverage by March 2006.23 At their annual summer meeting in 2004 the Premiers later called on the federal government to “assume full financial responsibility for a comprehensive drug program for all Canadians”, with compensation to Quebec for its drug program.24 In the September 2004 Health Accord, First Ministers directed health ministers to develop a nine-point National Pharmaceuticals Strategy (NPS), including costing options for catastrophic coverage.25 A federal-provincial-territorial Ministerial Task Force on the NPS was struck and a progress report was issued in June 2006. The estimates of catastrophic spending were markedly higher than those of the Kirby and Romanow reports. Using a variable percentage of income threshold it estimated that, based on public plan costs, only catastrophic spending represented 42% of total prescription drug spending. If private plan costs were also considered, catastrophic spending would represent 55% of total prescription drug spending. This report proposed four options for catastrophic coverage with estimates for new public funding ranging from $1.4 to $4.7 billion.26 Although no account of the methods was provided it is evident that a significant proportion of existing plan costs were included in the estimates of catastrophic expenditure. At their September 2008 meeting, the PT health ministers called for a national standard for drug coverage not to exceed 5% of net income and for the federal government to share 50/50 in the estimated $5.03 billion cost.27 The uncertainty about the projected cost of a pharmacare plan resulting from widely varying estimates has doubtless contributed to a reluctance of governments to engage on advancing this issue. Recent Developments At the PT level, there has been a concerted effort on price negotiations during the past few years through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) that was established in 2010. As of March 31, 2015, the pCPA reported that price reductions in generic and brand-name prescription medications result in annual savings of an estimated $490 million.28 The federal drug plans are now participating in the pCPA and the CMA has recommended that the pCPA should also invite the participation of private health insurance companies.29 The prospect of savings through lower prices has been foundational to two recent studies that have made the case that a single public payer pharmacare program with little or no co-payment is affordable. The first was by Marc-André Gagnon in 2010. The proposal was developed on the basis of a review of cross-provincial and international practices in pharmaceutical policy. The review formed the basis of a set of 11 assumptions that were used to develop four scenarios that resulted in estimates of prescription drug cost savings over the 2008 baseline expenditure of $25.1 billion that ranged to $2.7 billion to $10.7 billion.30 In a 2014 update Gagnon estimated that a first dollar coverage program would save 10% to 41% of prescription drug costs, representing savings of as much as $11.4 billion annually on a 2012-13 base of $27.7 billion.31 Steve Morgan and colleagues (2015) have estimated that a universal public plan with small co-payments could reduce prescription drug spending by $7.3 billion.32 Subsequently, in Pharmacare 2020 Morgan et al. set out five recommendations calling for the implementation of a single payer system with a publicly accountable management agency by 2020.33 Taking a First Step Forward At its 2015 annual meeting, the CMA adopted a policy resolution that supports the development of an equitable and comprehensive national pharmacare program.34 Reflecting on the experience of the past 40 years since the enactment of the Established Programs Financing Act in 1977 that eliminated 50:50 cost-sharing, it seems highly unlikely that the federal government would take on a new open-ended program in the health and social arena, cost-shared or not. However, notwithstanding the progress of the pCPA, we are unlikely to address the significant access gaps in prescription medication coverage without the involvement of the federal government. These are fiscally challenging times for both levels of government, with budget deficits expected for several years to come. As noted previously, the Kirby and Romanow proposals for a federal funding role in pharmacare are scalable. In 2015 the CMA commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to model the cost of covering prescription medication expenditure beyond a household spending threshold of $1,500 or 3% of gross household income, based on Statistics Canada’s 2013 Survey of Household Spending. The projected costs over the 2016 to 2020 are shown in Table 3 below. The cost to the federal government of covering the entire amount above the ($1,500 – 3%) threshold would be $1.6 billion in 2016.35 Recommendation 1: The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health request the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct a detailed examination of the financial burden of prescription medication coverage across Canada and to develop costing options for a federal contribution to a national pharmacare program. Recommendation 2: As a positive step toward comprehensive, universal coverage for prescription medications, the Canadian Medical Association recommends that the federal government establish a cost-shared program of coverage for prescription medications. First dollar coverage? The issue of co-payment arises in most discussions of pharmacare. Hall recommended a $1.00 prescription charge in 1964. In England, which does include prescription medications in the National Health Service (NHS), the current prescription charge is £8.40, although the government has previously noted that 90% of prescription items are provided free of charge.36 Appleby has noted however that the NHS’s in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have eliminated prescription charges.37One observational study of dispensing rates in Wales found that the overall impact of removing prescription charges was minimal.38 Table 4 shows the total volume of prescriptions dispensed in Scotland over the period 2009-2015, which straddles the removal of prescription charges on April 1, 2011. It indicates that percentage increases in the annual dispensing volume diminished after 2012 and the increase observed in 2015 was just 1.4%. It should be added, however, that patient charges accounted for less than 4% of Scotland’s dispensing expenditures in 2010.39 It will be interesting to see the results of further studies in these jurisdictions. 38 Cohen D, Alam M, Dunstan F, Myles S, Hughes D, Routledge P. Abolition of prescription copayments in Wales: an observational study on dispensing rates. Value in Health 2010;13(5):675-80. 39 ISD Scotland. Prescribing and medicines. Data tables. http://www.isdscotland.scot.nhs.uk/Health-Topics/Prescribing-and-Medicines/Publications/data-tables.asp?Co=Y. Accessed 05/15/16. 40 Canadian Medical Association. A prescription for optimal prescribing. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-01.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 41 Canadian Medical Association. Vision for e-prescribing; a joint statement by the Canadian Medical Associaiton and the Canadian Pharmacists Association. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD13-02.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 42 Department of Finance Canada. Growing the middle class. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. Table 4 Prescription Dispensing in Scotland, 2009 – 2015 Year Number of Prescriptions % increase from previous year (million) 2009 88.4 3.8 2010 91.0 3.0 2011 93.8 3.1 2012 96.6 3.0 2013 98.4 1.9 2014 100.6 2.2 2015 102.0 1.4 Source: annual tabulations - Remuneration and reimbursement details for all prescribing made in Scotland.39 Other Elements of a National Pharmaceuticals Strategy It was noted previously that the Hall Report contained 25 recommendations on pharmaceuticals, and the 2004 Health Accord called for a 9-point National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. Two of the NPS points that the CMA would emphasize are the need to influence prescribing behaviour and the need to advance electronic prescribing (e-prescribing). The CMA refers to the first of these points as “optimal prescribing” and defines it as the prescription of a medication that is: the most clinically appropriate for the patient’s condition; safe and effective; part of a comprehensive treatment plan; and the most cost-effective available to best meet the patient’s needs. Toward this end the CMA has identified principles and recommendations to promote optimal prescribing, including the need for current information on cost and cost-effectiveness.40 The CMA believes that e-prescribing has the potential to improve patient safety, to support clinical decision-making and medication management, and to increase awareness of cost and cost-effectiveness considerations. In 2012 the CMA and the Canadian Pharmacists Association adopted a joint vision statement calling for e-prescribing to be the means by which prescriptions are generated for Canadians by 2015.41 Clearly that date has come and gone and we are not there yet. The current state primarily consists of demonstration projects and “workarounds”. The CMA was pleased to see an amount of $50 million allocated to Canada Health Infoway in the 2016 federal budget to support the advancement of e-prescribing and telehomecare.42 Finally the CMA remains very concerned about ongoing shortages of prescription drugs. We would caution that whatever measures governments might take to implement a pharmacare program these must not exacerbate drug shortages. Recommendation 3: The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Federal/Provincial/Territorial health Ministers direct their officials to convene a working group on a comprehensive National Pharmaceuticals Strategy that will consult widely with stakeholders representing patients, prescribers, and the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries to report with recommendations by spring 2017. Conclusion In conclusion, few would argue that prescription medications are less vital to the health and health care of Canadians than hospital and medical services. We would not have had the Medicare program that Canadians cherish today without the leadership and financial contribution of the federal government, and similarly without it now we will not have any form of a national pharmacare program.
Documents
Less detail

Implementation of National Pharmacare

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13933
Date
2018-10-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
/PD10-02-e.pdf. Accessed 1-/-2/18. 18 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. 2003 First
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2018-10-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare (Advisory Council) on the issues set out in its discussion paper.1 The striking of the Advisory Council by the federal government is long overdue. We will focus on the questions set out in the discussion paper and draw attention to more specific issues that the Advisory Council should consider as it develops its final report. At the outset, Canada’s physicians are very concerned about their patients’ access to prescription medicines. A June 2018 survey of the CMA member e-panel found the following:
71% reported that they always/often ask their patients if they have prescription drug coveragebefore writing a prescription;
60% reported that greater than 20% of their patients are either uncovered or inadequatelycovered for prescription drugs; and
79% reported that copayments pose affordability challenges among their patients with drugcoverage and that they resort to a variety of strategies to help them. Indeed, when asked to pick one of three options for a national prescription program, the results were as follows:
57% - a single, national, public pharmacare plan operated by the federal government and fundedby taxes collected by the federal government;
34% - a mix of private prescription drug plans operated by private insurance companies andpublic drug plans run by the provinces and territories, supplemented by a prescription drug planprovided by the federal government for persons with high out-of-pocket drug costs; and
9% - separate regional, public pharmacare plans in each province and territory, funded by taxescollected by both the federal government and the provincial governments. Who should be covered under national pharmacare? / How should national pharmacare be delivered? The CMA’s position is that all Canadians should have access to medically necessary drugs regardless of their ability to pay. The challenge is how to resolve the issue of the most expedient and affordable means of achieving this in a manner that is acceptable to the provincial/territorial governments. At the present time there are two main options that are being discussed. The first is the approach recommended by the Standing Committee on Health (HESA) that calls for the development of a common national prescription drug formulary and the amendment of the Canada Health Act to include out-of-hospital prescription drugs in the definition of insured health services; essentially a universal, single public payer program.2 The second is the “closing the gap” or “catastrophic coverage” approach recommended previously by the Kirby and Romanow commissions, and which was one of the unfulfilled commitments that First Ministers made in the 2003 Health Accord. There is a large difference in the cost of these two approaches. Regarding the first, the federal Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has estimated the net cost to the federal government of assuming the cost of a pharmacare program modelled on the Quebec drug formulary at $19.3 billion in 2015-16, increasing to $22.6 billion in 2020-21.3 Regarding the second approach, in 2002 the Kirby commission suggested that a catastrophic drug program with a cap of 3% of family income would cost $500 million per year.4 A 2015 study by the Conference Board estimated that a program with a cap of 3% of household income or $1,500 would cost the federal government $1.6 billion in 2016, increasing to $1.8 billion in 2020.5 There are parallels between the present situation with insurance coverage for prescription drugs and the insurance coverage for medical services that existed at the time of the Hall Commission (1961-1964). 4 In 1961 there were 9.6 million Canadians with some form of medical insurance or prepayment coverage, representing 53% of the population.6 Almost one-half of this number (4.5 million) were covered by the physician-sponsored not-for-profit Trans-Canada Medical Plans.7 In its 1962 brief to the Hall Commission the CMA projected that this percentage would increase to 67% by 1970 and it recommended a “closing the gap” approach for the uninsured and under-insured: That, for the 1,520,000 persons, or approximately 8% of Canada’s population who may adjudged to be medically indigent, tax funds be used to provide comprehensive medical insurance on services…for persons in economic circumstances just superior to the identifiable indigent we recommend the application of tax funds on proof of need to permit the partial assistance which they require.8 After Hall reported in 1964 with the recommendation of first dollar public Medicare, as they say, the rest is history. More than 50 years after the initial passage of the Medical Care Act in 1966, virtually nobody would suggest that Canada got it wrong. In the case of pharmacare today, the circumstances are somewhat different. First the prevalence of prescription drug insurance is much higher today than medical insurance was back in the early 1960s. A 2017 report from the Conference Board estimates that just 5.2% of Canadians are uninsured for prescription drugs.9 Other survey estimates indicate that roughly one in 10 Canadians report financial difficulty in filling prescriptions10, although some surveys have yielded higher results, such as a September, 2018 Abacus Data poll that found that 23% of Canadians reported that the medicines they need are unaffordable.11 Second, the role of the provincial/territorial (PT) governments paying for prescription drugs today is much greater than their role in paying for medical services prior to Medicare. In 1961 it was estimated that all public sources accounted for 12.4% of medical care expenditures.12 In 2017, PT governments accounted for an estimated 37% of prescription drug spending.13 It is also instructive to consider how Medicare ramped up from its initial spending under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1958-59 through to the first payments under the Medical Care Act a decade later, shown in Table 1. The table shows clearly that Medicare payments increased gradually over the two stages. Medicare as a share of total federal program spending increased from 1% in 1958-59 to a high of 11% in 1971-72. Interestingly, federal spending on Medicare never reached the 50/50 cost-sharing that was offered, reaching 36% in 1976-77, the year prior to the Established Programs Financing Act coming into effect. As an aside, according to the 2017 Fall Economic statement the Canada Health Transfer, valued at $37.1 billion in 2017-18 represents 12.2% of program spending.14 This history highlights the need to consider how the federal government might phase in the program recommended by HESA given the cost estimated by the PBO at $19.3 billion. This appears a daunting challenge in light of the recent increases in federal health funding, which amount to annual increases in the Canada Health Transfer of just over $1 billion plus the $11 billion allocated in the 2017 federal budget over a 10-year period for home care and mental health.15 There is no disagreement that at the present time the fiscal prospects are better for the federal than the PT governments. In its 2018 Fiscal Sustainability Report, the PBO reported that over the 2018-92 projection period the federal government could either increase annual spending or reduce taxes by 1.4% of Gross Domestic Product ($29 billion) and maintain its net debt at the current (2017) level.16 However, the government has many other spending priorities. Conversely, sub-national governments would be required to either increase taxes or reduce spending by 0.8% of GDP or ($18 billion) to maintain net debt at the current level. The CMA has previously recommended that the federal government pursue a “close the gap” approach in partnership with the PT governments and the private insurance industry. This approach could be scaled up toward a full national public pharmacare by either or both of lowering the household income threshold or raising the level of federal contribution.17 However this has never developed any serious momentum. While the first Ministers committed in their 2003 Accord to take measures, by the end of 2005/06 to ensure that Canadians, wherever they live, have reasonable access to catastrophic coverage,18 this ran aground with the first and only progress report of the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy in 2006.19 It was 5 evident in the report that much of the current public funding had been shifted into the catastrophic category, ranging from $6.6 billion to $10.3 billion across the four scenarios presented. The only further public PT government pronouncement on a catastrophic drug plan was a three-point proposal set out in a backgrounder for the PT health Ministers meeting in 2008 calling for a funding formula that would: protect the autonomy of the PTs in program design; set a ceiling of 5% of income; and recognize the federal government’s role as an equal partner with 50/50 cost sharing of a total estimate cost of $5.03 billion (2006).20 The amount of $5.03 billion would have represented 62% of PT spending on prescription drugs in 2006. More recently, an “essential medicines” approach to universal pharmacare has been put forward by Morgan and colleagues, modelled on 2015 data. Essential medicines are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population.21 WHO maintains a model list of essential medicines, and the 2017 version contains some 430 medications.22 Using a multi-step review process, Taglione and colleagues adapted the 2013 version of the WHO list to produce a shorter list of 125 medications that they assessed against the prescription audits of two Toronto-based family health teams comprising 4,777 and 35,554 patients in 2014. They reported 90.8% and 92.6% coverage with the preliminary list of 125 medications in the two sites respectively.23 The list is now called the CLEAN Meds list (http://cleanmeds.ca/). Morgan and colleagues used 117 items from the CLEAN Meds list to model the impact of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to the existing public drug plans in Canada, based on 2015 data. They reported the following base case results:
Total public expenditure would increase by $1.229 billion to $11.99 billion;
Total private expenditure would decrease by $4.272 billion to $11.172 billion; and
Public expenditure on essential medicines would be $6.14 billion, representing 51% of the total$12 billion in total public expenditure.24 In further research conducted for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), Morgan examined the listing of the CLEAN Meds list across the public formularies in Canada for 2015 and found that the public plans listed 93% on average of the 125 medicines, and that this increased to 98% when weighted by drug plan costs.25 The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa has done a similar analysis of 128 medications on the CLEAN Meds list and coverage ranged across provinces from Manitoba at the bottom (with 88 covered completely and 8 requiring special authorization) to Quebec at the top with coverage of 121 items.26 This would suggest that one approach would be for the federal government to offer to cover universal coverage for essential medicines, which would cost at least $6 billion. There would be coordination issues with both public and private plans, as was the case when Ontario introduced OHIP + in early 2018 to extend coverage to persons under 25.27 This could be subsequently scaled up by adding coverage for additional medications. In terms of how pharmacare should be delivered, that will depend on how far the federal government wants to go. Could the federal government administer a national pharmacare program? It already controls levers including drug approval by Health Canada and price-setting through the PMPRB, and it provides the majority (70%) of funding to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and Health which oversees the Common Drug Review.28 In May, 2015 Canadian Blood Services (CBS) CEO Dr. Graham Sher proposed that CBS could be considered as a model for national pharmacare, given its history of running a national (except Quebec) formulary of plasma protein drugs at no cost to patients.29 In his subsequent testimony to the HESA pharmacare study Sher described CBS’ success in negotiating price reductions through public tendering and bulk purchasing’ although he did also note that their formulary includes 45 brands and classes of plasma protein products, far fewer than the thousands of items in PT formularies.30 More recently Flood et al. have suggested that one option for pharmacare could involve the PT governments delegating authority to an arm’s-length agency similar to CBS that would purchase drugs and administer drug benefits.31 6 However, in the comuniqué following their June 2018 meeting the PT health Ministers emphasized that provinces and territories must retain responsibility for the design and delivery of public drug coverage…Quebec will maintain its own program and will receive comparable compensation if the federal government puts a pan-Canadian program in place.32 This was repeated by the Premiers in their communiqué three weeks later, which would suggest that a national agency approach is a non-starter. Moreover, none of the PT drug plans testified to the HESA pharmacare study. One issue that has received scant attention in all of the discussions about pharmacare since 2015 is the future role of private supplementary health insurance. When Medicare came in in the late 1960s, while the expenditures increased steadily, enrolment in non-profit medical insurance plans disappeared virtually overnight, dropping from 8.3 million enrollees in 1968 to 1.1 million in 1970 and none thereafter.33 This appears unlikely to happen to private insurance in the foreseeable future. For example, in the essential medicines modeling done by Morgan et al. the essential medicines would represent just 27% of total prescription drug expenditures and all public drug expenditures would account for 52% of the total.24 If the federal and PT governments were able to collectively “wave a magic wand” and come up with the PBO’s $19.3 billion and a purchasing and distribution strategy it seems likely that this would raise questions about the continued viability of the health insurance benefits industry. In their testimony to HESA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association did allude to an impact on the industry should prescription drugs become a public program but was not specific.34 We have been unable to locate any international comparative literature on the structure of the health benefits industry. In 2017 CLHIA’s members paid out $11.3 billion in drug benefits, representing 44% of the $25.5 billion total. Dental benefits accounted for $8.1 billion, or 32% of the total.35 Dental benefits paid by CLHIA members accounted for two-thirds (65%) of the estimated total expenditures on dental benefits in Canada in 2017; just 6% were publicly funded.13 Socio-economic inequalities in access to dental care are well-documented36, but this issue is nowhere on the public policy agenda. In addition, any transition from private to public coverage will require some administrative coordination. As noted above, Morgan et al. estimated that an essential medicines approach would reduce private spending by $4.2 billion, a large proportion of which would be currently paid for by private insurance.24 Which drugs should be covered/how much variability across jurisdictions should there be? In terms of which drugs should be covered, the CMA believes that optimal prescribing is the prescription of a drug that is:
The most clinically appropriate for the patient’s condition;
Safe and effective;
Part of a comprehensive treatment plan; and
The most cost-effective drug available to meet the patient’s needs.37 There is no dispute that private insurance companies offer wider formularies than the public drug programs. In their 2017 study the Conference Board compiled information on the number of drugs dispensed in 2015 through: both public and private plans, public plans only; and private plans only. This was presented for nine provinces, excluding PEI. Across the nine provinces, the following averages were observed:
4,878 drugs were dispensed from both public and private plans;
336 drugs were dispensed from public plans only;
1,938 drugs were dispensed from private plans only.9 On the 2018 CMA member e-panel survey, physicians were much more likely to report formulary coverage issues with their patients who with public coverage than they were for their patients with Private coverage. More than five in 10 (54%) physicians reported that they always/often have formulary coverage 7 issues with their publicly insured patients versus just over one in 10 (13%) for their privately insured patients. If the federal government plans to pursue national pharmacare Canadians should be well-informed about the range of prescription drugs that will be available to them. In terms of the variability of coverage, if pharmacare or some portion of it becomes a publicly insured service it should be offered to all Canadians under uniform terms and conditions, as specified in the CHA. In practical terms, Morgan and colleagues have previously demonstrated that there is a high degree of commonality in the formularies across the public drug programs. Based on a review of 2006 formulary listings of 796 drugs across all provincial formularies except PEI, they found that coverage ranged from 55% to 73%, but when weighted by national retail sales the measure of formulary coverage exceeded 86% in all 9 provinces.38 More recently, in the 2017 PMPRB study of formulary coverage Morgan studied 729 drugs across all provinces and the Non-Insured Health Benefits Plan for 2015. The public plans listed an average of 79% of the 729 drugs, and this increased to 95% when drug costs were factored in.25 These findings would lend further support to the case for an essential medicines approach to national pharmacare. Should patients pay a portion of the cost of drugs/should employers continue to play a role? If the federal government intends to define out-of-hospital prescription drugs as an insured service under the CHA it will be necessary to address the feasibility of first dollar coverage in light of the accessibility criterion that prohibits user charges. The CMA addressed this issue in our 2016 brief to the HESA pharmacare study with reference to Scotland, which eliminated prescription charges in April, 2011.39 There are now more recent data. In the four years leading up to the elimination of prescription charges the volume of prescriptions dispensed increased by 3.6% annually. In the seven years since the charges were eliminated, the annual increase has been 1.8%; indeed between 2016/17 and 2017/18 there was a decrease of 0.06%.40 It should be added however that dispensing charges only accounted for 3% of prescription costs in 2008/09. Wales and Northern Ireland have also eliminated prescription charges for their citizens. The experiences of these countries should be examined more closely. There has been very little research on how employers would react to the implementation of a full or partial public pharmacare plan. Ipsos conducted research among the employer community in 2012. Just under one in two (47) of respondents indicated that they would support a public program for supplementary benefits introduced by the federal government that was funded by increased taxes, but nearly nine in ten agreed that even if the government implemented a program I would recommend that our company/organization still offer a supplementary health benefits program (over and above the government offer) because it would give us an advantage in recruiting/retaining employees.41 If some form of a public pharmacare program is implemented, this will reduce the amount of drug benefits that private insurance companies are required to pay out, which should result in lower premiums for those employers who provide supplementary benefits. The implications of this in terms of how a pharmacare program might be funded have not received much scrutiny to date. However, regardless of the notionally ear-marked health taxes or premiums that are levied against businesses or individuals, Medicare has been paid for out of general tax revenues. Conclusion In conclusion, the initial modeling study published by Morgan et al. in 201542 has resulted in welcome attention to the longstanding issue of access to prescription drugs for Canadians who are either uninsured or under-insured. However the discussions have been light on how we could transition to a situation where Canadians can access prescription drugs on the same basis as they access medical and hospital services. This would require concerted discussion between the federal and PT governments and 8 the health insurance benefits industry and this has not yet occurred. The discussions since 2015 have mainly ignored the issue of highly expensive drugs for rare diseases and very expensive drugs for more common diseases, such as biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. The CMA is pleased to see that HESA is launching a study on the barriers to access to treatment and drugs for Canadians with rare diseases and disorders.43 Recommendations The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Advisory Committee on the Implementation of National Pharmacare: 1.Engage with the federal and provincial/territorial governments and the health insuranceindustry on the feasibility of a universal federally funded “essential medicines”prescription drug plan as a scalable approach to the implementation of a nationalpharmacare plan. 2.Engage the business community and the health insurance industry on the question of thecontinued viability of the provision of supplementary health benefits (e.g. dental care)should a national pharmacare plan be implemented. 3.Study the international experience of Scotland and other countries with respect to theprovision of first dollar coverage of prescription drugs. 9 Table 1. The Evolution of Medicare ($ million) Year HIDS Medical Care Act Total program spend Medicare as a % of total program Total hospital spend Total physician spend Medicare as a % of total H&P 1958-59 54.7 0 4716 1% 640.608 301.337 6% 1959-60 150.6 0 4919.4 3% 735.626 325.689 14% 1960-61 189.4 0 5160.5 4% 834.932 355.014 16% 1961-62 283.9 0 5681.6 5% 930.568 388.305 22% 1962-63 336.7 0 5652.5 6% 1031.749 406.075 23% 1963-64 392.2 0 5878.7 7% 1150.306 453.395 24% 1964-65 433.9 0 6167 7% 1273.38 495.657 25% 1965-66 319.6 0 6623.9 5% 1434.274 545.056 16% 1966-67 397.4 0 7589.2 5% 1637.647 605.2 18% 1967-68 468.6 0 8497 6% 1880.699 686.189 18% 1968-69 561.9 33 9258 6% 2179.906 788.089 20% 1969-70 635.9 181 10204 8% 2456.687 901.435 24% 1970-71 734.3 400.5 11262 10% 2775.391 1031.555 30% 1971-72 844.6 576.5 12831 11% 3095.367 1239.775 33% 1972-73 960.5 630.8 16324 10% 3384.801 1375.127 33% 1973-74 1065.7 677.9 20247 9% 3803.61 1471.971 33% 1974-75 1307.6 762.7 26037 8% 4579.041 1647.025 33% 1975-76 1709.2 795.8 30023 8% 5533.707 1900.483 34% 1976-77 2030.5 1003.6 34209 9% 6357.3 2071 36% Sources: Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services (HIDs) and Medical Care Act – Public Accounts of Canada Issues 1958-59 – 1976-77. Spending by National Health and Welfare. Total program spend – Public Accounts of Canada Issues 1958-59-1976-77. Budgetary Expenditures Classified by Function – Total spend less public debt charges. Total hospital and physician spend – calendar year data 1958 – 1975 in Statistics Canada, Historical Statistics of Canada. Series B504-513 Health expenditures, Canada, 1926 to 1975. 1976 – Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Health Expenditures Data Tables Table A.3.1.1. 1 Government of Canada. Towards implementation of national pharmacare. Discussion paper. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/corporate/publications/council_on_pharmacare_EN.PDF. Accessed 10/02/18. 2 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Pharmacare now: prescription medicine coverage for all Canadians. http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Reports/RP9762464/hesarp14/hesarp14-e.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 3 Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Federal cost of a national pharmacare program. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/Pharmacare/Pharmacare_EN_2017_11_07.pdf. Accessed10/02/18. 10 4 Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The health of Canadians – the federal role. Volume six: recommendations for reform. https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/372/soci/rep/repoct02vol6-e.pdf. Accessed 10/-2/18.5 Conference Board of Canada. Federal policy action to support the health care needs of Canada’s aging population. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/conference-board-rep-sept-2015-embargo-en.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18.6 Berry C. Voluntary medical insurance and prepayment. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965.7 Clarkson G. The role of Trans-Canada Medical plans in Canadian medical insurance. News & Views on the Economics of Medicine 1966, Number 136.8 Canadian Medical Association. Submission of the Canadian Medical Association to the Royal Commission on Health Services. Toronto, 1962.9 Conference Board of Canada. Understanding the gap: a pan-Canadian analysis of prescription drug insurance coverage. https://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/7bef4501-6ba6-4527-8b99-8b788c461d14/9326_Understanding-the-Gap__RPT.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18.10 Canadian Institute for Health Information. How Canada compares: Results from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2016 International Health Policy Survey of Adults in 11 Countries.https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/commonwealth-fund-2016-chartbook-en-web-rev.pptx. Accessed10/02/18.11 Abacus Data. Canadian perspectives on pharmacare. http://abacusdata.ca/canadian-perspectives-on-pharmacare/. Accessed 10/02/18.12 Royal Commission on Health Services. 1964—Report Volume 1. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964.13 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure trends 1975 to 2017: data tables.https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/series_b-nhex2017-en.xlsx. Accessed 10/02/18.14 Department of Finance Canada. Progress for the middle class. Fall economic statement 2017.https://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2017/docs/statement-enonce/fes-eea-2017-eng.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18.15 Department of Finance Canada. Building a strong middle class. Budget plan 2017. https://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/budget-2017-en.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 16 Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Fiscal sustainability report 2018. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2018/FSR%20Sept%202018/FSR_2018_25SEP2018_EN_2.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 17 Canadian Medical Association. Funding the continuum of care. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/PD10-02-e.pdf. Accessed 1-/-2/18. 18 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal. http://www.scics.ca/wp-content/uploads/CMFiles/800039004_e1GTC-352011-6102.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 19 National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. National Pharmaceuticals Strategy progress report. June 2006. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/2006-nps-snpp/2006-nps-snpp-eng.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 20 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Annual conference of provincial-territorial Ministers of health. Backgrounder: National pharmaceutical strategy decision points. http://www.scics.ca/en/product-produit/backgrounder-national-pharmaceutical-strategy-decision-points/. Accessed 10/02/18. 21World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products. http://www.who.int/medicines/services/essmedicines_def/en/. Accessed 10/02/18. 22World Health Organization. WHO model list of essential medicines. 20th list (Amended August 2017). http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/20th_EML2017.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 10/02/18. 23 Taglione M, Ahmad H, Slater M, Aliarzadeh B, Glazier R, Laupacis A, Persaud N. Development of a preliminary essential medicines list for Canada. CMAJ Open 2017, 5(1):E137-43. 24 Morgan S, Li W, Yau B, Persaud N. Estimated effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada. CMAJ 2017;189(8):E295-302. 25 Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Alignment among public formularies in Canada. Part 1: General overview. http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles/NPDUIS/NPDUIS_formulary_report_part_1_en.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 26 Institute for Fiscal Studies and Democracy. National pharmacare in Canada: Choosing a path forward. http://www.ifsd.ca/web/default/files/Presentations/Reports/18006%20-%20National%20Pharmacare%20in%20Canada-%20Choosing%20a%20Path%20Forward%20-%2016%20July%202018%20-%20Final.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 27 CTV News. Ottawa dad raising red flag about OHIP+. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-dad-raising-red-flag-about-ohip-1.3759115. Accessed 10/02/18. 28 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Financial statements March 31, 2018. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/corporate/planning_documents/CADTH-FS-FY17-18-e.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 29 Sher G. Canadian Blood Services as a model for national pharmacare. National Post, April 15, 2015. https://blood.ca/en/media/graham-sher-canadian-blood-services-as-a-model-for-national-pharmacare. Accessed 10/02/18. 11 30 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Monday, May 2, 2016. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Evidence/EV8226056/HESAEV09-E.PDF. Accessed 10/02/18. 31 Flood C, Thomas B, Moten A, Fafard P. Universal pharmacare and federalism: policy options for Canada. http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Universal-Pharmacare-and-Federalism-Policy-Options-for-Canada.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 32 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. Conference of provincial and territorial Ministers of health. Provincial/territorial health Ministers meeting communiqué. June 28, 2018. http://www.scics.ca/en/product-produit/news-release-provincial-territorial-health-ministers-meeting-communique/. Accessed 10/02/18. 33 Statistics Canada. Historical Statistics of Canada. Series 8514-516. Estimated enrolment in non-profit medical insurance plans, Canada, at 31 December, 1937 to 1975. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-516-x/pdf/5500093-eng.pdf?st=W5ksoTqs. Accessed 10/02/18. 34 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Monday, May 9, 2016. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Evidence/EV8251913/HESAEV10-E.PDF. Accessed 10/02/18. 35 Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Canadian life and health insurance facts 2018 edition. https://www.clhia.ca/web/clhia_lp4w_lnd_webstation.nsf/resources/Factbook_2/$file/2018+FB+EN.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 36 Farmer J, Phillips R, Singhal S, Quinonez C. Inequalities in oral health: understanding the contributions of education and income. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2017;108(3):3240-5. 37 Canadian Medical Association. A prescription for optimal prescribing. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-01.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 38 Morgan S, Hanley G, Raymond C, Blais R. Breadth, depth and agreement among provincial formularies in Canada. Healthcare Policy 2009;4(4):e162-84. 39 Canadian Medical Association. National pharmacare in Canada: getting there from here. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/national-pharmacare-canada-e.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 40 ISD Scotland. Data Tables Prescribing and Medicines. Volume and cost (NHSScotland) (Financial years 2008-09-2017/18). http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Prescribing-and-Medicines/Publications/data-tables2017.asp?id=2204#2204. Accessed 10/02/18. 41 Ipsos Reid. Two in ten (18%) Canadians have no supplementary health coverage. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/2012-08/5714.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 42 Morgan S, Law M, Daw J, Abraham L, Martin D. Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. CMAJ 2015;187(7):491-7. 43 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health Minutes of Proceedings, Meeting No. 100 April 18, 2018. http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-100/minutes. Accessed 10/02/18.
Documents
Less detail

A new vision for Canada: family practice— the patient’s medical home 2019

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14024
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The evolving needs of patients and their communities place ever-changing demands on the health care system to maintain and improve the quality of services provided. Changing population demographics, increasing complexity, and new technology make for a dynamic system. Family physicians are at the heart of the health care system, acting as the first point of contact and a reliable medical resource to the communities they serve, caring for patients and supporting them throughout all interactions with the health care system. The Patient’s Medical Home (PMH) is a vision that emphasizes the role of the family practice and family physicians in providing high-quality, compassionate, and timely care. The success of a PMH depends on collaboration and teamwork—from the patient’s participation in their care to interprofessional and intraprofessional care providers working together, to policy-makers who can offer infrastructure support and funding. PMH 2019 was created with invaluable feedback from a broad range of stakeholders reflective of such a joint approach. Its goal is to make the PMH a reality for patients and providers across Canada. In 2011 the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) released A Vision for Canada: Family Practice - The Patient’s Medical Home.1 It outlined a vision for the future of primary care by transforming the health care system to better meet the needs of everyone living in Canada. The vision outlined the 10 pillars that make up the PMH and provided detailed recommendations to assist family physicians and their teams, as well as policy-makers and health care system administrators, to implement this new model across the country. WHY A REVISED PMH? Since 2011 many principles of the PMH vision have been embraced in primary care reforms. New models have been introduced across Canada (see Progress on the PMH to Date). To better reflect current realties, meet the evolving needs of family physicians and their teams, and support continued implementation of the PMH, the CFPC has developed this revised edition of the vision. It reflects evolving realities of primary care in Canada, including the rapid adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs)2,3 and a shift toward interprofessional practice structures.2 While progress has been made, there is still work to be done to fully achieve the PMH vision. In 2016 almost 75 per cent of Canadians rated the quality of care received from their family physicians as good or excellent.4 In 2017 a CFPC survey found that 79 per cent of respondents rate the care they receive from their family doctor as excellent or good.5 However, at the same time 55 per cent of Canadians also believed that the overall health care system still required fundamental changes.4 In addition, Canada continues to perform below the international average on certain aspects of patient-centred care; for example, same- or next-day access to appointments. While most Canadians (84.7 per cent) have a regular doctor or place of care, they generally report longer wait times for medical care than adults in comparable countries.4 PMH 2019 addresses these concerns and proposes solutions that can help further improve the primary care system for all. Although the specific components of the revised PMH have been updated (see What is the Patient’s Medical Home?), the core principles remain the same. PMH 2019 focuses on providing high-quality, patient-centred, and comprehensive care to patients and their families during their lifetime. It embraces the critical role that family physicians and family practices play in the health care system, reflecting the fact that systems with strong primary health care deliver better health outcomes, enhance efficiency, and improve quality of care.6 PMH 2019 recognizes that a patient will not be able to see their personal family physician at every visit, but can rely on the PMH’s qualified team of health professionals to provide the most appropriate care responding to patient needs with continuous support and leadership from family physicians. PMH 2019 highlights the central importance of community adaptiveness and social accountability in primary care with a new pillar. The importance of being responsive to community needs through engagement, and ensuring the provision of equitable, culturally safe, antioppressive practise that seeks to assess and intervene into social determinants of health (SDoH), is now more clearly featured. 2 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT PMH 2019 outlines 10 revised pillars that make up a PMH. Key attributes are defined and explained for each pillar. Supporting research is provided to demonstrate the evidence base for each attribute. This document is intended to support family physicians currently working in a PMH to better align their practice with the PMH pillars, or assist those practices looking to transition to a PMH. Furthermore, this document can guide governments, policy-makers, other health care professionals, and patients on how to structure a primary health care system that is best-suited to meet the needs of Canadians. Many resources for the PMH have been developed and will continue to be available. These include practical Best Advice guides on a range of topics and the self-assessment tool that can help quantify a practice’s progress toward PMH alignment. Moving forward, additional materials that address the new themes identified in PMH 2019 and the tools to support physicians in the transition to PMH structures—for example the PMH Implementation Kit— will be available at patientsmedicalhome.ca. What is a Patient’s Medical Home? The PMH is a family practice defined by its patients as the place they feel most comfortable presenting and discussing their personal and family health and medical concerns. The PMH can be broken down into three themes: Foundations, Functions, and Ongoing Development (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The three Foundation pillars are the supporting structures that facilitate the care provided by the PMH. All three aspects are required for the successful implementation and sustainability of a PMH. The Functions are areas central to the operation of a family practice and consist of the five core PMH pillars. These principles govern the type of care provided by the PMH practices to ensure it is effective and efficient for meeting the needs of the patients, families, and communities they serve. The pillars in this section reflect the Four Principles of Family Medicine,7 which underlines the important place they take in the overall PMH 2019. The pillars in Ongoing Development are essential to advancing the PMH vision. These areas make it possible for physicians to provide the best possible care for patients in various settings. Applying these pillars, the PMH will thrive through practising quality improvement (QI) principles to achieve the results necessary to meet the needs of their patients, their communities, and the broader health care community, now and in the future. The PMH is a vision to which every practice can aspire. Many practices across Canada have already begun transitioning to a PMH, thanks to the dedication and leadership of family physicians and their teams across Table 1. 10 Pillars of the revised PMH vision THEME PILLAR Foundations 1. Administration and Funding 2. Appropriate Infrastructure 3. Connected Care Functions 4. Accessible Care 5. Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability 6. Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership 7. Continuity of Care 8. Patient- and Family-Partnered Care Ongoing Development 9. Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research 10. Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 3 the country. This vision is a resource for these practices as they engage in ongoing practice assessment and QI initiatives. It can also assist other stakeholders, including government planners, policy-makers, and funders to better understand what defines an effective patientcentred family practice. By involving patients in all stages of the development, evaluation, and continuous quality improvement (CQI) activities of the practice, the PMH can contribute significantly to furthering the goals of transformation to a patient-centred health care system.8 What the Patient’s Medical Home is Not While it is important to understand what the PMH aspires to be, it is also important to highlight that it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Solo practices in rural or remote settings or large group practices serving inner-city populations can align with PMH principles by incorporating strategies that match the realities of their unique settings. In fact, social accountability and community adaptiveness is an important new addition to the revised PMH vision to account for the need of every family practice to adapt and respond to the needs of their patients and communities. What works for one practice will not work for all. The PMH vision does not require that all practices be relocated or re-engineered, or that significant financial investments be made by physicians or other health care professionals. Instead, system level support and involvement is required to achieve the vision. The pillars and attributes listed in this document are signposts along the way to reform that aids practices on their journey. It is important to note that this vision is not intended to undermine or change any exciting initiatives involving family practice currently under way across Canada (several of which already embrace and incorporate the medical home concept; see Progress on the PMH to Date). Rather, it is meant to build on and strengthen these efforts. The more that health care initiatives meet PMH objectives, the more likely it is that the overall goals of creating a patient-centred health care system throughout Canada will be realized. Figure 1. The Patient’s Medical Home 4 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 PROGRESS ON THE PMH TO DATE Since the release of the original PMH vision document, system-level change has occurred in almost all jurisdictions in Canada. More specifically, PMH-type practices are gaining traction in various provinces and currently exist in various stages of development. The CFPC took a snapshot of PMH uptake in all provinces in the PMH Provincial Report Card, published in early 2019.9 That report contains grades and descriptions for progress in each province up to late 2018, which acts as a useful gauge for where the vision stands at the time of publication of this new edition. Alberta In Alberta, primary care networks (PCNs)10 were established to link groups of family physicians and other health care professionals. Within PCNs clinicians work together to provide care specific to community and population health care needs. Currently, there are 42 PCNs operating in Alberta, comprised of more than 3,700 (or 80 per cent of) family physicians, and over 1,100 other health care practitioners. PCNs provide care to close to 3.6 million Albertans, 80 per cent of the population in Alberta. Primary care clinics are being asked to collect data for Third Next Available (TNA) appointments to improve access for Albertans.11 TNA measures the delay patients experience in accessing their providers for a scheduled appointment. TNA is considered a more accurate system measure of access than the “next available” appointment, since the next or second next available appointment may have become available due to a cancellation or other event that is not predictable or reliable. British Columbia The British Columbia government’s new primary care strategy focuses on expanding access to team-based care through PCNs.12 PCNs are in the initial stages of adoption and when fully rolled out will provide a systemlevel change—working to connect various providers to improve access to, and quality of, care. They will allow patients to access the full range of health care options, streamline referrals, and provide better support to family physicians, nurse practitioners, and other primary health care providers. The General Practice Services Committee13 (GPSC; a partnership of the provincial government and Doctors of BC) specifically references and builds on the PMH concept in their vision for the future of British Columbia’s health care system. Manitoba In Manitoba, PMHs are Home Clinics and PCNs are My Health Teams. My Health Teams bring together teams of health care providers (physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, etc.) to collaborate in providing highquality care based on community and patient needs.14 As suggested by the name of the initiative itself, the goal is to improve health care by developing teams of health care professionals who will work together to address primary health care needs of Manitobans.15 The first two My Health Teams were established in 2014, and there are now 15 across the province.16 The Manitoba Centre for Health Policy did some work assessing the impact of My Health Teams. New Brunswick In 2017 the government announced the New Brunswick Family Plan, which placed a specific emphasis on access to team-based care. To achieve this goal, the provincial government and the New Brunswick Medical Society established a voluntary program called Family Medicine New Brunswick. In this team-based model, physicians have their own rosters of patients, but also provide a service to all patients of doctors on their team.17 It was announced in 2018 that 25 family physicians will be added to the provincial health care system to ensure more New Brunswick residents have access to a primary care physician and to help reduce wait times.18 Newfoundland and Labrador In 2015 the Newfoundland and Labrador government released Healthy People, Healthy Families, Healthy Communities: A primary health care framework for Newfoundland and Labrador. The strategy’s goals include ensuring “timely access to comprehensive, person-focused primary health care services and supports,” and “primary health care reform should work to establish teams of providers that facilitate access to a range of health and social services tailored to meet A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 5 the needs of the communities they serve.”19 Both goals align with the general PMH principles. Primary health care teams have been introduced in St. John’s and are planned for Corner Brook and Burin.20 Many initiatives under way as a part of this strategy are in the early stages of development. Continuing in the direction laid out will move Newfoundland and Labrador closer to integrating the PMH vision in their delivery of primary health care. Northwest Territories The recent creation of a single Territorial Health Authority has enabled work on primary care improvements across the Northwest Territories. In August 2018 the NWT Health and Social Services Leadership Council unanimously voted in favour of a resolution supporting redesigning the health care system toward a team- and relationshipbased approach, consistent with PMH values. In several regions, contracted physicians are already assigned to regularly visit remote communities and work closely with local staff to provide continuity of remote support between visits. Planning is under way for implementing PMH-based multidisciplinary care teams in several larger regional centres, with enhanced continuity and access to physician and nursing staff as well as co-located mental health support and other health care disciplines. This work is facilitated by a territory-wide EMR and increased use of telehealth and other modalities of virtual care. Nova Scotia The 2017 Strengthening the Primary Health Care System in Nova Scotia report recommended establishing “health homes,” consisting of interprofessional, collaborative family practice teams. The model is based on a population health approach that focuses on wellness and chronic disease management/prevention and incorporates comprehensive, team-based care. There are approximately 50 collaborative family practice21 teams and a number of primary care teams across Nova Scotia. Ontario The model most aligned with the PMH framework is the family health team (FHT).22 FHTs are comprised of family physicians, nurse practitioners, and other health care professionals, and provide community-centred primary care programs and services. The 184 FHTs collectively serve over three million enrolled Ontarians. Based on the results of a five-year evaluation undertaken by the Conference Board of Canada in 2014, FHTs have achieved improvements at the organizational and service-delivery levels.23 Much progress has also been made through patient enrolment models. Patient enrolment, or rostering, is a process in which patients are formally registered with a primary care provider or team. Patient enrolment facilitates accountability by defining the population for which the provider is responsible. Formal patient enrolment with a primary care physician lays the foundation for a proactive approach to chronic disease management and preventive care.24 Studies show that the models have achieved some degree of success in enhancing health system efficiency in Ontario through the reducing use of emergency departments for non-emergent care.25 Prince Edward Island In Prince Edward Island, primary care is provided through five PCNs.26 Each network consists of a team that includes family physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, diabetes educators, licensed practical nurses, clerical staff, and in some cases dietitians and mental health workers. They offer a broad range of health services including diagnosis, treatment, education, disease prevention, and screening. Quebec The Groupes de médecine de famille27 (GMF) is the team-based care model in Quebec most closely aligned with the PMH. GMF ranking (obligations, financial, and professional supports) is based on weighted patient rostering. One GMF may serve from 6,000 to more than 30,000 patients. The resource allocation (financial and health care professionals) depends on the weighted patient target under which the GMF falls. In a GMF, each doctor takes care of their own registered patients, but all physicians in the GMF can access medical records of all patients. GMFs provide team-based care with physicians, nurses, social workers, and other health care professionals working collaboratively to provide appropriate health care based on community needs. Saskatchewan Saskatchewan has made investments in a Connected Care Strategy, which focuses on a team approach to care that includes the patient and family, and extends from the community to the hospital and back again. It is about connecting teams and providing seamless care for people who have multiple, ongoing health care needs, with a particular focus on care in the community.28 6 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 FOUNDATIONS PMH foundations are the underlying, supporting structures that enable a practice to exist, and facilitate providing each PMH function. Without a strong foundation, the PMH cannot successfully provide high-quality, patient-centred care. The foundations are Administration and Funding (includes financial and governmental support and strong governance, leadership, and management), Appropriate Infrastructure (includes physical space, human resources, and electronic records and other digital supports), and Connected Care (practice integration with other care settings enabled by health IT). ADMINISTRATION & FUNDING PAGE 7 APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE PAGE 9 CONNECTED CARE PAGE 12 Patients as partners in health care Patient-centred or patient-partnered? Understanding and acknowledging patients as full partners in their own care is a small but powerful change in terminology. Considering and respecting patients as partners allows health care providers to better recognize and include the skills and experience each patient brings to the table. Patient perspectives and feedback can be more inclusively incorporated in the QI processes in place to improve care delivery. Understanding the nature of patient partnerships can help physicians better establish trusting relationships with those in their care.29 Pillar 1: Administration and Funding Practice governance and management Effective practice governance is essential to ensuring an integrated process of planning, coordinating, implementing, and evaluating.30 Every PMH should clearly define its governance and administrative structure and functions, and identify staff responsible for each function. While the complexity of these systems varies depending on the practice size, the number of members on the health care professional team, and the needs of the population being served, every PMH should have an organizational plan in place that helps guide the practice operations. From a governance perspective, policies and procedures should be developed and regularly reviewed and updated, especially in larger practices. These policies and procedures will offer guidance in areas such as organization of clinical services, appointment and booking systems, information management, facilities, equipment and supplies, human resources, defining PMH team members’ clinical and administrative/management roles and responsibilities, budget and finances, legal and liability issues, patient and provider safety, and CQI. In some cases, standardized defaults for these may be available based on the province of practice and existing structures supporting interprofessional teams. Structures and systems need to be in place that allow for compensated time for providers to undertake and actively participate in CQI activities. This needs to be scheduled and remunerated so that it is seen as being as important and critical as clinical time. To ensure that all PMH team members have the capacity to take on their required roles, leadership development programs should be offered. Enabling physicians to engage in this necessary professional development requires sufficient government funding to cover training A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 7 Practices need staff and financial support, advocacy, governance, leadership, and management in order to function as part of the community and deliver exceptional care. 1.1 Governance, administrative, and management roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and supported in each PMH. 1.2 Sufficient system funding is available to support PMHs, including the clinical, teaching, research, and administrative roles of all members of PMH teams. 1.3 Blended remuneration models that best support team-based, patient-partnered care in a PMH should be considered to incentivize the desired approach. 1.4 Future federal/provincial/territorial health care funding agreements provide appropriate funding mechanisms that support PMH priorities, including preventive care, population health, electronic records, community-based care, and access to medications, social services, and appropriate specialist and acute care. 8 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 costs and financial support to ensure lost income is not a barrier (see Pillar 10: Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development). External supports Every family practice in Canada can become a PMH and an optimal learning environment will only be achievable with the participation and support of all stakeholders throughout the health care system. This includes family physicians; other health professionals who will play critical roles on PMH teams; federal, provincial, and territorial governments; academic training programs; governing bodies for physicians and allied health care providers; and most importantly, the people of Canada themselves, individually and in their communities—the recipients of care provided by the PMH. To achieve their objectives, PMHs need the support of governments across Canada through the provision of adequate funding and other resources. Given that the structure, composition, and organization of each PMH will differ based on community and population needs, funding must be flexible. More specifically, PMH practices will differ in terms of the staff they require (clinical, administrative, etc.). Funding must be available to ensure that PMH practices can determine optimal staffing levels and needs, to best meet community needs. The health care system must also ensure that all health care professionals on the PMH team have appropriate liability protection, and that adequate resources are provided to ensure that each PMH practice can provide an optimal setting for teaching students and residents and for conducting practice-based research. These characteristics are also reflected in the Four Principles of Family Medicine, reinforcing the centrality of family medicine to the delivery of care. Experience through new models of family practice, such as patient enrolment models (PEMs) in Ontario, suggests that blended funding models are emerging as the preferred approach to paying family physicians.31–33 These models are best suited to incentivizing teambased, patient-partnered care. The current fee-forservice (FFS) model incentivizes a series of short consultations that might be insufficient to address all of the patient’s needs, while blended remuneration provides for groups of physicians to work together to provide comprehensive care through office hours and after-hours care for their rostered patients. Capitation allows for more in-depth consultations depending on population need, rather than a volume-based model. Research has also found that blended capitation models can lead to small improvements in processes of care (e.g., meeting preventive care quality targets)34 and can be especially useful for supporting patients in managing and preventing chronic diseases.35 The CFPC advocates for governments to implement blended payment mechanisms across the country to achieve better health outcomes (see the Best Advice guide: Physician Remuneration in a Patient’s Medical Home36 for more information). It is important to ensure that additional practice activities such as leadership development, QI, and teaching are supported through dedicated funding or protected time intended specifically for these activities and are not seen as financially disadvantageous. The sustainability of Canada’s health care system depends on a foundation of strong primary care and family practice.37 Indeed, “high-performing primary care is widely recognized as the foundation of an effective and efficient health care system.”38 Future funding for health care—in particular from the federal government through federal, provincial, and territorial agreements—must be sustained through appropriate and well-designed funding agreements that incentivize PMH visions of primary care; other medical home priorities including preventive care, population health, EMRs; communitybased care; along with access to medications, social services, and appropriate specialist and acute care. For the PMH vision to be successful and a part of the future of family practice care in Canada, we need the commitment and support of everyone in the Canadian health care system, including decision makers and patients. By working with all levels of government and with patients, we can improve the health care system so that everyone in Canada has access to patient-centred, comprehensive, team-based care. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 9 Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure The shift in Canada from paper-based patient records to EMRs is reaching saturation. As delivery of care evolves with greater integration of technology, potential applications to improve patient care expand.39 The proportion of family physicians using EMRs has grown from 16 per cent in 2004 to 85 per cent in 2017.40 As it becomes ubiquitous in health care delivery, information technology can be of great benefit in sharing information with patients, facilitating adherence to treatment plans and medication regimes, and using health information technology (HIT) in new and innovative methods of care. However, HIT also poses new risks and can create new barriers. Providers should be mindful of how the application about new technologies may hinder good quality patient care. When properly implemented, EMRs can help track data over time, identify patients who are due for preventive visits, better monitor patient baseline parameters (such as vaccinations and blood pressure readings), and improve overall quality of care in a practice.1 EMRs can enhance the capacity of every practice to store and recall medical information on each patient and on the practice population as a whole. They can facilitate sharing information needed for referrals and consultations. The information in an electronic record can be used for teaching, carrying out practice-based research, and evaluating the effectiveness of the practice change as part of a commitment to CQI.1 EMRs and HIT actively support other pillars in the PMH vision. In addition to storing and sharing information, the biggest benefit of this technology is the ability to collect data for practice performance and health outcomes of patients served by family practices.41 The data allow practices to measure progress through CQI goals. Larger-scale collection allows for the aggregation of anonymized data sets and measuring performance beyond the practice level.41 Strict privacy regulations ensure that patient data remain secure and confidential. Overall, QI and research benefit patients by guiding more appropriate and efficient care, which forms the basis of another key pillar of Physical space, staffing, electronic records and other digital supports, equipment, and virtual networks facilitate the delivery of timely, accessible, and comprehensive care. 2.1 All PMHs use EMRs in their practices and are able to access supports to maintain their EMR systems. 2.2 EMR products intended for use in PMHs are identified and approved by a centralized process that includes family physicians and other health care professionals. Practices are able to select an EMR product from a list of regionally approved vendors. 2.3 EMRs approved for PMHs will include appropriate standards for managing patient care in a primary care setting; e-prescribing capacity; clinical decision support programs; e-referral and consultation tools; e-scheduling tools that support advanced access; and systems that support data analytics, teaching, research, evaluation, and CQI. 2.4 Electronic records used in a PMH are interconnected, user-friendly, and interoperable. 2.5 Co-located PMH practices are in physical spaces that are accessible and set up to support collaboration and interaction between team members. 2.6 A PMH has the appropriate staff to provide timely access (e.g., having physician assistants and/or registered nurses to meet PMH goals). 2.7 A PMH has technology to enable alternative forms of care, such as virtual care/telecare. 2.8 Sufficient system funding and resources are provided to ensure that teaching faculty and facility requirements will be met by every PMH teaching site. the PMH vision— Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research. As EMR use becomes common, issues shift from rollout to optimization in the practice. Ideally, EMRs must be adequately supported financially and use a universal terminology to allow for standardized data management, and be interoperable with other electronic health records relevant to patient care.1 Training and ongoing technical support for effective use of technology must also be available. Digital information sources, especially in the sensitive areas of patient information and care planning, require a higher level of technical support to maintain faith in their use and application across stakeholder groups. A comprehensive, systematic analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature found that cost sharing or financial sponsorship from governments is required to support the high cost of EMR adoption and maintenance. Governments in several European countries equip all primary care practices with interoperable, ambulatory care-focused electronic health records (EHRs) that allow information to flow across settings to enhance the continuity and coordination of care.1 Ensuring that government supports enable adoption, maintenance and effective use, coordination, and interoperability of electronic tools is crucial for meaningful use of this technology. A PMH will also use technology for alternative forms of care. Virtual care is clinical interactions that do not require patients and providers to be in the same room at the same time.42 Virtual visits will be financially compensated by provincial health plans. Consultations may be asynchronous, where patients answer structured clinical questions online and then receive care from a physician at a later time (e-visits), or synchronous, where patients interact with physicians in real time via telephone (teleconsultations), videoconference (virtual visits), or text.43 Virtual care increases accessibility for those living in rural and remote areas, but also in urban areas where some patients do not have a regular primary care physician or cannot access their physician for in-person appointments within a time frame that meets their current needs.43 Virtual care can also be an alternative solution for patients living in long-term care facilities and/or with mobility issues.43 Strong communication between team members allows PMH practices to function on a virtual basis when the health care professionals are not stationed in the same physical space. It is important to recognize when colocation is not feasible and maintain effective information flow in these situations, which may be especially relevant in rural and remote areas. Practices should ensure the electronic records they use are set up to support collaboration and interaction between all members of the team as much as possible, which includes all health care providers within the PMH as well as the patient’s circle of support. For example, ensuring that when patients see someone other than their most responsible provider is logged into the system and is easy to review to maintain the continuity of care. This becomes complex in situations where providers are not co-located, and further system level supports up to the level of more interoperable and universal electronic records is a prerequisite for full application of this principle. Appropriate infrastructure in a PMH is not just about technology—it includes efficient, effective, and ergonomically well-designed reception, administration, and clinical areas in the office. This is of significant benefit to staff and patients alike.44 Having a shared physical and/or virtual space where multiple team members can meet to build relationships and trust, and communicate with each other regarding patient care is essential to creating a collaborative practice. Team-based care thrives when care is intentional, when planned and regular patient care meetings are incorporated into usual PMH practice, and when these steps are included in remuneration. This collaboration ensures that patients are involved in all relevant Satisfaction with virtual visits A British Columbia study found that over 93 per cent of patients indicated that their virtual visit was of high quality, and 91 per cent reported that their virtual visit was very or somewhat helpful to resolve their health issue.43 10 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 11 discussions and are receiving the best care from professionals with a comprehensive set of skills. A family practice should be physically accessible to patients and their families. This includes ensuring all public areas, washrooms, and offices are wheelchair accessible.44 An examination room should comfortably accommodate the patient and whatever appropriate companion, or health care professionals, who may be in the room at the same time. Having multi-purpose rooms also reduces or eliminates the need to wait for an appropriate room to be available. To achieve their objectives, PMHs need the support of governments across Canada through the provision of adequate funding and other resources. Research demonstrates that in the case of EMRs, key barriers to adoption by family physicians include financial and time constraints, lack of knowledgeable support personnel, lack of interoperability with hospital and pharmacy systems,45 as well as provincial/territorial EHR systems. Therefore, government must assure funding to support the PMH team in their clinical, research, and administrative responsibilities. There must also be support for core practice components such as EMRs, patient-centred practice strategies such as group visits, and electronic communications between patients and health professionals (see Pillar 1: Administration and Funding). EMRs should help improve the delivery of care in community-based practices by enhancing productivity and processes. They are not intended to reduce time with patients, nor should they cause physician burnout or have a negative impact on physician wellness. While the structures supporting the PMH practices differs by province, it is important they cover a common set of principles enabling the base functionalities described in this document. The system must also ensure that all health professionals on the PMH team have appropriate liability protection and that adequate resources are provided so that each PMH practice can provide an optimal setting for teaching students and residents and for conducting practice-based research. Provider autonomy is critical to provider wellness: as physician leadership within the PMH is one of the key pillars, preservation of physician autonomy, while respecting the autonomy and ensuring the accountability of both patients and other health care professionals, must be addressed. Figure 2. The Patient’s Medical Neighbourhood Pillar 3: Connected Care Canada Health Infoway Established in 2001, Canada Health Infoway47 is an independent, not-for-profit organization funded by the federal government. It seeks to improve health care access, moving beyond traditional in-person care models to innovative strategies that accelerate the development, adoption, and effective use of digital health solutions across Canada. Key digital health priorities include electronic records, telehomecare, virtual visits, and patient portals. Connectivity and effective communication within and across settings of care is a crucial concept of a PMH. This ensures that the care patients receive is coordinated and continuous. To achieve this, each PMH should establish, maintain, and use defined links with secondary and tertiary care providers, including local hospitals; other specialists and medical care clinics; public health units; and laboratory, diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy, mental health and addiction, rehabilitation, and other health and social services. Connected care is a priority for many health care organizations in Canada. For example, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI) has established a unique program that looks at improving care connections between providers through improved use of technology.41 (See the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement textbox for more information). The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA), Canadian Medical Association (CMA), and HEAL recognize that giving Canadians the best health and health care requires creating a functionally integrated health system along the full continuum of care—a system based on interprofessional collaborative teams that ensure the right provider, at the right time, in the right place, for the right care.46 Similarly, Canada Health Infoway focuses on expanding digital health across the system to improve quality of and access to care. The PMH exists within the broader patient’s medical neighbourhood (see Figure 2), with links to all other providers in the community. It is important to maintain connections with colleagues in health care as well as social support organizations within the community, as described in Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability. Through links within the neighbourhood, PMH practices work with other providers to ensure timely access for referrals/consultations and define processes for information sharing. Establishing and maintaining these links requires open and frequent communication between all those involved in patient care. 12 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Practice integration with other care settings and services, a process enabled by integrating health information technology. 3.1 A PMH is connected with the health and social services available in the community for patient referrals. 3.2 Defined links are established between the PMH and other medical specialists, and medical care services in the local or nearest community to ensure timely referrals. 3.3 The PMH serves as a hub for collecting and sharing relevant patient information through information technology. It ensures the continuity of patient information received throughout the medical and social service settings. Ideally PMH practices act as the central hub for patient care by collecting and coordinating relevant patient information from external care providers and patients. This includes medical care and care accessed through other health and social services; for example, services received through home care programs. PMH practices should also be able to share relevant information with external providers where and when appropriate, while strictly adhering to relevant privacy regulations. This two-way flow of information ensures that all providers in the network of care have access to the most accurate and comprehensive information available, allowing them “… to spend less time looking for information and more time on what matters: treating the patient.” 49 Overall, connected care in the PMH and the health system is enabled through HIT systems. PMH practices continuously strive to work efficiently with other providers in the patient’s medical neighborhood by taking advantage of developing technologies that make links quicker to establish and easier to maintain. To use HIT systems for coordinated care, the following are required:51 Data standardization Interoperable EMR and other health information systems Real-time access to data and the ability to relay accurate information in a timely manner Reliable communication mechanisms between various health and social service providers and the PMH Privacy for patient information It is important to keep in mind that any patient information, generated during the provision of care, belongs to the patient, as outlined in the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Document Act (PIPEDA). The practice is responsible for secure and confidential storage and transfer of the information. Refer to the Data Stewardship module of the Best Advice guide: Advanced and Meaningful Use of EMRs50 for more information. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement The Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement supports the RACE (Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise) and BASE eConsult services, which use telephone and web-based systems to connect patients with specialists.48 These programs have been successful and demonstrate that remote consultations can reduce wait times for accessing specialty care by enabling family physicians to more efficiently manage their patients in primary care settings. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 13 14 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 FUNCTIONS The functions describe the heart of the PMH and the care provided by PMH practices. These are the key elements that differentiate a PMH from other forms of primary care. A PMH offers: Accessible Care; Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability; Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership; Continuity of Care; and Patient- and Family-Partnered Care. ACCESSIBLE CARE PAGE 15 COMMUNITY ADAPTIVENESS & SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PAGE 17 COMPREHENSIVE TEAM-BASED CARE WITH FAMILY PHYSICIAN LEADERSHIP PAGE 20 CONTINUITY OF CARE PAGE 23 PATIENT & FAMILY PARTNERED CARE PAGE 25 Equitable and ethical practices The CMA has identified equitable access to care as a key priority for reform in the health care system.53 Similarly, accessibility is a key component of the primary health care approach, which is advocated for by the CNA.54 Through the CNA’s Social Justice Gauge, and with the further development of the social justice initiative, the CNA maintains its position as a strong advocate for social justice and a leader in equitable and ethical practices in health care and public health.55 Pillar 4: Accessible Care A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 15 Accessible primary care is fundamental to a highperforming health care system and is considered by patients52 and other health care organizations as one of the most important characteristics of primary health care. For care to be accessible, all patients should have access to a family physician who acts as their most responsible provider and is supported by a team of qualified health professionals. Patients must be able to access medical care and treatment when needed. While most Canadians currently have a regular family doctor,4 it is important that the goal be for everyone in Canada to have access to their own family physicians. Accessible care is about more than just quick access to appointments. It does include timely access principles, but also advanced access, virtual access, and teambased approaches to care that ensure patients can be seen by the most appropriate provider when they need to be seen. Because visits occur for different reasons it is not useful to define appropriate wait times for each type of visit unlike in other areas of health care, such as surgery. Therefore, the focus in family practice should be on enhancing access to ensure patients can access care when they feel it is necessary. This is not to say that family physicians in a PMH must be on call 24/7/365, but that methods for patients to access care through the design of practice operations and scheduling should be given more attention. On the other hand, as patients are offered more choice (e.g., by phone or e-communication), they should also expect practices to establish realistic parameters for what is reasonable. Practices should communicate clearly about what kind of provider availability and response time is reasonable to expect depending on access method and availability of resources. Obtaining this understanding from a practice’s patients and striving to meet these expectations is a By adopting advanced and timely access, virtual access, and team-based approaches, accessible care ensures that patients can be seen quickly. 4.1 A PMH ensures patients have access to medical advice, and information on available care options 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 4.2 Every patient is registered with a PMH. 4.3 PMH practices offer scheduling options that ensure timely access to appropriate care. 4.4 When the patient’s personal family physician is unavailable, appointments are made with another physician, nurse, or other qualified health professional member of the PMH team. 4.5 Patients are able to participate in planning and evaluation of their medical home’s appointment booking system. 4.6 Panel sizes for providers in a PMH should be appropriate to ensure timely access to appointments and safe, high-quality care. After-hours care A Waterloo, Ontario, study found that providing after-hours clinical services reduced wait times, with services from other health care providers seen as a key for improving patient access.59 Accessible care Accessible care reduces redundancy and duplication of services (e.g., when a patient takes a later appointment and also consults another provider in the interim), improves health outcomes, leads to better patient and provider satisfaction, and reduces emergency visits.56–58 16 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 good way to maintain the patient-centred focus of the practice as described in Pillar 1: Administration and Funding. Significant shifts in providing alternative access must be supported by funding bodies. Same-day scheduling has been introduced in many PMH practices to better accommodate patient needs. Frequently referred to as doing “today’s work today,” advanced access offers the vast majority of patients the opportunity to book their appointments on the day they call regardless of the reason for the visit.60 Read more about same day scheduling in the Best Advice guide: Timely Access to Appointments in Family Practice.61 Whenever possible, patients should have clear reasons for the appointment at the time of booking. This ensures that adequate time is planned for each patient visit. If the need to address multiple problems arises, the problems can be triaged on the spot by one of the team and arrangements made to have these concerns dealt with in a timely manner either during the same visit or at another time. It is not always possible for patients to book appointments with their most responsible family physician. To ensure continuity, appointments can be made with other physicians or health care professionals in the team. The decision about who provides care in these cases is based on the patient’s needs, the availability of team members, and the scope of practice for each team member. In these cases, any relevant information from the appointment is communicated to the most responsible provider and taken into account in the long-term care of the patient. PMH practices can further meet patients’ needs through extended office hours, in which the responsibilities for coverage and care are shared by family physicians in one or more practices, as well as by increased involvement of other team members. PMH practices also provide their patients with email, after-hours telephone, and virtual services to guide them to the right place at the right time for the care they need. Appropriately directing patients to the next available appointment, or to a hospital or another emergency service, is critical to the effective management and sustainability of our health care system.62,63 A PMH can help ensure that patients are aware of where they can go to access care and health information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by providing this information to patients in person or via other systems (website, voice mail messages, etc.). In alignment with Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research, PMH practices offer opportunities for patients to provide feedback on the accessibility of the practice. Specifically, patients should have the opportunity to evaluate and provide input for the appointment booking system. Mechanisms and supports need to be in place to ensure that practices and governing bodies can review and respond to feedback appropriately and communicate this back to patients. Determining the optimal panel size for each PMH practice is critical to ensuring accessible and safe, high-quality care.64 Establishing and incorporating recommendations from the PMH vision may enable practices to consider increasing their panel size. Actual panel size will vary depending on the number of physicians and other team members in the practice, the practice’s obligations and A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 17 Social accountability refers to the family physicians’ obligation to meet the needs of Canada’s communities.66 For health care to be socially accountable, it must be accessible by everyone and responsive to the needs of patients, communities, and the broader population.4 This obligation is embedded in the Family Medicine Professional Profile and the Four Principles of Family Medicine, highlighting that family physicians are community-adaptive, responding to the needs of their patients and communities. These principles of family medicine align well with the principles of social accountability. Family practice is relationship-based care that embraces all issues of need and endures over time and place of care. A generalist keeps the whole in mind while attending to the individual parts, the system in mind when fixing individual problems, and the end in mind when commencing the journey. Tools exist to help family physicians and other health care providers enhance their skills and training regarding social accountability and cultural safety through many professional organizations and cross-Canada resource hubs like the National Collaborating Centre of Determinants of Health67 and the National Collaborating Centre on Aboriginal Health,68 as examples. PMH practices are aware of how the SDoH influence the health of patients and communities. Family physicians are often the best-situated primary care professionals to act on Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability A PMH is accountable to its community, and meets their needs through interventions at the patient, practice, community, and policy level. 5.1 PMHs strive to assess and address the social determinants of health (e.g., income, education, housing, immigration status) as relevant for the individual, community, and policy levels. 5.2 Panel size will consider the community’s needs and patients’ safety. 5.3 PMHs use data about marginalized/at-risk populations to tailor their care, programming, and advocacy to meet unique community needs. 5.4 Family doctors in the PMH act as health advocates at the individual, community, and policy levels, using the CanMEDs–Family Medicine (CanMEDS-FM) Framework as a guide to advocacy and are supported in doing so. 5.5 Family doctors and team members within the PMH provide care that is anti-oppressive and culturally safe, seeking to mitigate the experiences of discrimination faced by many patients based on their age, gender, race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, etc. commitment to teaching and research, and the needs of the population being served (see Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability). When deciding panel size, each practice must determine how accepting more patients into the practice might impact the current population, the sustainability of the workload for physicians and other members of the PMH team, and the consequences of panel size on experience of care. Refer to the Best Advice guide: Panel Size for more information.65 issues that affect patients’ SDoH. Advocating for patients and the health care system overall is a natural part of a PMH structure. Advocacy can occur at three levels:69 Micro: In the immediate clinical environment, daily work with individual patients and predicated on the principles of caring and compassion Meso: In the local community, including the patient’s cultural community, the local community of medical providers, and the larger civic community, in which health professionals are citizens as well as practitioners Macro: In the humanitarian realm, where physicians are concerned with the welfare of their entire patient population and seek to improve human welfare through healthy public policy (such as reducing income inequality, supporting equitable and progressive taxation, and expanding the social safety net) The principles of advocacy in family practice are found in the CanMEDS–Family Medicine 201769 competency framework, under the Health Advocate role. The Best Advice guide: Social Determinants of Health70 describes how family physicians in the PMH can make advocacy a practical part of their practice. Poverty is a significant risk factor for chronic disease, mental illness, and other health conditions. Low income and other SDoH also present significant barriers to accessing care.71 To meet the needs of these patients, practices may need to extend hours, be more flexible and responsive, and spend additional time helping patients navigate and access necessary care. PMH practices consider other specific community needs when determining appropriate panel size. Demographics and health status of the patient population can influence the length and frequency of appointments needed, thereby impacting a physician’s caseload.65 For example, a PMH in a community with high rates of chronic conditions may need to reduce the panel size to provide timely and high-quality care, given that patients require more care time and resources. Similarly, a patient’s social situation may impact the time a family physician spends with them. Family physicians and team members may need to use a translator at clinical appointments, and may need to provide written resources in alternative languages, all factors affecting the time required to provide care. Enabling PMH practices to adjust panel size based on community needs requires governments to establish blended payment mechanisms. These remuneration systems ensure family physicians are adequately compensated, and are not financially disincentivized from spending the necessary time with patients (see Pillar 1: Administration and Funding, for more information). Social accountability and cultural competency Part of the response to being more socially accountable with care offered to the community resides within each and every health professional. While courses on cultural competency are now a standard part of medical education, physicians can take this learning further by seeking to reflect on, be aware of, and correct any unconscious biases that naturally forms and holds as a result of individual life experiences. Working to resolve implicit biases is a lifelong effort, but done diligently, can contribute to improving the quality of care provided,72 as well as the satisfaction of being an effective healer—of ourselves, our patients and our societies. Importance of social accountability Social accountability is a key value for health care organizations and professionals. For example, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Royal College), Resident Doctors of Canada, and the Association of Faculties of Medicine amongst others, have adopted policies that highlight the importance social accountability within their organizations and the work they do. 18 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Family physicians and their PMH teams are situated at the nexus of individual and population health, and can engage with their patients in addressing health promotion and disease prevention in creative ways. From accompanying individual patients through teachable moments (e.g., the smoker with pneumonia ready to quit) to influencing civic policy to address homelessness, the stories entrusted to family physicians in daily practice are powerful tools for healthy change. These teams are also key providers in many important public health areas, including illness and injury prevention; health promotion; screening and managing chronic diseases; immunizations; and health surveillance. PMH practices prioritize delivering evidence-based care for illness and injury prevention and health promotion, reinforcing them at each patient visit and other counselling opportunities. PMHs and local or regional public health units should cultivate and maintain strong links with one another. Health care professionals who are part of PMH teams may take on advisory, educational, supportive, or active roles in public health initiatives, in many different occupational, educational, or recreational settings throughout the community. An effective public health system should be inextricably linked to communitybased family physicians and PMHs, recognizing and supporting them as essential to the achievement of the broader population and public health goals. While PMHs focus primarily on the care of individuals and their families, it is important for team members to understand and address the health challenges facing their practice populations and the larger community. These broader challenges represent upstream factors (SDoH) that have greater impact on the health of patients than do the efforts of individual physicians. However, the relationships embedded in individual and collective practices can be central to engaging patients and citizens in building more just and healthier communities and societies. For example, with the help of HIT, details about the needs of populations can be more easily accessed through extraction from practice EMRs, or participation in programs such as the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN).73 The CPCSSN networks collect health information from EMRs of participating primary care providers, extract anonymous data, and share information on chronic conditions with governments, health care providers, and researchers to help inform meaningful systems and practice change. Programs like the CPCSSN allow practices to better understand the needs of their communities and implement specific health promotion and prevention programs that can contribute to the population’s overall well-being. Initiatives like this also ensure the avoidance of data duplication, and recognise that practices do not need (or have the resources) to collect data on their own. However, these data are just a part of caring—the heart of generalism is keeping the whole in mind while attending to its parts, whether it is at the level of the whole patient, the whole family, or the whole society. To meet the needs of their diverse panel of patients, family physicians and other team members in the PMH work to provide anti-oppressive and culturally-safe care, seeking to mitigate experiences of discrimination faced by many patients based on their SDoH. This requires understanding how historical and current injustices have impacted the well-being of certain populations, and working to ensure a safe and welcoming practice environment by focusing on the principles of caring and compassion. Sociodemographic data benefits The FHT at St Michael’s Hospital routinely collects sociodemographic data on all patients. Patients are surveyed about income, housing status, gender identity, and other key SDoH factors, and their responses are integrated into the secure EMR. This information is used to inform and direct individualized patient-centred care. The data will also be used for planning and evaluating the FHT’s programs.74 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 19 Pillar 6: Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership Primary care practice teams Many allied health professional organizations have prioritized the importance of working together in a team to provide patients with the best possible care. The CFPC worked collaboratively with organizations—such as the CNA, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the Dieticians of Canada—to create the Best Advice guide: Team-Based Care in the Patient’s Medical Home.75 The guide includes implementation strategies for creating a primary practice team, and general descriptions of roles found in a collaborative team. 20 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 A broad range of services is offered by an interprofessional team. The patient does not always see their family physician but interactions with all team members are communicated efficiently within a PMH. The team might not be co-located but the patient is always seen by a professional with relevant skills who can connect with a physician (ideally the patient’s own personal physician) as necessary. 6.1 A PMH includes one or more family physicians, who are the most responsible provider for their own panel of registered patients. 6.2 Family physicians with enhanced skills, along with other medical specialists, are part of a PMH team or network, collaborating with the patient’s personal family physician to provide timely access to a broad range of primary care and consulting services. 6.3 On-site, shared-care models to support timely medical consultations and continuity of care are encouraged and supported as part of each PMH. 6.4 The location and composition of a PMH’s team is flexible, based on community needs and realities; team members may be co-located or may function as part of virtual networks. 6.5 The personal family physician and nurse with relevant qualifications form the core of PMH teams, with the roles of others (including but not limited to physician assistants, pharmacists, psychologists, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians, and chiropractors) encouraged and supported as needed. 6.6 Physicians, nurses, and other members of the PMH team are encouraged and supported in developing ongoing relationships with patients. Each care provider is recognized as a member of the patient’s personal medical home team. 6.7 Nurses and other health professionals in a PMH team will provide services within their defined roles, professional scopes of practice, and personally acquired competencies. Their roles providing both episodic and ongoing care support and complement—but do not replace—those of the family physician. Team-based care is a core function of the PMH. Building a team with a diverse mix of professional backgrounds creates an opportunity to redefine what is considered optimal, based on the needs of the practice and the community it serves. A high-performing team is essential to delivering more comprehensive, coordinated, and effective care centred on the patient’s needs. While different circumstances call for aspects of patient care to be provided by different health professionals, it is important to ensure that family physician expertise is available to all team members through consultation. To practice effectively in an interprofessional health care team, there must be a clear understanding of each member’s unique contributions, including educational background, scopes of practice and knowledge, and areas of excellence and limitations.76 Practices that draw on the expertise of a variety of team members are more likely to provide patients with the care they need and respond to community needs.77 Relationships across all dynamics within a practice, whether between a patient and family physician or between a patient and other members of the team, should be encouraged and supported in the PMH. Establishing these relationships develops trust and confidence, and works toward the ultimate goal of achieving better health outcomes. While it should be left to each practice to determine who does what (within the boundaries of professional scopes of practice), the most responsible provider for the medical care for each patient in the practice should be the patient’s personal family physician. Family physicians with enhanced skills and family physicians with focused practices play an important role in collaborating with the patient’s personal family physician and team to provide timely access to a range of primary care and consulting services. They supplement their core skills and experience with additional expertise in a particular field, while remaining committed to their core generalist principles.78 These doctors can draw extensively on their generalist training and approach to disease management and patient-centred care, enabling them to work collaboratively at different levels of care, including with other specialists, to meet patient needs.79 These clinicians also serve as a resource for other physicians in their local health system by enhancing care delivery and learning and teaching opportunities. The Best Advice guide: Communities of Practice in the Patient’s Medical Home80 provides more information about intraprofessional collaboration between family physicians. Shared care strategies provide patients with timely access to consultations with other specialists or family physicians with enhanced skills at scheduled times in the family practice office setting. The consultant might assess several patients per visit, at which time a plan for ongoing care can be developed and agreed to by the family physician, consultant, other team members, and the patient. There is no one-size-fits-all model when determining what mix of health care professionals is right. Team composition depends on the professional competencies, skills, and experiences needed to address the health needs of the patient population.81 These needs vary, depending on the communities’ defining characteristics; Additional members of practice teams Not all health care professionals in a team need to be hired as a full-time team member. For example, a practice can hire a dietician for specific days to lead a diabetes education program and see scheduled patients. Practices can also host other health care professionals, such as those employed with a regional health authority, to provide care to patients on-site. However, funding bodies should recognize that family practice clinics hosting other health care professionals often carry the overhead costs associated with these practitioners working on site, and further supports should be made available to ensure that costs do not unduly fall on the physicians. Pillar 1: Administration and Funding and Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure highlight that a PMH needs to be properly funded and have access to the right infrastructure (physical and governance) to support the initiatives described in this vision. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 21 22 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 for example, geography, culture, language, demographics, disease prevalence. Family physicians are encouraged to identify the gaps in health care provision in the local practice environment and work with other health care providers to meet those needs as much as possible. Data from EMRs—as well as input from patients, community members, and stakeholders—should inform team planning. Factors to consider include: Patient population Identified community health care needs Hours available for patient access Hours available for each physician to work Roles and number of non-physician providers Funds available81 Overlapping or variations of similar competencies can result in ambiguous expectations of what a defined role is within a practice. When teams are planned and developed, roles should be clearly outlined. This is best done at the local practice level relative to community needs and resources. This approach considers changes over the course of a health care professional’s career, including skills development, achievement of certifications, and professional interests.82 It is important to include time for team members to become comfortable in their role, at the outset of team-based care and with any changes to the team. It is also important to recognize that these arrangements are flexible and subject to change, provided the team engages in discussion and reaches consensus on needed adjustments. Team members might be in the same office or in the same building, but this is not necessary. For smaller and more remote practices, or larger urban centres where proximate physical space may be a barrier, some connections may be arranged with peers in other sites. Applying HIT judiciously allows for virtual referrals and consultations. Virtual links between PMH practices and other specialists, hospitals, diagnostic services, etc., can be enhanced with more formal agreements and commitments to provide timely access to care and services. By providing patients with a comprehensive array of services that best meet their needs, team-based care can lead to better access, higher patient and provider satisfaction, and greater resource efficiency.61,77,83 Although there are presently many systems in place that support the creation of health care teams, practices can also create a successful team on their own. To ensure team success, providers must have a clear understanding of the different role responsibilities and ensure that there are tools available to engage open dialogue and communication. Teams within the PMH are supported by a model that is flexible and adaptable to each situation. The skills that family physicians acquire during their training (as described in the CanMEDS-FM framework) make them well suited to provide leadership within interprofessional teams. As an important part of a PMH, teams are central to the concept of patient-centred care that is comprehensive, timely, and continuous. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 23 Pillar 7: Continuity of Care Continuity of care is defined by consistency over time related to where, how, and by whom each person’s medical care needs are addressed throughout the course of their life.84 With strong links to comprehensive team-based care (see Pillar 6: Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership), continuity of care is essential to any practice trying to deliver care truly centred on the needs of the patient. Continuity of care is rooted in a long-term patient-physician partnership in which the physician knows the patient’s history from experience and can integrate new information and decisions from a whole-person perspective efficiently without extensive investigation or record review.84 From the patient’s perspective, this includes understanding each person’s life journey and the context this brings to current health status, and the trust they have in their provider that is built over time. Past studies show that when the same physician attends to a person over time, for both minor and more serious health problems, the patient-physician relationship is strengthened and understanding grows—an essential element of effective primary health care.85 The personal physician offers their medical knowledge and expertise for a more complete understanding of the patient as a person, including the patient’s medical history and their broader social context, such as personal, family, social, and work histories (see Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability). In this model, patients, their families and/or personal caregivers, and all health care providers in the PMH team are partners in care, working together to achieve the patient’s goals and engaging in shared decision making. Understanding the patient’s needs, hopes, and fears, and their patterns of response to illness, medications, and other treatments, deepens the physician’s ability to respond to larger trends, not just the medical issue presented at any given appointment. Continuity of care can ideally support the health and well-being of patients actively and in their daily lives without focusing only on care when they are ill. The strong physician-patient relationship developed over time allows them to maintain good health and prevent illness and injury, as the physician uses their deep knowledge of their patient to work with teams of qualified health professionals to best support the patient’s well-being. Family physicians in the PMH, acting as the most responsible provider, can provide continuous care over the patient’s lifespan and develop strong relationships with patients. Research demonstrates that one of the most significant contributors to better population health is continuity of care.86,87 It found that those who see the same primary care physician continuously over time have better health outcomes, reduced emergency department use, and reductions in hospitalizations versus those who receive care from many different physicians. A Canadian study found that after controlling for demographics and health status, continuity of care was a predictor of decreased hospitalization for ambulatory caresensitive conditions (such as such as COPD, asthma, diabetes, and heart failure) and decreased emergency department visits for a wide range of family practicesensitive conditions.85 Overall “the more physicians patients see, the greater the likelihood of adverse effects; seeking care from multiple physicians in Patients live healthier, fuller lives when they receive care from a responsible provider who journeys with them and knows how their health changes over time. 7.1 The PMH enables and fosters long-term relationships between patients and the care team, thereby ensuring continuous care across the patient’s lifespan. 7.2 PMH teams ensure continuity of care is provided for their patients in different settings, including the family practice office, hospitals, long-term care and other community-based institutions, and the patient’s residence. 7.3 A PMH serves as the hub that ensures coordination and continuity of care related to all the medical services their patients receive throughout the medical community. the presence of high burdens of morbidity will be associated with a greater likelihood of adverse side effects.”86 It has been reported that a regular and consistent source of care is associated with better access to preventive care services, regardless of the patient’s financial status. Continuity of care also requires continuity in medical settings, information, and relationships. Having most medical services provided or coordinated in the same place by one’s personal family physician and team has been shown to result in better health outcomes.88 As described in Pillar 3: Connected Care, when care must be provided in different settings or by different health professionals (i.e., the medical neighbourhood), continuity can still be preserved if the PMH plays a coordination role and communicates effectively with other providers. The PMH liaises with external care providers to coordinate all aspects of care provided to patients based on their needs. This includes but is not limited to submitting and following up on referrals to specialized services, coordinating home care, and working with patients before and after discharge from hospitals or other critical care centres. In addition to this coordination role, the PMH acts as a hub by sharing, collecting, storing, and acting as a steward for all relevant patient information. This ensures that the family physician, as the most responsible provider, has a complete overview of the patient’s history. A record of care provided for each patient should be available in each medical record (preferably through an EMR) and available to all appropriate care providers (see Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure for more information about EMRs). Knowing that medical information from all sources (i.e., providers inside and outside the PMH) is consolidated in one location (physical or virtual) increases the comfort and trust of patients regarding their care. Continuity for patient health Research demonstrates that continuity of care is a key contributor to overall population health. Patients with a regular family physician experience better health outcomes and fewer hospitalizations as compared to those without.69 24 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Pillar 8: Patient- and Family-Partnered Care External factors for patient health care Patient- and family-partnered care is considered a key value to stakeholders across the health care system. In 2011, the CMA and the CNA released a set of principles to guide the transformation of Canada’s health care system.91 Patient-centred care is listed as the first principle, and as a key component of improving the overall health care experience.91 Similarly, in 2016 Patients Canada called on all levels of government to ensure that patients are at the centre of any new health accords and future health care reform.92 * Family caregivers include relatives, partners, friends, neighbours, and other community members. Patient-centred care is at the core of the PMH. Dr. Ian McWhinney—often considered the “father of family medicine”—describes patient-centred care as the provider “enter[ing] the patient’s world, to see the illness through the patient’s eyes … [It] is closely congruent with and responsive to patients’ wants, needs and preferences.”89 In this model, patients, their families and/ or personal caregivers, and all health care providers in the PMH team are partners in care, working together to achieve the patient’s goals and engaging in shareddecision making. Care should always reflect the patient’s feelings and expectations and meet their individual needs. Refer to the Best Advice guide: Patient-Centred Care in a Patient’s Medical Home90 for more information. Family caregivers* play an important role in the PMH. They help patients manage and cope with illness and can assist physicians by acting as a reliable source of health information and collaborating to develop and enact treatment plans.93 The level and type of engagement from family caregivers should always be determined by the patient. Physicians “should routinely assess the patient’s wishes regarding the nature and degree of caregiver participation in the clinical encounter and strive to provide the patient’s desired level of privacy.”94 They should revisit this conversation regularly and make changes based on patient desires. PMH practices focus on providing patient-centred care and ensuring that family caregivers are included. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 25 Family practices respond to the unique needs of patients and their families within the context of their environment. 8.1 Care and care providers in a PMH are patient-focused and provide services that respond to patients’ feelings, preferences, and expectations. 8.2 Patients, their families, and their personal caregivers are active participants in the shared-decision making process. 8.3 A PMH facilitates patients’ access to their medical information through electronic medical records as agreed upon with their care team. 8.4 Self-managed care is encouraged and supported as part of the care plans for each patient. 8.5 Strategies that encourage access to a range of care options beyond the traditional office visits (e.g., telehealth, virtual care, mobile health units, e-consult, etc.) are incorporated into the PMH. 8.6 Patient participation and formalized feedback mechanisms (e.g., patient advisory councils, patient surveys) are part of ongoing planning and evaluation. As part of their commitment to patient-centred care, PMH practices facilitate and support patient self-management. Self-management interventions such as support for decision making, self-monitoring, and psychological and social support, have been demonstrated to improve health outcomes.95 PMH team members should always consider recommendations for care from the patient’s perspective. They should work collaboratively with patients and their caregivers to develop realistic action plans and teach problem-solving and coping. This is particularly important for those with chronic conditions, who must work in partnership with their physician and health care team to manage their condition over time. (Refer to the Best Advice guide: Chronic Care Management in a Patient’s Medical Home96 for more information). The goal of self-managed care should be to build the patient’s and caregiver’s confidence in their ability to deal effectively with illnesses, improve health outcomes, and foster overall well-being. To facilitate patient- and family-partnered care, a range of user-friendly options for accessing information and care beyond the traditional office visit should be available to patients when appropriate. These include email, telehealth, virtual care, mobile health units, e-consults, home visits, same-day scheduling, group visits, self-care strategies, patient education, and treatment sessions offered in community settings. Providing a range of options allows patients to access the type of care they prefer based on individual needs. Patients also need to be informed about how they can access information and resources available to them; for example, resources such as Prevention in Hand (PiH).97 Allowing patients to access to their medical records can improve patient-provider communication and increase patient satisfaction.98,99 The specific information accessible to patients should be discussed and agreed upon by the patient and their care team. Patient education about accessing and interpreting the available information is necessary. Facilitating this type of access requires each PMH to have an EMR system that allows external users to access information securely (see Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure). Patient surveys and opportunities for patients to participate in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of the practice’s services should be encouraged; practices must be willing respond and adapt to patient feedback. To strengthen a patient-centred approach, practices may consider developing patients’ advisory councils or other formalized feedback mechanisms (e.g., using patient surveys) as part of their CQI processes (see Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research). Patient self-management The Ajax Harwood Clinic (AHC) is a good example of how a practice that enables patient self-management can improve long-term health outcomes, especially for patients with chronic conditions.94 The AHC has created an environment of learning and seeks to encourage health literacy among its patients through its various programs. The clinic is focused on patient education and empowerment, and all programs at the clinic are free of charge to patients to remove financial barriers to access. 26 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 27 ONGOING DEVELOPMENT Each PMH strives for ongoing development to better achieve the core functions. The PMH and its staff are committed to Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research; and Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development. MEASUREMENT, CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, AND RESEARCH PAGE 28 TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PAGE 30 28 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Continuous quality improvement CQI is an important value among health organizations such as the CFHI.100 Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research CQI is an essential characteristic of the PMH vision. It encourages health care teams to make practical improvements to their practice, while monitoring the effectiveness of their services, the health outcomes and safety of their patients, and the satisfaction of both patients and the health professionals on the team. Every PMH is committed to establishing a CQI program that will improve patient safety, and enhance efficiency and quality of the services provided to patients. As part of CQI activities, a structured approach is used to evaluate current practice processes and improve systems and to achieve desired outcomes. To engage in CQI, the PMH team must identify the desired outcomes and determine appropriate evaluation strategies. Once the process and the desired outcome are defined with patients, the CQI activity will track performance through data collection and comparison with the baseline. Performance measures can be captured through structured observation, patient and staff surveys (see Pillar 8: Patient- and Family- Partnered Care), the PMH self-assessment tool, and the practice’s EMR (see Pillar 1: Administration and Funding and Pillar 3: Connected Care). The indicators selected should be appropriate to each practice and community setting, be meaningful to the patients and community, and the CQI process could be introduced as a practice’s self-monitoring improvement program or as an assessment carried out by an external group. In some jurisdictions, funding is tied to achieving performance targets, including those that provide evidence for the delivery of more cost-effective care and better health outcomes.101 Some provinces in Canada have begun to link financial incentives to clinical outcomes and targets that have been achieved (“pay for performance” models).102 Although there may be some benefits derived by this approach, there can also be risks if funding incentives and resource supports become overly focused on patients with certain medical problems or on those who have greater potential to reach prescribed targets, while at the same time care is being delayed or denied for others.101,103 Future development A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 28 Family practices strive for progress through performance measurement and CQI. Patient safety is always a focus, and new ideas are brought to the fore through patient engagement in QI and research activities. 9.1 PMHs establish and support CQI programs that evaluate the quality and cost effectiveness of teams and the services they provide for patient and provider satisfaction. 9.2 Results from CQI are applied and used to enhance operations, services, and programs provided by the PMH. 9.3 All members of the health professional team (both clinical and support teams), as well as trainees and patients, will participate in the CQI activity carried out in each PMH. 9.4 PMHs support their physicians, other health professionals, students, and residents to initiate and participate in research carried out in their practice settings. 9.5 PMHs function as ideal sites for community-based research focused on patient health outcomes and the effectiveness of care and services. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 29 of financial incentive models should consider these unintended consequences that might impair the ability of practices to provide good quality patient care to their full population. The objectives that define a PMH could be used to develop the indicators for CQI initiatives in family practices across Canada. These criteria could be augmented by indicators recommended by organizations such as Accreditation Canada, Health Quality Ontario, Health Standards Organization, and the Patient-Centered Medical Home model in the United States. The CFPC is committed to collaborating with these groups to further develop the CQI process for PMHs and family practices. Consult the CFPC’s Practice Improvement Initiative (Pii)104 for a list of available resources. CQI is a team activity and should involve all members of the PMH team as well as patients and trainees. This will ensure buy-in from the team, allow for patient engagement and participation, and provide trainees with valuable learning opportunities.105 PMHs are committed to using the results of CQI initiatives to make tangible changes in their practice to improve operations, services, and programs. Time and effort invested into participation in CQI activities should be recognized as valuable and not be disincentivized through existing remuneration models. Dedicated time and capacity to perform these activities should be built into the practice operational principles. On a larger scale, PMHs function as ideal sites for community-based research focused on patient health outcomes and the effectiveness of care and services. The PMH team should be encouraged and supported to participate in research activities. They should also advocate for medical students, residents, and trainees to take part in these projects. In Canada, the Canadian Primary Healthcare Research Network (CPHRN) and the commitment of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research’s (CIHR’s) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) are vitally important.106 The focus on supporting patient-oriented research carried out in community primary care settings is consistent with the priorities of the PMH. Competitions for research grants such as those announced by SPOR should be strongly encouraged and supported. PMHs are ideal laboratories for studies that embrace the principles of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and the priorities defined by the CPHRN and CIHR’s SPOR project. They provide excellent settings for multi-site research initiatives, including projects like those currently undertaken by the CPCSSN—a nationwide network of family physicians conducting surveillance of various chronic diseases. 30 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Pillar 10: Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development PMH practices serve as training sites for medical students, family medicine residents, and those training to become nurses and other health care professionals.107 They create space for modelling and teaching practices focused on the essential roles of family physicians and interprofessional teams as part of the continuum of a health care system. One of the goals of family medicine residency training is for residents to learn to function as a member of an interdisciplinary team, caring for patients in a variety of settings including family practice offices, hospitals, long-term care and other communitybased institutions, and patients’ residences.70,108 A PMH also models making research and QI initiatives a standard feature of a family practice. Professional development and opportunities to participate in these activities should be available and supported within PMH practices through resources, guidance, and specifically dedicated time. Family medicine training is increasingly focused on achieving and maintaining competencies defined by the CFPC’s Triple C Family Medicine Curriculum.109 Triple C includes five domains of care: care of patients across the life cycle; care across clinical settings (urban and rural); a defined spectrum of clinical responsibilities; care of marginalized/disadvantaged patients and populations; and a defined list of core procedures. Triple C also incorporates the Four Principles of Family Medicine and the CanMEDS-FM Roles. PMHs allow family medicine students and residents to achieve the competencies of the Triple C curriculum and to learn how to incorporate the Four Principles of Family Medicine, the Family Medicine Professional Profile, and the CanMEDS-FM roles into their professional lives. Learners gain experience with patient-partnered care, teams/networks, EMRs, timely access to appointments, comprehensive continuing care, management of undifferentiated and complex problems, coordination of care, practice-based research, and CQI—essential elements of family practice in Canada. Furthermore, PMH practices serve as optimal sites for trainees in other medical specialties and health professions to gain valuable experience working in interprofessional teams and providing high quality, patient-centred care. Medical schools and residency programs should encourage learners to conduct some of their training within PMH practices. Emphasis on training and education ensures that the knowledge and expertise of family physicians can be shared with the broader health care community, and also over time by creating learning organizations where both students and fully practising family physicians can stay at the forefront of best practice. 10.1 PMHs are identified and supported by medical and other health professional schools as optimal locations for the experiential training of their students and residents. 10.2 PMHs teach and model their core defining elements including patient-partnered care, teams/networks, EMRs, timely access to appointments, comprehensive continuing care, management of undifferentiated and complex problems, coordination of care, practice-based research, and CQI. 10.3 PMHs provide a training environment for family medicine residents that models, and enables residents to achieve, the competencies as defined by the Triple C Competency-based Family Medicine Curriculum, the Four Principles of Family Medicine, and the CanMEDS-FM Roles. 10.4 PMHs will enable physicians and other health professionals to engage in continuing professional development (CPD) to meet the needs of their patients and their communities both individually and as a team. 10.5 PMHs enable family physicians to share their knowledge and expertise with the broader health care community. Practising family physicians must engage in CPD to keep current on medical and health care developments and to ensure their expertise reflects the changing needs of their patients, communities, and learners. Mainpro+® (Maintenance of Proficiency) is the CFPC’s program designed to support and promote family physicians’ CPD across all CanMEDS-FM Roles and competencies. CPD refers to physicians’ professional obligation to engage in learning activities that address their own identified needs and the needs of their patients; enhance knowledge, skills, and competencies across all dimensions of professional practice; and continuously improve their performance and health care outcomes within their scope of practice.110 Three foundational principles for CPD in Canada have been recently described: Socially responsive to the needs of patients and communities Informed by scientific evidence and practicebased data Designed to achieve improvement in physician practice and patient outcomes CPD is inclusive of learning across all CanMEDS-FM Roles and competencies, including clinical expertise, teaching and education, research and scholarship, and in practice-based QI. PMH practices support their physicians, and all other staff members, to engage in CPD activities throughout their careers by creating a learning culture in the organization. This includes providing protected time for learning and team-based learning, and access to practice data both to discern patient/community need and practice gaps to inform CPD choices and to evaluate the impact of learning on patient care. This learning culture and the will to be constantly improving quality and access to care is essential to ensuring that the PMH continues to support high performing care teams. To ensure that all PMH team members have the capacity to take on their required roles, leadership development programs should be offered. Enabling physicians to engage in this necessary professional development requires sufficient funding by governments to cover costs of training and financial support to ensure lost income and practice capacity do not prevent this. Physicians in the PMH share their knowledge with colleagues in the broader health care community and with other health care professionals in the team by participating in education, training, and QI activities in collaboration with the pentagram partners.† This is particularly relevant for family physicians who are focused on a particular area of practice (possibly holding a Certificate of Added Competence) and are able to share their extended expertise with others. This can happen either informally or through more official channels. For example, physicians may participate in activities organized by the CFPC or provincial Chapters (e.g., Family Medicine Forum, provincial family medicine annual scientific assemblies), or lend their expertise to interprofessional working groups addressing specific topics in health care. Family physicians should be encouraged to engage in these types of events to share their knowledge and skills for the betterment of the overall health system. Continuing professional development CPD is an integral value across the entire health care system. Organizations such as the Royal College, CMA, and CNA emphasize the value and importance of continuing education for health care professionals to improve patient care. † Pentagram partners: policy-makers—federal, provincial, territorial, and regional health authorities; health and education administrators; university; community; health professionals—physicians and teams A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 31 32 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 CONCLUSION The revised PMH vision of a high-functioning primary care system responds to the rapidly evolving health system and the changing needs of Canadians. The pillars and attributes described in this document can guide practices at various stages in the transition to a PMH, and many characteristics are found in other foundational documents of family medicine such as the Family Medicine Professional Profile111 and the Four Principles of Family Medicine. Supporting resources, such as the PMH Implementation Kit, are available to help those new to the transition overcome barriers to change. Although the core components of the PMH remain the same for all practices, each practice will implement the recommendations according to their unique needs. The PMH is focused on enhancing patient-centredness in the health care system through collaboration, access, continuity, and social accountability. It is intended to build on the long-standing historical contribution of family physicians and primary care to the health and wellbeing of Canadians, as well as on the emerging models of family practice and primary care that have been introduced across the country. Importantly, this vision provides goals and recommendations that can serve as indicators. It enables patients, family physicians, other care health professionals, researchers, health planners, and policy-makers evaluate the effectiveness of any and all models of family practice throughout Canada. Those family practices that meet the goals and recommendations described in this vision will have become PMHs, but the concept is ever evolving. As family physicians commit to making change in their practices, the CFPC commits to supporting developments in the PMH by creating and promoting new resources, which will be available through the PMH website. The CFPC will also play an important advocacy role to ensure that the necessary supports are in place to reach the goals of a PMH. Every family practice across Canada should be supported and encouraged by the public, governments, and other health care stakeholders (the pentagram partners) to achieve this objective. Doing so will ensure that every person in Canada is able to access the best possible primary care for themselves and their loved ones. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 33 REFERENCES 1. College of Family Physicians of Canada. A Vision for Canada: Family Practice - The Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2011. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/ Resource_Items/PMH_A_Vision_for_Canada.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 21. 2. National Physician Survey. 2014 National Physician Survey website. http:// nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/surveys/2014-survey/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 3. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Workforce Survey 2017 website. http:// cma.andornot.com/en/surveydata/default.aspx. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 4. Canadian Institute for Health Information. How Canada Compares: Results from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2016 International Health Policy Survey of Adults in 11 Countries. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2017. Available from: www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/text-alternativeversion- 2016-cmwf-en-web.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 5. Ipsos Public Affairs. The College of Family Physicians of Canada: Family Medicine in Canada Report. Toronto, ON: Ipsos; 2017. 6. World Health Organization. Primary Health Care website. www.who.int/ primary-health/en/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 7. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Four Principles of Family Medicine website. www.cfpc.ca/Principles/. Accessed 2019 January. 8. Canadian Medical Association. Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that works. Care that lasts. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2018. Available from: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/ PolicyPDF/PD10-05.PDF. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 9. College of Family Physicians of Canada. The Patient’s Medical Home Provincial Report Card—February 2019. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/ files/uploads/PMH_ReportCard_2018.pdf. Accessed 2019 February. 10. Alberta Health. Primary Care Networks website. www.health.alberta.ca/ services/primary-care-networks.html. Accessed 2018 August 16. 11. Access Improvement Measures (AIM) Alberta. Third Next Available Appointments website. https://aimalberta.ca/index.php/2016/07/19/the-world-of-third-nextavailable- appointments-2/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 12. Office of the Premier, Ministry of Health. B.C. government’s primary healthcare strategy focuses on faster, team-based care [news release]. Victoria, BC: Government of British Columbia; 2018. 13. General Practice Services Committee. What We Do: Patient Medical Homes website. www.gpscbc.ca/what-we-do/patient-medical-homes-and-primary-carenetworks. Accessed 2018 Aug 22. 14. Government of Manitoba. Frequently Asked Questions about My Health Teams website. www.gov.mb.ca/health/primarycare/myhts/faq.html#manitoba. Accessed 2018 Aug 15. 15. Chateau D, Katz A, Metge C, Taylor C, McDougall C, McCulloch S. Describing Patient Populations for the My Health Team Initiative. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy; 2017. Available from: http://mchp-appserv.cpe. umanitoba.ca/reference//hiusers_Report_web.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 16. Government of Manitoba. Budget Paper F: Reducing Poverty and Promoting Community Involvement. Winnipeg, MB: Government of Manitoba; 2018. Available from: www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget18/papers/F_Reducing_ Proverty_r.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 17. Government of New Brunswick. New model for family medicine aims to improve physician access [news release]. Fredericton, NB: Government of New Brunswick; 2017. Available from: www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/ news_release.2017.06.0849.html. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 18. Health, Office of the Premier. Twenty-five new doctors to be added to New Brunswick’s health-care system to reduce wait times [news release]. Fredericton, NB: Government of New Brunswick; 2018. Available from: www2.gnb.ca/ content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2018.02.0140.html. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 19. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Healthy People, Healthy Families, Healthy Communities: A Primary Health Care Framework for Newfoundland and Labrador 2015-2025. St. John’s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; 2015. Available from: www.health.gov.nl.ca/health/ publications/PHC_Framework_update_Nov26.pdf. Accessed 2018 November. 20. Health and Community Services. Supporting Health Communities: Primary Health Care Team has Success at the Gathering Place [news release]. St. John’s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; 2016. Available from: www. releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2016/health/1124n01.aspx. Accessed 2018 Nov. 21. Nova Scotia Health Authority. Collaborative Family Practice Teams website. www. nshealth.ca/collaborative-family-practice-teams. Accessed 2019 January. 22. Government of Ontario. Family Health Teams website. www.health.gov.on.ca/ en/pro/programs/fht/. Accessed 2018 August 16. 23. Conference Board of Canada. Final Report: An External Evaluation of the Family Health Team (FHT) Initiative. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada; 2014. Available from: www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/abstract.aspx?did=6711. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 24. Kralj B, Kantarevic J, OMA Economics Department. Primary care model enrolment and hospital length of stay in Ontario: patient rostering associated with reduced length of stay, significant health system savings. Ontario Medical Review. Sept 2012, 16-19. Available from: www.oma.org/wp-content/ uploads/sept2012_primary_care_model.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 25. Tiagi R, Chechulin Y. The Effect of Rostering with a Patient Enrolment Model on Emergency Department Utilization. Healthcare Policy. 2014;9(4):105-121. Available from: www.longwoods.com/content/23809//the-effect-of-rosteringwith- a-patient-enrolment-model-on-emergency-department-utilization. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 26. Health PEI. Health Centres Offer Primary Care [news release]. Charlottetown, PE: Government of Prince Edward Island; 2015. Available from: www. princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/health-pei/health-centres-offerprimary- care. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 27. Gouvernement du Québec. Groupe de médecine de famille (GMF), groupe de médecine de famille universitaire (GMF-U) et super-clinique website. www. quebec.ca/sante/systeme-et-services-de-sante/organisation-des-services/gmfgmf- u-et-super-clinique/. Accessed 2019 January. 28. Government of Saskatchewan. Fact Sheet: Connected Care [news release]. Regina, SK: Government of Saskatchewan; 2018. 29. Pomey MP, Ghadiri DP, Karazivan P, Fernandez N, Clavel N. Patients as partners: a qualitative study of patients’ engagement in their health care. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122499. 30. Pointer DD, Orlikoff JE. Board Work: Governing Health Care Organizations. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1999. 31. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. Mythbusters: Most Physicians Prefer Fee-for-Services Payments. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2010. Available from: www.cfhi-fcass. ca/sf-docs/default-source/mythbusters/Myth-Fee-for-Service-E.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 32. Blomqvist A, Busby C. How to Pay Family Doctors: Why “Pay per Patient” is Better than Fee for Service. Toronto, ON: C.D Howe Institute; 2012. Available from: www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/ mixed/Commentary_365.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 33. Holden M, Madore O. Remuneration of Primary Care Physicians (PRB 01-35E). Ottawa, ON: Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Research Branch; 2002. Available from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/ PRB-e/PRB0135-e.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 34. Carter R, Riverin B, Levesque JF, Gariepy G, Quesnel-Vallee A. The impact of primary care reform on health system performance in Canada: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:324. 35. Kiran T, Kopp A, Moineddin R, Glazier RH. Longitudinal evaluation of physician payment reform and team-based care for chronic disease management and prevention. CMAJ. 2015;187(17):E494-502. 36. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Physician Remuneration in a Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: 34 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. Available from: https:// patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guidephysician- remuneration-patients-medical-home/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 37. Hutchison B, Levesque JF, Strumpf E, Coyle N. Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2): 256-288. 38. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B. Toward a Primary Care Strategy for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. Available from: www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Reports/Primary-Care-Strategy- EN.sflb.ashx. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 39. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Canada Health Infoway: The emerging benefits of electronic medical record use in community-based care. Toronto, ON: PricewaterhouseCoopers; 2013. Available from: www.pwc.com/ca/en/healthcare/ publications/pwc-electronic-medical-record-use-community-based-care-report- 2013-06-en.pdf. Accessed 2018 Jul 3. 40. Canada Health Infoway. Use of Electronic Medical Records among Canadian Physicians, 2017 Update. Toronto, ON: Canada Health Infoway; 2017. 41. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Supporting access to data in electronic medical records for quality improvement and research [position statement]. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Health_Policy/CFPC_Policy_ Papers_and_Endorsements/CFPC_Policy_Papers/CFPC-Position-Statement- Supporting-access-data-electronic-medical-records-EN.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 42. Jamieson T, Wallace R, Armstrong K, Agarwal P, Griffin B, Wong I, et al. Virtual Care: A Framework for a Patient-Centric System. Toronto, ON: Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care; 2015. Available from: www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/wihv/WIHV_ VirtualHealthSymposium.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 43. McGrail KM, Ahuja MA, Leaver CA. Virtual Visits and Patient-Centered Care: Results of a Patient Survey and Observational Study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5):e177. 44. Canadian Medical Association. Managing your Practice website. www.cma.ca/ managing-your-practice. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 45. Chang F, Gupta N. Progress in electronic medical record adoption in Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(12):1076-1084. 46. Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian Medical Association, Health Action Lobby. Integration: A New Direction for Canadian Health Care—A Report on the Health Provider Summit Process. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nurses Association; 2013. Available from: www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/files/en/cna_ cma_heal_provider_summit_transformation_to_integrated_care_e.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 47. Canada Health Infoway website. www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 48. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. Connected Medicine website. www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/connected-medicine. Accessed 2018 Aug 15. 49. Rajakulendra N, Macintosh E, Salah H. Transforming Health: Toward decentralized and connected care. Toronto, ON: MaRS Discovery District; 2014. Available from: www.marsdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Sep15- MaRS-Whitepapers-SmartHealth.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 50. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Advanced and Meaningful Use of EMRs. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2018. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/ best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-advanced-and-meaningful-use-ofemrs/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 51. Ontario Primary Care Council. Position Statement: Care Co-ordination in Primary Care. Toronto, ON: Ontario Primary Care Council; 2015. Available from: www.afhto.ca/wp-content/uploads/OPCC_Care-Coordination-Position. pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 52. Wong ST, Watson DE, Young E, Regan S. What do people think is important about primary healthcare? Healthcare Policy. 2008; 3(3):89-104. 53. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Position Statement: Ensuring Equitable Access to Care: Strategies for Government, Health System Planners and the Medical Profession. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available from: www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/2018-11/PD14-04-e.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 54. Canadian Nurses Association. Position Statement: Primary Health Care. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nurses Association; 2015. Available from: www.cna-aiic. ca/-/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/primary-health-care-position-statement. pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 55. Canadian Nurses Association. Social Justice … a means to an end, an end in itself; 2nd edition. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nurses Association; 2010. Available from: www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/social_justice_2010_e. pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 56. Barry DW, Melhado TV, Chacko KM, Lee RS, Steiner J, Kutner JS. Patient and physician perceptions of timely access to care. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(2):130-133. 57. Glass DP, Kanter M, Jacobsen SJ, Minardi PM. The impact of improving access to primary care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(6):1451-1458. 58. Hudec JC, MacDougall S, Rankin E. Advanced access appointments: effects on family physician satisfaction, physicians’ office income, and emergency department use. Can Fam Phys. 2010;56(10):e361-e367. 59. Stalker CA. How have physicians and patients at New Vision Family Health Team experienced the shift to a family health team model? Final Report. Unpublished; 2010. 60. Murray M, Tantau C. Same-day appointments: exploding the access paradigm. Fam Pract Manag. 2000;7(8):45-50. 61. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Timely Access to Appointments in Family Practice. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2012. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/ resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-timely-access/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 62. Lemire F. First contact: what does it mean for family practice in 2017? Can Fam Phys. 2017;63(3):256. 63. Williams DL. Balancing rationalities: gatekeeping in health care. J Med Ethics. 2001;27(1):25-29. 64. Murray M, Davies M, Boushon B. Panel size: How many patients can one doctor manage? Fam Pract Manag. 2007;14(4):44-51. 65. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Panel Size. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2012. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/best-advice-guides/bestadvice- guide-panel-size/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 66. Buchman S, Woollard R, Meili R, Goel R. Practising social accountability. Can Fam Phys. 2016; 62(1):15-18. 67. National Collaborating Centre of Determinants of Health website. www.nccdh. ca/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 68. National Collaborating Centre on Aboriginal Health website. www.nccahccnsa. ca/en/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 69. College of Family Physicians of Canada. CanMEDS–Family Medicine 2017: A competency framework for family physicians across the continuum. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/Resource_Items/Health_ Professionals/CanMEDS-Family-Medicine-2017-ENG.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 70. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Social Determinants of Health. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/bestadvice- guides/best-advice-guide-social-determinants-health/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 71. Lightman E, Mitchell A, Wilson B. Poverty is making us sick: A comprehensive survey of income and health in Canada. Toronto, ON: The Wellesley Institute; 2008. Available from: www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ povertyismakingussick.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 18. 72. White AA 3rd, Logghe HJ, Goodenough DA, Barnes LL, Hallward A, Allen IM, et al. Self-Awareness and Cultural Identity as an Effort to Reduce Bias in Medicine. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2018;5(1):34-49. 73. Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network website. http://cpcssn. ca/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 74. Pinto AD, Bloch G. Framework for building primary care capacity to address the social determinants of health. Can Fam Phys. 2017;63(11):e476-482. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 35 75. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Team-Based Care in the Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/ best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-team-based-care-patients-medical-home/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 76. Grant R, Finocchio L, Pew Health Professions Commission, California Primary Care Consortium. Interdisciplinary collaborative teams in primary care: a model curriculum and resource guide. San Francisco, CA: Pew Health Professions Commission; 1995. 77. Schottenfeld L, Petersen D, Peikes D, Ricciardi R, Burak H, McNellis R, et al. Creating Patient-Centered Team-Based Primary Care. AHRQ Pub. No. 16- 0002-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016. 78. Department of Health. Part 3: The accreditation of GPs and Pharmacists with Special Interests, In: Implementing care closer to home: Convenient quality care for patients. London, UK: Department of Health; 2007. Available from: www.pcc-cic.org.uk/sites/default/files/articles/attachments/improved_quality_ of_care_p3_accreditation.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 79. Department of Health. Part 1: Introduction and overview, In: Implementing care closer to home: Convenient quality care for patients. London, UK: Department of Health; 2007. Available from: www.pcc-cic.org.uk/sites/default/ files/articles/attachments/improved_quality_of_care_p1_introduction.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 80. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Communities of Practice in the Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome. ca/resources/best-advice-guides/communities-practice-patients-medicalhome/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 81. Dinh T. Improving Primary Health Care Through Collaboration: Briefing 2— Barriers to Successful Interprofessional Teams. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada; 2012. Available from: www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/ abstract.aspx?did=5181&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 82. Nelson S, Turnbull J, Bainbridge L, Caulfield T, Hudon G, Kendel D, et al. Optimizing Scopes of Practice: New Models for a New Health Care System. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Academy of Health Sciences; 2014. 83. Mautner DB, Pang H, Brenner JC, Shea JA, Gross KS, Frasso R, et al. Generating hypotheses about care needs of high utilizers: lessons from patient interviews. Popul Health Manag. 2013;16(Suppl1):S26-33. 84. American Academy of Family Physicians. Definition of Continuity of Care website. www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/definition-care.html. Accessed 2018 July 25. 85. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Continuity of Care With Family Medicine Physicians: Why It Matters. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2015. Available from: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/UPC_ ReportFINAL_EN.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 86. Starfield B, Chang HY, Lemke KW, Weiner JP. Ambulatory specialist use by nonhospitalized patients in us health plans: correlates and consequences. J Ambul Care Manage. 2009;32(3):216-25. 87. Pereira Gray DJ, Sidaway-Lee K, White E, Thorne A, Evans PH. Continuity of care with doctors-a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e021161. 88. Starfield B, Shi L. The medical home, access to care, and insurance: a review of evidence. Pediatrics. 2004;113(Supplement 4):1495. 89. McWhinney I. The Need for a Transformed Clinical Method. In: Communicating with Medical Patients. London, UK: Sage; 1989:25. 90. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Patient-Centred Care in a Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2014. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome. ca/resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-patient-centredness/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 91. Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses Association. Principles to Guide Health Care Transformation in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2011. 92. Patients Canada. Why we need a Health Accord with Patients at the Centre [news release]. Toronto, ON: Patients Canada; 2016. Available from: https:// patientscanada.ca/2016/01/18/why-we-need-a-health-accord-with-patients-atthe- centre/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 93. Omole FS, Sow CM, Fresh E, Babalola D, Strothers H. Interacting with patients’ family members during the office visit. Am Fam Physician. 2011; 84(7): 780-784. 94. Mitnick S, Leffler C, Hood VL; American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee. Family caregivers, patients and physicians: ethical guidance to optimize relationships. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):255-60. 95. Panagioti M, Richardson G, Small N, Murray E, Rogers A, Kennedy A, et al. Self-management support interventions to reduce health care utilisation without compromising outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:356. 96. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Chronic Care Management in a Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/ resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-chronic-care-managementpatients- medical-home/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 97. Prevention in Hand website. www.preventioninhand.com. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 98. Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e40. 99. Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44. 100. Health Council of Canada. Which way to quality? Key perspectives on quality improvement in Canadian health care systems. Toronto, ON: Health Council of Canada; 2013. Available from: https://healthcouncilcanada.ca/files/ QIReport_ENG_FA.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 101. Mattison CA, Wilson MC. Rapid Synthesis: Examining the Effects of Valuebased Physician Payment Models. Hamilton, ON: McMaster Health Forum; 2017. Available from: www.mcmasterforum.org/docs/default-source/productdocuments/ rapid-responses/examining-the-effects-of-value-based-physicianpayment- models.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. \ 102. Kaczorowski J, Hearps SJ, Lohfeld L, Goeree R, Donald F, Burgess K, et al. Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates. Can Fam Phys. 2013; 59(6): e282-9. 103. Hutchison B. Pay for performance in primary care: proceed with caution, pitfalls ahead. Healthc Policy. 2008; 4(1): 10-15. 104. College of Family Physicians of Canada. The Practice Improvement Initiative (Pii) website. www.cfpc.ca/pii/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 105. Ontario College of Family Physicians. Advancing Practice Improvement in Primary Care – Final Report. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Family Physicians; 2015. Available from: https://ocfp.on.ca/docs/default-source/ default-document-library/hqo_final_report_advancing_practice_improvement_in_ primary_care.pdf?sfvrsn=d793f489_4. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 106. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research website. www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 107. Hasley PB, Simak D, Cohen E, Buranosky R. Training residents to work in a patient-centered medical home: What are the outcomes? J Grad Med Educ. 2016; 8(2): 226-231. 108. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Specific Standards for Family Medicine Residency Programs – The Red Book. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. 109. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Triple C Competency Based Curriculum website. www.cfpc.ca/Triple_C/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 110. Filipe HP, Silva ED, Stulting AA, Golnik KC. Continuing professional development: Best practices. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2014; 21(2): 134-141. 111. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Family Medicine Professional Profile website. www.cfpc.ca/fmprofile/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22.
Documents
Less detail

Submission to House of Commons Standing Committee on Health Regarding the Common Drug Review

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy8719
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2007-05-14
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2007-05-14
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association represents more than 65,000 physicians in Canada; its mission is to serve and unite the physicians of Canada and to be the national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest standards of health and health care. In pursuit of this mission we are developing a growing body of policy on pharmaceutical issues. In November 2003, we presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health during its study of prescription drug issues. In July 2006 CMA, along with four other national organizations representing patients, health professionals, health system managers and trustees, formed the Coalition for a Canadian Pharmaceutical Strategy and released a framework and principles that we believed should govern the development of pharmaceutical strategy in this country. We understand that the current study of the Common Drug Review (CDR) is part of a larger, more comprehensive study of prescription drugs being contemplated by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. We look forward to assisting you with this study. In the meantime, we will note that the CDR is intimately linked to related issues such as catastrophic coverage and a national formulary, and will also briefly discuss these in our presentation. Pharmaceuticals are important to the health of Canadians. For many patients prescription drugs have prevented serious disease, reduced hospital stays, replaced surgical treatment and improved their capacity to function productively in the community. Pharmaceuticals also offer health-care system benefits by reducing other costs such as hospital expenses and disability payments. While prescription drugs offer significant benefits, expenditures on them are also growing faster than any other component of health care. It is realistic to expect that the role of prescription drugs in health care will continue to increase and that as a result government expenditures on them will rise accordingly. As patients become increasingly knowledgeable and politically aware, they will continue to expect and demand access to an expanded range of prescription drugs. CMA believes that any pharmaceutical strategy should be predicated on two pre-eminent principles, which are in keeping with longstanding Canadian values: * All Canadians should have access to safe and effective prescription drugs; and * No Canadian should be deprived of medically necessary drugs because of inability to pay. Whether the CDR serves to further these goals has been a matter of vigorous debate. Federal and provincial representatives have told the House of Commons Committee that the CDR is meeting their needs and has in some cases provided them with a higher-quality review than they could have achieved on their own. On the other hand, patient groups have charged that the CDR is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and a barrier between them and potentially life-saving new therapies. It is possible, if not probable, that reforms to the CDR may never completely eliminate the tension between these two viewpoints. We understand the frustration of patients and their advocates when the CDR recommends against public reimbursement or even more, when the CDR approves a drug but individual provinces refuse to include that drug on their formularies. In both these cases, sustainability of the health care system is an important and valid consideration. It would be unfortunate if our limited health care dollars, which might otherwise have been spent on disease treatment or prevention strategies of proven effectiveness, went instead to funding expensive drugs which ultimately proved no more beneficial to patients than others which cost much less. 2) General principles regarding drug review The process of reviewing drugs for inclusion in public formularies did not begin with the CDR. Before it was created, each federal and provincial formulary conducted its own review. Without the CDR, separate reviews would still be taking place. To dismantle the review process entirely would be unacceptable, both economically and politically. Within the context of an overarching goal to enhance access to medically required pharmaceuticals to the extent that they are needed, the primary purpose of a drug review process should be to help ensure access to prescription drugs for which evidence indicates safety and effectiveness in the treatment, management and prevention of disease, and/or significant benefits in quality of life. To help ensure that it achieves this purpose, we believe the following principles should apply to drug review in Canada: * The review process should be impartial and founded on the best available scientific evidence. * The primary criteria for inclusion in a formulary should be whether the drug improves health outcomes, and offers an improvement over products currently on the market. * The review process should also incorporate evaluation of the drug's cost-effectiveness. * Drugs should be evaluated not in isolation but as an integral part of the health care continuum. The review should consider: * A drug's impact on overall health care utilization. If a drug reduces a patient's hospital stay, helps an otherwise disabled patient return to work, or replaces other costlier or more invasive therapies, this should be considered in evaluating its overall cost-effectiveness. * Alternatives to the drug under review. The review should compare a drug's performance to other drugs in the same class, and to available non-drug therapies. * The review process should be flexible, taking into account the unique needs and therapeutic outcomes of individual patients, and the expertise of physicians in determining which drugs are best for their patients. * The review process should be open and transparent. We support the CDR's intent to publish the rationales for its decisions, including lay-language versions. * CDR findings are a valuable source of information on the safety and effectiveness of the drugs physicians prescribe. As such, they should be communicated to caregivers and patients as part of an ongoing strategy to encourage best practices in prescribing. * Meaningful participation by patients and health professionals should be part of the review process; we note with approval the expansion of the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee to include members of the public. We also suggest that the CDR experiment with open fora and other means of obtaining public input. * A process for appealing the review's decisions should be established. * Ongoing evaluation of the review process should be required. We note that the CDR has already undergone an evaluation, and is planning to implement some of the key recommendations. Impartial evaluations should continue to take place, to assess whether the CDR is having a positive impact on the health of Canadians and of their health care system. 3) The Larger Picture The Common Drug Review does not exist in isolation. As the Coalition for a Canadian Pharmaceutical Strategy - of which CMA is a member - stressed in its 2006 statement, the elements of a comprehensive Canadian pharmaceutical strategy are interdependent and should be developed concurrently to ensure that the strategy is coherent and holistic. The CDR is interlinked with other issues concerning access to health care generally and to prescription drugs more specifically, and we suggest that the Committee also consider the following issues: a) Drugs for Rare Disorders. One controversy surrounding the CDR is that its approval rates are low for drugs for very rare disorders, many of which are first-in-class. One reason may be the cost of these drugs, which is often extremely high. It is also alleged that the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee's (CEDAC) current review standards, which place a high value on large-sample clinical trials, are unable to adequately capture the value of these drugs. It has been recommended that more drugs for rare disorders be approved based on interim targets or surrogate endpoints. The ultimate measure of a drug's effectiveness is its clinical endpoint; this should not be forgotten in any process of drug approval. This issue merits closer consideration, as do all issues related to drugs for rare disorders. CMA recommends that Canada develop a policy on drugs for rare disorders, which: * Encourages their development; * Evaluates their effectiveness; and * Ensures that all patients who might benefit have reasonable access to them. b) Common Formulary. CMA recommends that Canada's governments consider the possibility of establishing a pan-Canadian formulary. Canadian patients need a national standard; 18 different levels of coverage is not acceptable. Should the CDR form the basis of this formulary? That would depend on whether evaluation proves that the CDR is the most effective vehicle. We do believe that cost control, though not the primary function of a pan-Canadian formulary, is a valid system concern. If two drugs in the same class are equally effective, it is reasonable to expect that the less expensive drug should be preferentially covered and/or prescribed. On the other hand, a pan-Canadian formulary should be flexible. It should include a process to allow patients access to off-formulary drugs if in the opinion of the attending physician the recommended product is not the right choice for them. This process should be designed so as to minimize the administrative burden on health professionals. c) Catastrophic Drug Coverage. It is now generally accepted that a pan-Canadian catastrophic drug program is needed. The point of discussion now is what type of program should be put in place. To ensure that Canadians can access the drugs they need, regardless of where they live or how much they earn, CMA recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments, in collaboration with private insurers, assess the drug needs of Canadians, particularly those who are uninsured or under-insured, and agree on an option for providing equitable and comprehensive prescription drug coverage. As a starting point, CMA has recommended that governments give priority to a national pharmacare program to provide necessary drugs for all Canadian children and youth. Conclusion In principle, CMA believes that a process for reviewing prescription drugs for their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can contribute to improving the health of Canada's patients and our health care system. The value of the CDR will be determined by how well it performs this function. Canadian Medical Association May 14, 2007
Documents
Less detail

Palliative care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11809
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2015-10-03
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 10 Policy Document PD10-02 - Funding
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2015-10-03
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
Palliative care is an approach that aims to relieve suffering and improve the quality of life of those facing life-limiting acute or chronic conditions by means of early identification, assessment, treatment of pain and other symptoms and support of all physical, emotional and spiritual needs. It may coexist with other goals of care, such as prevention, treatment and management of chronic conditions, or it may be the sole focus of care. General principles Goals 1. All Canadian residents should have access to comprehensive, quality palliative care services regardless of age, care setting, diagnosis, ethnicity, language and financial status.1 2. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) declares that its members should adhere to the principles of palliative care whereby relief of suffering and quality of living are valued equally to other goals of medicine. 3. The CMA believes that all health care professionals should have access to referral for palliative care services and expertise.2 4. The CMA supports the integration of the palliative care approach into the management of life-limiting acute and chronic disease.3 5. The CMA advocates for the integration of accessible, quality palliative care services into acute, community and chronic care service delivery models4 that align with patient and family needs. 6. The CMA supports the implementation of a shared care model, emphasizing collaboration and open communication among physicians and other health care professionals.5 7. The CMA recognizes that the practice of assisted dying as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada is distinct from the practice of palliative care. Access to palliative care services 8. The CMA believes that every person nearing the end of life who wishes to receive palliative care services at home should have access to them. 9. Comprehensive, quality palliative care services must be made available to all Canadians and efforts to broaden the availability of palliative care in Canada should be intensified.6 10. The CMA calls upon the federal government, in cooperation with provincial and territorial governments, to improve access to pediatric palliative care through enhanced funding, training and awareness campaigns.7 11. The CMA will engage in physician human resource planning to develop an appropriate strategy to ensure the delivery of quality palliative care throughout Canada.8 Education 12. All physicians require basic competencies in palliative care and may require enhanced skills appropriate to their practice. 13. The CMA requests that all Canadian faculties of medicine create a training curriculum in palliative care suitable for physicians at all stages of their medical education and relevant to the settings in which they practise.9 Role of governments 14. The CMA calls on governments to work toward a common strategy for palliative care to ensure equitable access to and adequate standards for quality palliative care.10 15. The CMA recommends that all relevant legislation be amended to recognize that any person whose medical condition warrants it is entitled to receive palliative care.11 16. The CMA supports emergency funding for end-of-life care for uninsured people residing in Canada.12 BACKGROUND In Canada, the impact of end-of-life care on both individuals and the health care system is "staggering," and the demand for this care will continue to grow as the population ages.13 It is estimated that the number of Canadians dying each year will increase by 40% to 330,000 by 2026. The well-being of an average of five others will be affected by each of those deaths, or more than 1.6 million people.14 Against this backdrop, the availability of and access to palliative care is an urgent policy and practice imperative. There has been mounting support for, and mounting criticism of the lack of, a national strategy for palliative care.15 The delivery of palliative care varies greatly across Canada due to differences in regional demographics, societal needs, government involvement and funding structures. Similarly, funding and legislation supporting access to palliative care services vary significantly between jurisdictions. A recent survey of Canadian physicians who provide palliative medicine found that: (1) Canada needs an adequate palliative medicine workforce; (2) primary care providers need more support for palliative care education and training; (3) palliative medicine as a distinct discipline must be further developed to better meet the complex needs of patients; and (4) Canada must ensure minimum palliative medicine standards are met.16 In an effort to address the current challenges in palliative care and improve both the quality of care and access to care, the CMA developed recommendations for a national call to action: 1. All patients should have a primary care provider that can support them with their palliative care needs or else refer these patients earlier to a palliative care team to establish goals of care. 2. Physicians should provide leadership at local, regional, provincial/territorial and federal levels to promote the establishment of integrated models of palliative care. 3. All physicians should obtain essential palliative care skills and knowledge to provide basic palliative care services to their patients. 4. Physicians should advocate for adequate and appropriate home palliative care resources so their patients can stay in their homes as long as possible. 5. Physicians should advocate for an adequate number of palliative and/or hospice care beds to meet their communities' needs. 6. Continuing care facilities and long-term care homes should have in-house palliative care physician support on their palliative care teams. 7. Physicians should support the valuable work of hospice volunteers. 8. Medical students are encouraged to look at palliative care as a rewarding career. 9. Practising palliative care physicians are encouraged, if needed, to obtain additional certified training in palliative care from either the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada or the College of Family Physicians of Canada. 10. Physicians acknowledge the value of and support the participation of family and friends in caring for their loved ones at the end of life. Integrated palliative approach to care There are four main models of palliative care delivery in Canada: integrated palliative care programs, continuing care and long-term care facilities, residential hospices, and home-based palliative care. Palliative care was originally developed in cancer care to provide patients dying of cancer with care at the very end of life by a specialized palliative care team.17 This model has evolved significantly in response to the increasing occurrence of, and burden posed by, complex chronic disease18. Palliative care is now also provided to patients with multiple co-occurring morbidities who require multiple interventions. It is now recognized to benefit all those living with life-limiting acute or chronic conditions, including, or perhaps especially, when it is initiated earlier in the disease trajectory. Evidence shows that integrated and early provision of palliative care leads to: (1) better outcomes than those obtained with treatment alone (e.g., improvements in symptoms, quality of life and patient satisfaction; positive effects on emotional wellness; decreased suffering; and at times increased longevity) and (2) better use of resources (e.g., less burden on caregivers, more appropriate referrals to hospice palliative care, more effective use of palliative care experts, less use of emergency and intensive interventions and decreased cost of care).19-20-21-22 Taken together, these studies validate the benefits of integrating palliative care services with standard treatment and involving palliative care providers early, a collaborative approach that transcends the conventional view that palliative care is care delivered at the very end of life. At present, there is strong support for the development and implementation of an integrated palliative approach to care. Integration effectively occurs: * throughout the disease trajectory; * across care settings (primary care, acute care, long-term and complex continuing care, residential hospices, shelters, home); * across professions/disciplines and specialties; * between the health care system and communities; and * with changing needs from primary palliative care through to specialist palliative care teams. The integrated palliative approach to care focuses on meeting a person's and family's full range of physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs at all stages of frailty or chronic illness, not just at the end of life.23 It is provided in all health care settings. The palliative approach to care is not delayed until the end stages of an illness but is applied earlier to provide active comfort-focused care and a positive approach to reducing suffering. It also promotes understanding of loss and bereavement (Fig. 1). Figure 1 Specialized palliative units and hospices are essential for end-of-life care for some individuals but are not appropriate for all persons facing life-limiting chronic conditions. When a palliative approach is offered in multiple settings, people and their families can receive better care through the many transitions of chronic conditions like dementia, lung, kidney and heart diseases, and cancer. This requires that all physicians be competent in initiating a primary palliative approach: they must be able to engage in advance care planning discussions, ask about physical and emotional symptoms and make appropriate, timely referrals to other providers and resources. Primary care physicians may need to develop more expertise in palliative care. A cadre of expert palliative care physicians will be required to provide care in complex cases, engage in education and research, and provide support for health professional colleagues providing palliative care in multiple settings. All health professionals must be able to practise competently in an integrated palliative approach to care. At the heart of an integrated palliative approach to care are a patient and family surrounded by a team of multidisciplinary professionals and community providers (Fig. 2). While team members vary depending on the needs of the patients and families, the principles of whole-person care and family care do not change. This allows patients and families to have their symptoms managed, receive care in the setting of their choice, engage in ongoing discussions about their preferences for care and experience a sense of autonomy in living their lives well. Figure 2 A report on The Way Forward, a project of the Quality End-of-Life Coalition of Canada and the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, summarizes the situation as follows: "Only a small proportion of Canadians will need the kind of complex, intensive or tertiary hospice palliative care provided by expert palliative care teams in institutional settings, such as residential hospices and acute care hospitals. However, everyone who is becoming frail or is faced with a chronic illness could benefit from certain key palliative care services. As our population ages, we must ensure that all Canadians have access to palliative services integrated with their other care that will help them manage symptoms, enhance their lives, give them a greater sense of control, and enable them to make informed decisions about the care they want. More equitable access to palliative care integrated with their other care will enable more Canadians to live well with their illness up to the end of life. It will also enable more people to receive care in the setting of their choice and reduce the demand on acute care resources." 24 Access to palliative care services There are currently no reliable data on the number of specialized or semi-specialized palliative care physicians in Canada. It is difficult to count these physicians because palliative care has not historically existed as a specialty. Physicians practising palliative care have a wide variety of backgrounds and training, and many provide palliative care on a part-time basis. The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians is currently working with partner organizations including the CMA, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons and the College of Family Physicians of Canada to better define the different types of palliative care physicians to conduct a meaningful count. On the question of access, studies have found that palliative care services are not aligned with patient preferences. For example, while 70% of hospitalized elderly patients reported wanting comfort measures rather than life-prolonging treatment, more than two-thirds were admitted to intensive care units.25 Most patients and caregivers report wanting to die at home26 and in-home palliative team care is a cost-effective intervention,27 but the value of this form of care is not reflected in many provincial policies. Instead, Canadian families frequently shoulder 25% of the total cost of palliative care because they must pay for home-based services,28 such as nursing and personal care services, that are not provided by governments. With the goal of improving the congruence between patient treatment preferences for end-of-life care and the services provided, Health Quality Ontario developed an evidentiary platform to inform public policy on strategies to optimize quality end-of-life care in in-patient and outpatient (community) settings. It identified four domains in which access to end-of-life care should be optimized to align with patient preferences: (1) location (determinants of place of death); (2) communication (patient care planning discussions and end-of-life educational interventions); (3) team-based models of care; and (4) services (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] and supportive interventions for informal caregivers).29 Education It is well recognized that education in palliative care is lacking in medical school and residency training. In response, the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, in partnership with the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, conducted the Educating Future Physicians in Palliative and End-of-Life Care Project30 to develop consensus-based competencies for undergraduate medical trainees and a core curriculum that was implemented in all 17 Canadian medical schools. Despite these efforts, a survey conducted by the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians found that the competencies are not being consistently taught in medical schools, as evidenced by the fact that 10 medical schools offered less than 10 hours of teaching on palliative care and two offered none.31 Moreover, evidence suggests that Canadian physicians are not consistently or adequately trained in palliative care. There is a general lack of providers trained in palliative care for service provision, teaching, consultative support to other physicians and research. To fill the observed gap in education, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada is developing Palliative Medicine as a subspecialty, and the College of Family Physicians of Canada is developing a Certificate of Added Competence in Palliative Care. What is more, different levels of palliative care competencies are required for different physicians: * All physicians require basic skills in palliative care. * Palliative consultants and physicians who frequently care for patients with chronic illnesses and/or frail seniors require enhanced skills. * Palliative medicine specialists and palliative medicine educators require expert skills. More broadly, the undergraduate curricula of all health care disciplines should include instruction in the principles and practices of palliative care, including how to access specialized palliative care consultation and services. Role of governments Access to palliative care must be treated with the same consideration as access to all other medical care. Provincial/territorial and federal legislation, however, is vague in this regard and does not recognize access to palliative care as an entitlement. Government funding of community-based hospice palliative care has not increased proportionately to the number of institutionally based palliative care beds that have been cut, leaving a significant gap in the health care system.32 To address this issue, efforts to broaden the availability of and access to palliative care in Canada need to be intensified. It is imperative that governments develop a common palliative care strategy to ensure equitable access to and adequate standards for quality palliative care, including emergency funding for those who are uninsured. Glossary Integrated palliative approach to care: An approach that focuses on quality of life and reduction of suffering as a goal of care. This approach may coexist with other goals of care - prevention, cure, management of chronic illness - or be the sole focus of care. The palliative approach integrates palliative care services throughout the treatment of a person with serious life-limiting illness, not just at the very end of life. Palliative care services: Generally consists of palliative care provided by a multidisciplinary team. The team may include a primary care physician, a palliative care physician, nurses, allied health professionals (as needed), social workers, providers of pastoral care and counselling, bereavement specialists and volunteers. The team members work together in a shared care model. Shared care model: An approach to care that uses the skills and knowledge of a range of health professionals who share joint responsibility for an individual's care. This model involves monitoring and exchanging patient data and sharing skills and knowledge among disciplines.33 References 1 Policy Resolution GC99-87 - Access to end-of-life and palliative care services. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 1999. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 2Policy Resolution GC14-20 - Palliative care services and expertise. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 3Policy Resolution GC13-67 - Palliative Care. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2013. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 4Policy Resolution GC13-66 - Palliative Care Services. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2013. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 5 Policy Resolution GC13-80 - Collaborative palliative care model. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2013. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 6Policy Document PD15-02 - Euthanasia And Assisted Death (Update 2014). Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2015. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assetslibrary/document/en/advocacy/EOL/CMA_Policy_Euthanasia_Assisted%20Death_PD15-02-e.pdf#search=Euthanasia%20and (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 7 Policy Resolution GC06-12 - Access to pediatric palliative care. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2006. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 8Policy Resolution GC14-23 - Delivery of quality palliative end-of-life care throughout Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 9Policy Resolution GC13-71 - Training in palliative care. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2013. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 10Policy Document PD10-02 - Funding the continuum of care.Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2010. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 11Policy Resolution GC13-70 - Palliative Care. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2013. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 12Policy Resolution GC14-26 - Emergency funding for end-of-life care for uninsured people residing in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2015 Nov 26). 13 OHTAC End-of-Life Collaborative. Health care for people approaching the end of life: an evidentiary framework. Toronto: Health Quality Ontario; 2014. Available: http://www.hqontario.ca/evidence/publications-and-ohtac-recommendations/ontario-health-technology-assessment-series/eol-evidentiary-framework. 14 Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada. Blueprint for action 2010 to 2012. Ottawa: Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada; 2010. Available: http://www.qelccc.ca/media/3743/blueprint_for_action_2010_to_2020_april_2010.pdf. 15 Fowler R, Hammer M. End-of-life care in Canada. Clin Invest Med. 2013;36(3):E127-E32. 16 Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians. Highlights from the National Palliative Medicine Survey. Surrey (BC): Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, Human Resources Committee; May 2015. 17 Bacon J. The palliative approach: improving care for Canadians with life-limiting illnesses. Ottawa: Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association; 2012. Available: http://www.hpcintegration.ca/media/38753/TWF-palliative-approach-report-English-final2.pdf. 18 Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee OCDM Collaborative. Optimizing chronic disease management in the community (outpatient) setting (OCDM): an evidentiary framework. Toronto: Health Quality Ontario; 2013. Available: www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/Documents/eds/ohtas/compendium-ocdm-130912-en.pdf. 19 Zimmermann C, Swami N, Krzyzanowska M, Hannon B, et al. Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9930):1721-1730. 20 Klinger CA, Howell D, Marshall D, Zakus D, et al. Resource utilization and cost analyses of home-based palliative care service provision: the Niagara West end-of-life shared-care project. Palliat Med. 2013;27(2):115-122. 21 Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky MA, Gallagher ER, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. NEJM. 2010;363:733-742. 22 Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, Balan S, et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302:741-749. 23 Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada, Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association. The Way Forward National Framework: a roadmap for an integrated palliative approach to care. Ottawa: Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada; 2014. Available: http://www.qelccc.ca/media/3743/blueprint_for_action_2010_to_2020_april_2010.pdf 24 Quality End-of-Life Coalition of Canada, Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association. The Way Forward National Framework: a roadmap for the integrated palliative approach to care. Quality End-of-Life Coaltion of Canada; 2014. Available: http://www.hpcintegration.ca/media/60044/TWF-framework-doc-Eng-2015-final-April1.pdf. 25 Cook D, Rocker G. End of life care in Canada: a report from the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Forum. Clin Invest Med. 2013;36(3):E112-E113. 26 Brazil, K, Howell D, Bedard M, Krueger P, et al. Preferences for place of care and place of death among informal caregivers of the terminally ill. Palliat Med. 2005;19(6):492-499. 27 Pham B, Krahn M. End-of-life care interventions: an economic analysis. Ontario Health Quality Technology Assessment Series. 2014;14(18):1-70. Available: http://www.qelccc.ca/media/3743/blueprint_for_action_2010_to_2020_april_2010.pdf. 28 Dumont S, Jacobs P, Fassbender K, Anderson D, et al. Costs associated with resource utilization during the palliative phase of care: a Canadian perspective. Palliat Med. 2009;23(8)708-717. 29 OHTAC End-of-Life Collaborative. Health care for people approaching the end of life: an evidentiary framework. Toronto: Health Quality Ontario; 2014. Available: www.hqontario.ca/evidence/publications-and-ohtac-recommendations/ontario-health-technology-assessment-series/eol-evidentiary-framework 30 Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. Educating future physicians in palliative and end-of-life care. Ottawa: Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada; 2004. Available: http://70.38.66.73/social-educating-physicians-e.php. 31 Daneault S. Undergraduate training in palliative care in Canada in 2011. Montreal: Soins palliatifs, Hôpital Notre-Dame, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal; 2012. 32 Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association. Fact sheet 2012: hospice palliative care in Canada. Available: http://www.chpca.net/media/330558/Fact_Sheet_HPC_in_Canada%20Spring%202014%20Final.pdf. 33 Moorehead, R. Sharing care between allied health professional and general practitioners. Aust Fam Physician. 1995;24(11).
Documents
Less detail

7 records – page 1 of 1.