Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


526 records – page 2 of 53.

Health Canada consultation on reducing youth access and appeal of vaping products

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14078
Date
2019-05-24
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2019-05-24
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) appreciates this opportunity to respond to Health Canada’s consultation on Reducing Youth Access and Appeal of Vaping Products - Consultation on Potential Regulatory Measures.1 Canada’s physicians, who see the devastating effects of tobacco use every day in their practices, have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. The CMA has always supported strong, comprehensive tobacco control legislation, enacted and enforced by all levels of government, and we continue to do so. This includes electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Our approach to tobacco and vaping products is grounded in public health policy. We believe it is incumbent on all levels of government in Canada to continue working on comprehensive, coordinated and effective tobacco control strategies, including vaping products, to achieve the goal of reducing smoking prevalence. The CMA has stated its position to the federal government on electronic cigarettes and vaping clearly in recent years.2,3 In our April 2017 submission on Bill S-5 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology we recommended that the restrictions on promotion of vaping products and devices should be the same as those for tobacco products.2 We also argued that the government should take the same approach to plain and standardized packaging regulations for e-cigarettes as has now been implemented for tobacco products.2 In our most recent brief we addressed the two main issues outlined in the government’s Notice of Intent with respect to the advertising of vaping products: the placement of that advertising and the use of health warnings.3,4 We expressed concerns that the proposed regulations leave too wide an opening for vaping manufacturers to promote their products, especially to youth. Further, we reiterated our position that health warnings for vaping should be like those being considered for tobacco packages. This brief will address the issues of greatest concern to the CMA with respect to vaping and youth. This includes marketing, flavours, nicotine levels, and reducing vaping and e-cigarette use among youths. Introduction The Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health have expressed alarm at the rising number of Canadian youths who are vaping, finding this trend “very troubling.”5 The Canadian Medical Association concurs with this assessment and appeals to the federal government to move urgently on this important public health issue. As our knowledge about the risks of using e-cigarettes increases, there is an even greater imperative to dissuade youth from taking up the habit. This is important because those youth “who believe that e-cigarettes are not harmful or are less harmful than cigarettes are more likely to use e-cigarettes than youth with more negative views of e-cigarettes.”6 Marketing The e-cigarette marketplace is evolving quickly as new products emerge. The industry has made clever use of social media channels to promote their wares by taking advantage of the belief that they are a safer alternative to cigarettes.7 They have also promoted “innovative flavoring and highlighted the public performance of vaping.”7 It is no surprise that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has referred to youth vaping as an “epidemic,” calling it “one of the biggest public health challenges currently facing the FDA.”8 As the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has noted “young people who begin with e-cigarettes are more likely to transition to combustible cigarette use and become smokers who are at risk to suffer the known health burdens of combustible tobacco cigarettes.”9 However, some of the efforts employed to convince youth to take up vaping are especially troublesome. As the 4 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported, “one in 5 (US) high school students and 1 in 20 middle school students reported using e-cigarettes in the past 30 days in 2018,” a significant rise in the number of high school students between 2011 and 2018.10 The use of social media campaigns employing “influencers” to capture more of the youth and young adult market or influence their choices shows the need to be especially vigilant.11 In an attempt to counter this influence, a group of over 100 public health and anti-tobacco organizations from 48 countries “are calling on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snap to take “swift action” to curb advertising of tobacco products on their platforms.”12 As much as the industry is making major efforts to attract or sway customers through advertising, youth themselves may hold the key to countering that pressure. A recent US study found that “adolescents generally had somewhat negative opinions of other adolescents who use e-cigarettes. Building on adolescents’ negativity toward adolescent e-cigarette users may be a productive direction for prevention efforts, and clinicians can play an important role by keeping apprised of the products their adolescent patients are using and providing information on health effects to support negative opinions or dissuade formation of more positive ones.”13 Health Canada can play a major role in encouraging and facilitating peer-to-peer discussions on the risks associated with vaping and help to offset the social media influencers.14 We reiterate the concerns we expressed in our recent brief on the potential measures to reduce advertising of vaping products and to help diminish their appeal to youth. The CMA noted that the sections most problematic to the Association were those encompassing public places, broadcast media, and the publications areas.3 Vaping advertisements should not be permitted at all in any of these spaces, with no exceptions.3 These areas need to be addressed on an urgent basis. Flavours As of 2013, over 7,000 flavours had been marketed in the US.15 The data indicated that “about 85% of youth who used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days adopted non-tobacco flavors such as fruit, candy, and dessert.”15 Flavours are helpful in attracting youth, especially when coupled with assertions of lower harm.13 And they have been successful in doing so, as evidenced by the rise in the rates of vaping among youth.8, 16 The addition of a wide variety of flavours available in the pods makes them taste more palatable and less like smoking tobacco.16,17,18 The concern is that e-cigarettes “may further entice youth to experiment with e-cigarettes and boost e-cigarettes’ influence on increased cigarette smoking susceptibility among youth.”15 More worrisome, flavoured e-cigarettes “are recruiting females and those with low smoking-risk profile to experiment with conventional cigarettes.”19 Limiting the availability of “child-friendly flavors” should be considered to reduce the attraction of vaping to youth.19 In a recent announcement, the US FDA has proposed to tighten e-cigarette sales and “remove from the market many of the fruity flavors …blamed on fueling “epidemic” levels of teen use.”20 As we have noted in previous submissions, the CMA would prefer to see flavours banned to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to youth as much as possible, a sentiment shared by other expert groups. 2,3,21 Nicotine Levels One of the most popular devices to vape with is JUUL™, entering the US market in 2015.22 JUUL’s™ nicotine pods contain 5% nicotine salt solution consisting of 59 mg/mL in 0.7 mL pods.17 Some of JUUL’s™ competition have pods containing even higher levels (6% and 7%).17 The CMA is very concerned about the rising levels of nicotine available through the vaping process, especially by the newer delivery systems. They supply “high levels of nicotine with few of the deterrents that are inherent in other tobacco products. Traditional e-cigarette products use solutions with free-base nicotine formulations in which stronger nicotine concentrations can cause aversive user experiences.”23 Nicotine, among other issues, “affects the developing brain by increasing the risk of addiction, mood disorders, lowered impulse control, and cognitive impairment.15,24 In addition to flavours, and to ease delivery and to make the taste more pleasant, nicotine salts are added to make the e-liquid “less harsh and less bitter” and “more 5 palatable despite higher nicotine levels.”17 Addressing the Rise in Youth Vaping There are many factors that lead youth to experiment with vaping and e-cigarettes. For some it is simple curiosity, for others it is the availability of different flavours while still others perceive vaping as “cool,” especially when they can use the vapour to perform “smoke tricks.”25 The pod devices themselves (e.g., JUUL™) help enhance the allure because of the “unique aesthetic appeal of pod devices, ability to deliver nicotine at high concentrations and the convenience of using them quickly and discreetly.”26 As vaping continues to grow in popularity, it will not be easy to curb youths’ enthusiasm for it. However, it is too important of a public health issue to not intervene More research is needed into how youth perceive vaping and e-cigarettes as they do not hold a universally positive view of the habit.7,13 As well, there is evidence to suggest that many are coming to see vaping as being “uncool” and that there are potential health consequences to continued use.25 In view of the still-evolving evidence of the safety of vaping and e-cigarettes, “strategic and effective health communication campaigns that demystify the product and counteract misconceptions regarding e-cigarette use are needed.”25 Further, “to reduce youth appeal, regulation efforts can include restricting the availability of e-cigarette flavors as well as visible vapors.”25 Another approach to consider is the state of Colorado’s recent creation of “a health advisory recommending that health care providers screen all youth specifically for vaping, in addition to tobacco use, because young people may not necessarily associate tobacco with vaping.”27 Recommendations 1. The CMA calls for all vaping advertising to be strictly limited. The restrictions on the marketing and promotion of vaping products and devices should be the same as those for tobacco products. 2. The CMA recommends the limitation of number of flavours available to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to youth. 3. Health Canada should work to restrict the level of nicotine available for vaping products to avoid youth becoming addicted. 4. Health Canada must play a major role in encouraging and facilitating peer-to-peer discussions on the risks associated with vaping and help to offset the social media influencers. 5. Health Canada must develop communication campaigns directed at youth, parents and health care providers to demystify vaping and e-cigarettes and that create a link between tobacco and vaping. 1 Government of Canada. Reducing Youth Access and Appeal of Vaping Products - Consultation on Potential Regulatory Measures. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2019. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-reducing-youth-access-appeal-vaping-products-potential-regulatory-measures.html (accessed 2019 Apr 11). 2 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). CMA’s Recommendations for Bill S-5: An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Nonsmokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Ottawa: CMA; 2017 Apr 7. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13641 (accessed 2019 May 13). 3 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada consultation on the impact of vaping products advertising on youth and non-users of tobacco products. Ottawa: CMA; 2019 Mar 22. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14022 (accessed 2019 May 13). 4 Government of Canada. Notice to Interested Parties – Potential Measures to Reduce the Impact of Vaping Products Advertising on Youth and Non-users of Tobacco Products. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2019. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-measures-reduce-impact-vaping-products-advertising-youthnon-users-tobacco-products.html (accessed 2019 Feb 27). 5 Public Health Agency of Canada. Statement from the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health on the increasing rates of youth vaping in Canada. Health Canada; 2019. Available: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-from-the-council-of-chief-medical-officers-of-health-on-the-increasing-rates-of-youth-vaping-in-canada-812817220.html (accessed 2019 May 14). 6 6 Glantz SA. The Evidence of Electronic Cigarette Risks Is Catching Up with Public Perception. JAMA Network Open 2019;2(3):e191032. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1032. Available: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2729460 (accessed 2019 May 14). 7 McCausland K., et al. The Messages Presented in Electronic Cigarette–Related Social Media Promotions and Discussion: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res 2019;21(2):e11953). Available: https://www.jmir.org/2019/2/e11953/ (accessed 2019 May 14). 8 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new data demonstrating rising youth use of tobacco products and the agency’s ongoing actions to confront the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; February 11, 2019. Available: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-new-data-demonstrating-rising-youth-use-tobacco (accessed 2019 May 17). 9 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes (accessed 2019 May 17). 10 Kuehn B. Youth e-Cigarette Use. JAMA. 2019;321(2):138. Available: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2720740 (accessed 2019 May 14). 11 Kirkum C. Philip Morris suspends social media campaign after Reuters exposes young 'influencers'. New York: Reuters; May 10, 2019. Available: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philipmorris-ecigs-instagram-exclusiv/exclusive-philip-morris-suspends-social-media-campaign-after-reuters-exposes-young-influencers-idUSKCN1SH02K (accessed 2019 May 13). 12 Kirkham C. Citing Reuters report, health groups push tech firms to police tobacco marketing. New York: Reuters; May 22, 2109. Available: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philipmorris-ecigs-socialmedia/citing-reuters-report-health-groups-push-tech-firms-to-police-tobacco-marketing-idUSKCN1SS1FX (accessed 2019 May 22). 13 McKelvey K, Popova L, Pepper JK, Brewer NT, Halpern-Felsher. Adolescents have unfavorable opinions of adolescents who use e-cigarettes. PLoS ONE 2018;13(11): e0206352. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206352 (accessed 2019 May 14). 14 Calioa D. Vaping an 'epidemic,' Ottawa high school student says. Ottawa: CBC News; November 27, 2018. Available: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/vaping-epidemic-ottawa-high-school-student-says-1.4918672 (accessed 2019 May 14). 15 Chen-Sankey JC, Kong G, Choi K. Perceived ease of flavored e-cigarette use and ecigarette use progression among youth never tobacco users. PLoS ONE 2019;14(2): e0212353. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212353 (accessed 2019 May 17). 16 Drazen JM, Morrissey S, Campion EW. The Dangerous Flavors of E-Cigarettes. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:679-680. Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe1900484?articleTools=true (accessed 2019 May 17). 17 Jackler RK, Ramamurthi D. Nicotine arms race: JUUL and the high-nicotine product market Tob Control 2019;0:1–6. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30733312 (accessed 2019 May 20). 18 Reichardt EM., Guichon J. Vaping is an urgent threat to public health. Toronto: The Conversation; March 13, 2019. Available: https://theconversation.com/vaping-is-an-urgent-threat-to-public-health-112131 (accessed 2019 May 20). 19 Chen JC. et al. Flavored E-cigarette Use and Cigarette Smoking Susceptibility among Youth. Tob Regul Sci. 2017 January ; 3(1): 68–80. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30713989 (accessed 2019 May 20). 20 LaVito A. FDA outlines e-cigarette rules, tightens restrictions on fruity flavors to try to curb teen vaping. New Jersey: CNBC; March 13, 2019 Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/fda-tightens-restrictions-on-flavored-e-cigarettes-to-curb-teen-vaping.html (accessed 2019 Mar 20). 21 Ireland N. Pediatricians call for ban on flavoured vaping products — but Health Canada isn't going there. Toronto: CBC News; November 17, 2018 Available: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-pediatricians-flavoured-vaping-second-opinion-1.4910030 (accessed 2019 May 20). 22 Huang J, Duan Z, Kwok J, et al. Vaping versus JUULing: how the extraordinary growth and marketing of JUUL transformed the US retail e-cigarette market. Tobacco Control 2019;28:146-151. Available: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/28/2/146.full.pdf (accessed 2019 May 21). 23 Barrington-Trimis JL, Leventhal AM. Adolescents’ Use of “Pod Mod” E-Cigarettes — Urgent Concerns. N Engl J Med 2018; 379:1099-1102. Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1805758?articleTools=true (accessed 2019 May 20). 24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2016. Available: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_sgr_full_report_non-508.pdf (accessed 2019 May 20). 25 Kong G. et al. Reasons for Electronic Cigarette Experimentation and Discontinuation Among Adolescents and Young Adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2015 Jul;17(7):847-54. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674436/pdf/ntu257.pdf (accessed 2019 May 21). 26 Keamy-Minor E, McQuoid J, Ling PM. Young adult perceptions of JUUL and other pod electronic cigarette devices in California: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026306. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6500190/pdf/bmjopen-2018-026306.pdf (accessed 2019 May 21). 27 Ghosh TS, Et al. Youth Vaping and Associated Risk Behaviors — A Snapshot of Colorado. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:689-690.Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1900830 (accessed 2019 May 21).
Documents
Less detail

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14079
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Antimicrobials (which include antibiotics) are a precious public resource and an essential tool for fighting infections in both humans and animals. Their importance to human medical, nutritional and economic security cannot be understated. Yet globally, antimicrobials are losing their effectiveness more quickly than new such drugs, treatments and therapies are being identified and introduced to market.1 Over time, this dynamic has eroded the human antimicrobial arsenal, placing the lives and futures of an unacceptable number of people at risk. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites come into contact with antimicrobial drugs, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, antimalarials and anthelmintics, and undergo changes. The drugs are rendered ineffective and cannot eradicate infections from the body. AMR is an international challenge that threatens to reverse over a century of progress in public health, health care and human development attributable to antimicrobial use. Indeed, the effects of AMR are already being felt across Canada’s health care system. Currently, Canada’s dedicated investment in solutions to militate against encroaching AMR in the AMR and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) fields (both federally and provincially/territorially) can only be viewed as wholly inadequate to address the scope of the problem and the risks it poses for the health of Canadians. Therefore, to: (1) promote awareness of AMR; (2) incentivize investment in AMR mitigation strategies; and (3) support the mobilization of an effective suite of more clinically effective management/treatment practices and policies, the following target audience recommendations are offered.a a All the policy recommendations made in this document are not meant to be interpreted as clinical practice guidelines. Any individual who suspects they may have an infection should promptly consult a physician. 2 Key AMR principle — the “One Health” approach a) The complexity of AMR underscores the need for coordinated action known as the “One Health” approach. The term implies integrated strategies that span the human, animal/agricultural and environmental sectors. Thus, cooperation across a wide variety of stakeholders is necessary to address the collective nature of AMR. These stakeholders include governments, health professionals, private and public partners, and the public at large. b) The One Health approach will require attention and investment in the following domains: (1) surveillance of antimicrobial prescribing and usage; (2) infection prevention and control practices that mitigate the spread of resistant pathogens; (3) stewardship programs and practices that educate health professionals, the public, and the private sector and nudge each into more appropriate patterns of supply and demand; and (4) a program of innovation, research and development focused on diagnostics, vaccines and alternative treatments to reduce reliance on antimicrobials. This includes the development of novel antimicrobials that expand the currently available arsenal. c) Given the global dimensions of AMR, a successful One Health approach will require ambitious investments in global AMR mitigation. Given that health infrastructure and resources are limited in low- to middle-income countries, the impacts of AMR will primarily be felt in those settings. Recommendations 1. Physicians and allied health professionals Should: a) Be aware that AMR is a serious public health crisis. b) Know that various Canadian prescribing aides/guidelines are available to assist physicians in choosing appropriate antibiotics and improving practice (e.g., Choosing Wisely Canada). c) Know that using antibiotics appropriately can help combat AMR and that diagnosis and laboratory testing play a key role. This includes only prescribing antibiotics for conditions that are clinically infectious and of a non-viral nature. Viral infections are the greatest source of antibiotic misuse. d) Consider delayed prescriptions and/or prioritize follow-up for patients when diagnosis is initially undifferentiated or when symptoms worsen, progress or are prolonged. e) Know that prevention of infections through hand hygiene, vaccination and appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis is evidence based and effective f) Know that durations of therapy and dosage rates for treating many infections change with time and that you should prescribe antimicrobials for the shortest effective duration (using the narrowest spectrum possible). 3 g) Consider the potential side effects of antibiotics (including C. difficile and allergic reactions) in prescribing and when counselling patients as to their potential side effects. h) Engage in conversations with patients about antimicrobials regarding: i. their appropriate use; ii. their potential risks; iii. when to delay, begin or end an antimicrobial prescription (e.g., delayed prescriptions); and iv. when to seek medical reassessment if symptoms worsen or persist. i) Ask your local hospital or specialty organization about educational initiatives related to antibiotic prescribing. j) Collaborate where possible with colleagues in other prescribing professions to reduce unnecessary antimicrobial use. 2. Patients and the Canadian public Should: a) Be aware that AMR is a significant problem that is linked to the inappropriate use of antimicrobials like antibiotics. Therefore, commit to only taking antibiotics if they are prescribed and only as directed by an authorized health professional. i. Never share, or use, the antibiotics of others as it may contribute to AMR and have serious consequences for your health. b) Consider that your expectations about antimicrobials may unduly pressure physicians, and other prescribers, to provide you a prescription when an antimicrobial would not be appropriate or helpful. c) Engage in a conversation with prescribers about: i. whether an antimicrobial is necessary; ii. the risks associated with taking an antimicrobial; iii. whether there are simpler and safer options to pursue; and iv. when you should take further actions if your symptoms worsen or do not improve. d) Rather than keeping antimicrobials in your medicine cabinet, throwing them in the garbage/toilet or sharing them with family or friends, practise a One Health mindset. Dispose of all unused and expired antimicrobials at your local pharmacy. This will limit the spread of resistance and prevent antimicrobials from finding their way into the environment. e) Help limit resistance by staying up to date with all recommended vaccinations, and practise good hand hygiene. f) If you or a family member have had personal experiences with AMR, consider sharing them with local politicians (provincial/territorial and federal). 3. Governments (federal, provincial/territorial) Should: 4 a) (Including internationally) immediately make substantial, long term, coordinated and directly dedicated financial investments in AMR and AMS. Specific areas to prioritize include: i. AMR and AMS awareness campaigns targeted to the public; ii. campaigns that support health professionals to incorporate AMS principles into their everyday practice; iii. detailed, and integrated, action plans based on clear metrics of success and that address the needs of communities, primary care practitioners, patients and health care organizations (including long-term care facilities); iv. practical surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, purchasing, prescribing and use that maximizes the opportunity to respond to changing landscapes; v. studying in detail the links, and associated risks, between animal health and agricultural practices and human health; vi. scaling up local AMS initiatives at the provincial/territorial and national health care delivery levels; vii. pharmaceutical development pipelines and non-pharmacological treatment options for AMR infections; viii. inexpensive, accurate and timely point-of-care diagnostic tests (usable in the community, at the bedside or in a clinic) to optimize prescribing; and ix. fostering clinical research, development and innovation in the fields of AMR and AMS. b) Scale up coordination between federal and provincial/territorial AMR and AMS activities. c) Hold regular, high-level meetings of ministers of health, agriculture and finance (both federally and provincially/territorially) to discuss the implications of unchecked AMR and how best to mobilize public finances to address it. d) Strongly consider an arms-length, national-level taskforce to address AMR and AMS. e) Strengthen the roles of the chief public health officer and the provincial/territorial chief medical officers in addressing AMR and AMS. f) Undertake a timely review of the Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARRS) with an emphasis on: i. scaling up the system; ii. standardizing all AMR reporting metrics across the country; and iii. injecting adequate resources into AMR surveillance and tracking antimicrobial usage rates. g) Establish a permanent review body on infectious disease, including pharmacists, microbiologist and other experts, to evaluate the forthcoming Pan-Canadian Action Plan on AMR and release regular progress reports. 5 4. Health care institutions and organizations Should: a) Implement strategic AMR plans that are coordinated, cross-departmental and adopted institution wide. These should be premised on: i. standardized and comprehensive reporting metrics for AMR and antimicrobial usage; ii. tailored infection prevention and control programs to screen for and effectively prevent new AMR infections; iii. improving public and professional awareness of AMR organization wide; iv. improving conservation measures such as prescribing practices (audit and feedback, incentives programs, etc.); and v. supporting and incentivizing appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials. b) Evaluate whether existing policies and procedures, diagnostics and testing capacities, and multidisciplinary and organizational cultures are strategically geared toward combatting AMR. c) Where possible, develop collaborations with other local health institutions, clinical researchers and community, public and private partners to promote AMS. 5. Accreditation and regulatory bodies Should: a) Regularly review and establish meaningful criteria for accreditation, ethical codes and regulatory practice standards surrounding AMR and AMS so that practitioners and health institutions can be informed, supported and kept up to date on emerging AMR trends, practices and issues. b) Adopt profession-specific mandatory requirements for AMR and AMS (proper credentialing and training, regular updating of knowledge and competence for prescribing antimicrobials, appropriate data collection regarding antimicrobial usage, etc.) as part of credentialing. c) Work to promote, support and enhance existing AMS practices and programs. d) Collaborate with health institutions, professional health associations and other accreditation and regulatory bodies to implement AMS goals/plans. 6. Colleges and faculties for medicine and allied health professions Should: a) Promote and support more educational resources for AMS and AMR, throughout the continuum of education (undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing education). i. Topics for these resources should include (1) awareness of AMR and AMS, (2) appropriate diagnostic testing, (3) strategies to minimize antimicrobial use and (4) personal prescribing practices. b) Promote and support research on AMR and the implementation and dissemination of effective AMS strategies. 6 1 Public Health Agency of Canada. Tackling antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use: a pan-Canadian framework for action. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2017. Available: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/drugs-health-products/tackling-antimicrobial-resistance-use-pan-canadian-framework-action/tackling-antimicrobial-resistance-use-pan-canadian-framework-action.pdf (accessed 2018 Aug 10). BACKGROUND TO CMA POLICY Antimicrobial Resistance See also CMA Policy Antimicrobial Resistance PD19-08 OVERVIEW The world is at the tipping point of a post-antibiotic era. “Worldwide, we are relying more heavily on antibiotics to ensure our medical, nutritional, and economic security; while simultaneously causing the decline of their usefulness with overuse and ill-advised use.” It is estimated that the world’s use of antimicrobials increased by 65% between 2000 and 2015 — mainly in low- to middle-income countries. Dr. Margaret Chan, the former head of the World Health Organization (WHO), described antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a slow-moving tsunami for public health. Other experts have characterized AMR as a looming “antibiotic apocalypse,” warning that all countries “will face disastrous consequences if the spread of AMR is not contained.” Others are now calling AMR the “climate change” of health care. According to the UK’s review on AMR, an estimated 10 million people globally will die annually by 2050, and AMR will surpass cancer to become the leading cause of death. AMR occurs when “microorganisms (such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites) change when they are exposed to antimicrobial drugs (such as antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, antimalarials, and anthelmintics). … As a result, the medicines become ineffective and infections persist in the body, increasing the risk of spread to others.” Microorganisms that develop antimicrobial resistance are sometimes referred to as “superbugs.” “Nightmare bacteria,” as they have been dubbed, are bacterial strains that no conventional antimicrobial can effectively treat; their incidence is on the rise. AMR represents a unique challenge for the medical profession as it is estimated that as many as 50% of current antibiotic prescriptions are either inappropriate or unnecessary. In addition, taking an antimicrobial involves potentially considerable exposure to side effects or risk. At stake are many currently routine, and lifesaving, forms of medical treatment. Critically, these include many medications for currently treatable bacterial infections, and many forms of surgery (including cesarean delivery), radiation therapy, chemotherapy and neonatal care.4 THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF AMR AMR is driven by a complex set of interlocking factors. These include: (1) increased global travel and medical tourism; (2) inappropriate, and unnecessarily high, use of antimicrobials in the agrifood sector; (3) poor medical prescribing practices; (4) inadequate implementation of infection prevention and control measures; (5) lack of knowledge, inappropriate expectations and misuse of antimicrobials on the part of the general public; (6) availability of poor-quality antimicrobials; (7) lack of access to rapid, affordable and accurate rapid diagnostic tools and infrastructure; (8) inadequate and underused surveillance data from AMR surveillance systems; (9) international travel rates; and (10) low commercial interest in, or support for, new antimicrobial research and development. To make progress on AMR, we need to carefully think about how to address its various drivers. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a term describing coordinated efforts, at any program level, to: (1) promote the appropriate use of antimicrobials; (2) improve patient outcomes; (3) reduce microbial resistance and preserve the effectiveness of antimicrobials; and (4) decrease the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. AMS efforts are based on the “One Health” approach. These include: (1) surveillance; (2) conservation of existing AM effectiveness; (3) innovation through research and development; and (4) infection prevention and control. Fundamentally, AMR can be thought of as a collective action problem, similar in character to the problem of climate change.3, While all stakeholders have a role to play in combatting AMR, each has very different resources, abilities and perspectives on AMR. Canada and much of the developed world have the luxury of health infrastructures, finances and regulatory frameworks that can make AMR mitigation possible. But in low- to middle-income countries — places where antibiotics might be the only real health care available — the very discussion of AMS can be perceived as threatening. Simply put, this illustrates the fact that solutions to AMR need to mobilize and leverage a collective strategy that is as broad and as connected as possible. To be successful, these solutions will need to do so in a manner that acknowledges the local reality of health care delivery. Global investment in antimicrobial research and development is underwhelming, a dynamic described as a “drying up” of the pharmaceutical pipeline.8 This is evidenced by the recent large-scale withdrawal of major pharmaceutical companies from antimicrobial research and development, reflecting the lack of profitability in this area. On the pharmaceutical side, there are clear barriers to companies investing in the development of novel antimicrobials. Underlying factors include: (1) 10-year timelines, and an estimated minimum $1 billion price tag for development; (2) high development failure rates for new antimicrobials; (3) the inevitable emergence of resistance to any newly developed antimicrobial; (4) antimicrobials being offered at relatively cheap dosage rates over shorter durations of use; and (5) the need to preserve the efficacy of any antimicrobial’s future use, which limits their economic viability.8 WHAT ARE THE CANADIAN CONTEXTS? AMR is already a major costly public health challenge in both the US and Canada. AMR infections are clearly linked to poorer health outcomes, longer hospital stays and higher mortality rates.3 The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) estimates that roughly 18,000 hospitalized Canadians contract drug-resistant infections per year. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute estimates that 8,000 Canadian patients die annually with an AMR-related infection. It is estimated that close to 23 million antibiotic prescriptions are written annually for patients in Canada, the approximate equivalent to 1.6% of the population being on an antimicrobial on any given day. An action plan in Canada is being developed by PHAC. On the surface, the action plan appears comprehensive in that it outlines a One Health approach.10 However, despite commitments to take comprehensive, measurable action on AMS, Canadian leadership on AMR has historically lagged because of a lack of concrete coordination between PHAC and the provinces and because it has been challenging to implement local initiatives systemically. Previous shortcomings were highlighted in the Auditor General of Canada’s 2015 report and again in a 2017 issue brief by HealthCareCAN.18 Although efforts continue and the action plan is set for release at some point in 2019, concerns remain that: (1) the scope of coordinated efforts with the provinces and territories requires an interest in cooperation that may not exist between the two levels of government; (2) relative to the scope of the problem, sufficient and dedicated resources won’t be allocated; and (3) efforts on the industrial and agricultural fronts may not be sufficiently coordinated with AMR efforts for human health. In the spring of 2018 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) released a report outlining 10 recommendations for action on AMR in Canada. Although the federal government “accepted” most of the committee’s recommendations, no meaningful (and dedicated) AMR funding has been announced in advance of the action plan’s launch. Indeed, the federal government’s response to the HESA report sought to downplay the need for either urgent action or additional resources. This was done by pointing to nominal federal AMR efforts over the span of more than a decade. It should be noted that a small number of excellent localized AMS initiatives exist and have begun yielding promising local AMS results in Canada. AMR and AMS champions such as Choosing Wisely Canada, Do Bugs Need Drugs, and the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada have long argued that with proper resourcing, localized initiatives can be scaled up to a systemic level of application within provincial health care systems. GLOBALLY, WHERE DOES AMR STAND? Urgent action is required at an international level to combat AMR. Although AMR remains a complex public health challenge, the benefits of AMS are clear. The preservation of these precious resources will save lives and can positively affect both quality of care and health care delivery costs.7,14 Globally, many higher income nations and, increasingly, middle-income countries have now developed AMR/AMS action plans. Like the situation in Canada, these emerging and existing global action strategies remain largely unimplemented. Initial cash infusions into the AM drug development pipeline are beginning to emerge.8 Despite this, experts warn that such investments are too short term and wholly inadequate to address the scope of the looming AMR crisis.8, This reflects the many complexities that exist in the implementation of AMR action plans, owing in large part to: (1) a general lack of resources or prioritization; (2) complacency about AMR as a pressing public health concern; (3) difficulties in generalizing local AMS efforts; (4) coordination between sectorial actors; and (5) a lack of tangible AMR metrics and evidence. If AMS gains are to be made in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of limited resources in those settings will need to be considered.13 Realistically these countries will require various forms of monetary incentives and assistance to be able to effectively adopt AMR programs. If such support is not provided, human health rights will be affected and global AMS efforts will be undermined. Finally, there are now well-established calls for an international model, even a treaty, to be implemented on AMR/AMS.12,
Documents
Less detail

Acting on today's and tomorrow's health care needs: Prebudget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14123
Date
2019-08-02
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2019-08-02
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance this pre-budget submission. It provides recommendations to address major pan-Canadian challenges to the health of Canadians: improve how we provide care to our growing elderly population; improve access to primary care across the country; increase digital health literacy to take advantage of the benefits of new health information technologies; and better prepare for and mitigate the health impacts of a changing climate on Canadians. Seniors Care Health systems across the country are currently struggling to meet the needs of our aging population. People aged 85 years and over—many of whom are frail—make up the fastest growing age group in Canadai. Provincial and territorial health care systems (as well as care systems for populations falling under federal jurisdiction) are facing many challenges to meet the needs of an aging population. Canadians support a strong role for the federal government in leading a national seniors strategy and working with the provinces to ensure that all Canadians have the same level of access and quality of services, no matter where they live. The 2017 federal/provincial/territorial funding agreement involving $6 billion over 10 years to improve access to home care services is a welcomed building block. But without greater investment in seniors care, health systems will not keep up. To be truly relevant and effectively respond to Canadians’ present and future needs, our health care system must provide integrated, continuing care able to meet the chronic and complex care needs of our growing and aging population. This includes recognizing the increased role for patients and their caregivers in the care process. The federal government must ensure transfers are able to keep up with the real cost of health care. Current funding levels clearly fail to do so. Health transfers are estimated to rise by 3.6% while health care costs are expected to rise by 5.1% annually over the next decade.ii Recommendation: The federal government ensure provincial and territorial health care systems meet the care needs of their aging populations by means of a demographic top-up to the Canada Health Transfer.iii Providing care often comes with a financial cost such as lost income due to the caregiver’s withdrawal from the workforce to provide care. There are also increasing out-of-pocket costs for both caregivers and care receivers for health care-related expenses—privately covered expenditures on home and long-term care for seniors are projected to grow by an average of 5.8 per cent annually—nearly 1.5 times the pace of household disposable income growth. While the federal government offers tax credits that can be claimed by care receivers/caregivers, they are significantly under-utilized. While representing a significant proportion of caregivers, those with low or no income receive little to no federal government support through these programs. Middle-income earners also receive less than those earning high incomes. 4 Recommendation: The federal government create a Seniors Care Benefit that would be an easier, fairer and more effective way to support caregivers and care receivers alike.iv Access to Care Since the mid-1990s, the federal and provincial/territorial governments (FPT) have provided sustained leadership in promoting and supporting the transformation of primary care in Canada. In 2000, the First Ministers concluded the first of three Health Accords in which they agreed to promote the establishment of primary health care teamsv supported by a $800 million Primary Health Care Transition Fund (PHCTF) funded by the federal government, but jointly governed. The PHCTF resulted in large-scale sustained change in primary care delivery models in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta with interest in other jurisdictions as well. However, the job is far from finished. Across Canada, access to primary care is challenging for many Canadians with a persistent shortage of family physicians. In 2017, 4.7 million Canadians aged 12+ reported they did not have a regular health care provider.vi Even those who have a regular provider experience wait time issues. There has been widespread interest in primary care models since the development of the College of Family Physicians of Canada’s (CFPC) vision document Family Practice: The Patient’s Medical Home (PMH), initially launched in 2011vii and recently re-launched.viii The model is founded on 10 pillars depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1. The Patient’s Medical Home, 2019 The updated model places increased emphasis on team-based care and introduces the concept of the patient’s medical neighborhood that sets out connections between the primacy care practice and all delivery points in the surrounding community. While comprehensive baseline data are lacking, it seems 5 safe to conjecture that most Canadians are not enrolled in a primary care model that would measure up to the model’s 10 pillars. Recommendation: The federal government, in concert with provinces and territories, establish a targeted fund in the amount of $1.2 billion to support a new time-limited Primary Health Care Transition Fund that would build on the success of the fund launched in 2000 with the goal of widely introducing a sustainable medical home model across jurisdictions. This would include the following key elements:
Age-sex-weighted per capita allocation across the provinces and territories;
Joint governance of the FPT governments with meaningful stakeholder engagement;
Respect for the Canada Health Act principles;
Common objectives (e.g., modeled on the CFPC Patient’s Medical Home framework);
Operating Principles specifying eligible/ineligible activities;
Reporting provisions and agreed-upon metrics; and
Sustainability plans. Digital/Virtual Care Canada and most industrialized countries will experience a digital health revolution over the next decade with great potential to improve patient and population health. Digital health can be described as the integration of the electronic collection and compilation of health data, decision support tools and analytics with the use of audio, video and other technologies to deliver preventive, diagnostic and treatment services that promote patient and population health. While most Canadian physicians’ offices and health care facilities are now using some form of electronic record keeping and most households have internet access, there remains a large deficit in using virtual care, both within jurisdictions and across provincial/territorial boundaries. Recently the CMA, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada established a Virtual Care Task Force to identify opportunities for digital health to improve health care delivery, including what regulatory changes are required for physicians to deliver care to patients within and across provincial/territorial boundaries. To take full advantage of digital health capabilities it will be essential for the population to have a functional level of digital health literacy: the ability to seek, find, understand and appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem.ix This also includes the capability of communicating about one’s health to health care professionals (e.g., e-consults), self-monitoring health (e.g., patient portals) and receiving treatment online (e.g., Web-based cognitive behavioral therapy).x There are no current data available on health literacy in Canada, let alone digital health literacy. One basic barrier to achieving digital health literacy is access to, and usage of the Internet, which has been termed the “digital divide” (e.g., older Canadians and low income households are less likely to have Internet access).Error! Bookmark not defined. 6 In 2001 the federal government established the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC). Its mandate includes informing consumers about their rights and responsibilities in dealing with financial institutions and providing information and tools to help consumers understand and shop for financial products and services.xi In 2014 the FCAC appointed a Financial Literacy Leader who has focused on financial literacy, including activities such as conducting financial capability surveys and the development of a National Strategy for Financial Literacy.xii Considering the anticipated growth of digital/virtual care it would be desirable to understand and promote digital health literacy across Canada. What the federal government has done for financial literacy could serve as a template for digital health literacy. Recommendation: The federal government establish a Digital Health Literacy Secretariat to:
Develop indicators and conducting surveys to measure and track the digital health literacy of Canadians;
Develop tools that can be used both by Canadians and their health care providers to enhance their digital health literacy; and
Assess and make recommendations on the “digital divide” that may exist among some population sub-groups due to a lack of access to information technology and lower digital health literacy. Climate Change and Health Climate change is the public health imperative of our time. There is a high level of concern among Canadians about their changing climate. A 2017 poll commissioned by Health Canada demonstrates a high level of concern among Canadians about their changing climate: 79% were convinced that climate change is happening, and of these, 53% accepted that it is a current health risk, with 40% believing it will be a health risk in the future. The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified air pollution and climate change as one of the biggest threats to global health. Health care professionals see first-hand the devastating health impacts of our changing climate including increased deaths from fine particulate matter air pollution and increased heat-related conditions. Impacts are most common in vulnerable populations such as adults over 65 years, the homeless, urban dwellers and people with a pre-existing disease. Canada’s health care system is already treating the health effects of climate change. A lack of progress in reducing emissions and building adaptive capacity threatens both human lives and the viability of Canada’s health system, with the potential to disrupt core public health infrastructure and overwhelm health services, not to mention the economic and social costs. The federal government must provide leadership to deal with the impact already being felt in Canada and around the world. Recommendation: 7 The federal government make strong commitments to minimize the impact of climate change on the health of Canadians by:
Ensuring pan-Canadian and inter-jurisdictional coordination to standardize surveillance and reporting of climate-related health impacts such as heat-related deaths, develop knowledge translation strategies to inform the public, and generate clinical and public health response plans that minimize the health impacts;
Increasing funding for research on the mental health impacts of climate change and psychosocial adaptation opportunities; and
Ensuring funding is provided to the health sector to prepare for climate change impacts through efforts to increase resiliency (i.e., risk assessments, readiness to manage disease outbreaks, sustainable practice). 8 i Statistics Canada. The Chief Public Health Officer's Report on the State of Public Health in Canada, 2014: Public Health in the Future. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2015. Available: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cphorsphc-respcacsp/2014/chang-eng.php; (accessed 2016 Sep 19). ii The Conference Board of Canada. Meeting the care needs of Canada’s aging population. Ottawa: The Conference Board; 2018. iii Canadian Medical Association. Meeting the demographic challenge: Investments in seniors care. Pre-budget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. August 3, 2018. https://policybase.cma.ca/documents/Briefpdf/BR2018-16.pdf iv The Conference Board of Canada. Measures to Better Support Seniors and Their Caregivers. March 2019. https://www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/health-advocacy/Measures-to-better-support-seniors-and-their-caregivers-e.pdf v Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. News release – First Ministers’ meeting communiqué on health. September 11, 2000. http://www.scics.ca/en/product-produit/news-release-first-ministers-meeting-communique-on-health/. Accessed 04/22/19. vi Statistics Canada. Primary health care providers, 2017. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-625-x/2019001/article/00001-eng.pdf?st=NGPiUkM5. Accessed 04/21/19. vii College of Family Physicians of Canada. A vision for Canada. Family Practice: the patient’s medical home. http://www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/Resource_Items/PMH_A_Vision_for_Canada.pdf. Accessed 04/22/19. viii College of Family Physicians of Canada. The patient’s medical home 2019. https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/files/uploads/PMH_VISION2019_ENG_WEB_2.pdf. Accessed 04/21/19. ix Norman C, Skinner H. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(2):e9. Doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9. x Van der Vaart R, Drossaert C. Development of the digital health literacy instrument: measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e27. Doi:10.2196/jmir.6709. xi Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. About FCAC. xii Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. National Strategy for Financial Literacy. Phase 1: strengthening seniors’ financial literacy. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/financial-consumer-agency/migration/eng/financialliteracy/financialliteracycanada/documents/seniorsstrategyen.pdf. Accessed 06/24/19. https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/corporate/about.html. Accessed 07/01/19.
Documents
Less detail

Health Canada consultation on vaping products labelling and packaging regulations

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14124
Date
2019-09-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2019-09-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) appreciates this opportunity to respond to the notice as published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1 for interested stakeholders to provide comments on Health Canada’s intent to establish a single set of regulations under the authorities of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (TVPA) and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) with respect to the labelling and packaging of vaping products.1 Canada’s physicians, who see the devastating effects of tobacco use every day in their practices, have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. The CMA has always supported strong, comprehensive tobacco control legislation, enacted and enforced by all levels of government, and we continue to do so. This includes electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Our approach to tobacco and vaping products is grounded in public health policy. We believe it is incumbent on all levels of government in Canada to continue working on comprehensive, coordinated and effective tobacco control strategies, including vaping products, to achieve the goal of reducing smoking prevalence. Introduction In our most recent brief, the CMA expressed its concerns regarding vaping and youth. This included marketing, flavours, nicotine levels, and reducing vaping and e-cigarette use among youths.2 In April 2019, the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health expressed alarm at the rising number of Canadian youths who are vaping, having found this trend “very troubling.”3 The CMA concurred with this assessment and supports Health Canada’s intention to further tighten the regulations.2 Identifying Vaping Substances The findings of a recent Canadian study indicate an increase in vaping among adolescents in Canada and the United States.4 The growing acceptance of this practice is of concern to the CMA because of the rapidly emerging popularity of vaping products such as JUUL® and similar devices.4 It will be very important to identify clearly on the packaging all the vaping substances contained therein, along with a list of ingredients, as not enough is known about the long-term effects users may face.5,6 Users need to know what they are consuming so they can make informed choices about the contents. Studies have found substances in e-cigarette liquids and aerosols such as “nicotine, solvent carriers (PG and glycerol), tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), aldehydes, metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenolic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), flavorings, tobacco alkaloids, and drugs.”7 Nicotine Content As Hammond et al noted in their recent study, “JUUL® uses benzoic acid and nicotine salt technology to deliver higher concentrations of nicotine than conventional e-cigarettes; indeed, the nicotine concentration in the standard version of JUUL® is more than 50 mg/mL, compared with typical levels of 3-24 mg/mL for other e-cigarettes.”4 The salts and flavours available to be used with these devices reduce the harshness and bitterness of the taste of the e-liquids. Some of its competition deliver even higher levels of nicotine.8 The CMA has expressed its concerns about the rising levels of nicotine available through the vaping process.2 They supply “high levels of nicotine with few of the deterrents that are inherent in other tobacco products. Traditional e-cigarette products use solutions with free-base nicotine formulations in which stronger nicotine concentrations can cause aversive user experiences.”9 The higher levels of nicotine in vaping devices is also of concern because it “affects the developing brain by increasing the risk of addiction, mood disorders, lowered impulse control, and cognitive impairment.”10,11 The CMA has called on Health Canada to restrict the level of nicotine in vaping products to avoid youth (and adults) from developing a dependence.2 4 Health Warnings The CMA reiterates, again, its position that health warnings for vaping should be similar to those for tobacco packages.12,13 We support placing warning labels on all vaping products, regardless of the size of the package. The “space given to the warnings should be sufficient to convey the maximum amount of information while remaining clear, visible, and legible. The warnings should be in proportion to the packaging available.”13 The need for such cautions is important as there is still much that is not known about the effects vaping can have on the human body. A US study found “evidence that using combusted tobacco cigarettes alone or in combination with e-cigarettes is associated with higher concentrations of potentially harmful tobacco constituents in comparison with using e-cigarettes alone.”14 Some researchers have found that there is “significant potential for serious lung toxicity from e-cig(arette) use.”15,16 Another recent US study indicates that “adults who report puffing e-cigarettes, or vaping, are significantly more likely to have a heart attack, coronary artery disease and depression compared with those who don’t use them or any tobacco products.”17 Further, it was found that “compared with nonusers, e-cigarette users were 56 percent more likely to have a heart attack and 30 percent more likely to suffer a stroke.17 A worrisome development has emerged in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working in consultation with the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Indiana, and Minnesota regarding a “cluster of pulmonary illnesses linked to e-cigarette product use, or “vaping,” primarily among adolescents and young adults.”18 Additional possible cases have been identified in other states and are being investigated. Child-Resistant Containers The CMA supports the need for child-resistant containers in order to enhance consumer safety; we have adopted a similar position with respect to cannabis in all forms.19,20 The need to include warning labels should reinforce the need for packaging these vaping products such that they will be inaccessible to small children. Recommendations 1. The CMA recommends more research into the health effects of vaping as well as on the components of the vaping liquids. 2. Health Canada should work to restrict the level of nicotine available for vaping products to avoid youth and adults from developing a dependence. 3. The CMA reiterates its position that health warnings for vaping should be like those being considered for tobacco packages. We support the proposed warning labels being placed on all vaping products. 4. The CMA recommends that all the vaping substances be identified clearly on the packaging, along with a list of ingredients. 5. The CMA supports the need for child-resistant containers. 5 1 Government of Canada. Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 153, Number 25: Vaping Products Labelling and Packaging Regulations. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2019. Available: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2019-06-22/html/reg4-eng.html (accessed 2019 Jul 10). 2 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada Consultation on Reducing Youth Access and Appeal of Vaping Products. Ottawa: CMA; 2019 May 24. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14078 (accessed 2019 Jul 10). 3 Public Health Agency of Canada. Statement from the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health on the increasing rates of youth vaping in Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2019. Available: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-from-the-council-of-chief-medical-officers-of-health-on-the-increasing-rates-of-youth-vaping-in-canada-812817220.html (accessed 2019 Jul 24). 4 Hammond David, Reid Jessica L, Rynard Vicki L, et al. Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys BMJ. 2019; 365:2219. Available: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/365/bmj.l2219.full.pdf (accessed 2019 Jul 24). 5 WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326043/9789241516204-eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 6 Dinakar, C., O’Connor GT. The Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1372-81. Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1502466 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 7 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes (accessed 2019 Jul 29). 8 Jackler RK, Ramamurthi D. Nicotine arms race: JUUL and the high-nicotine product market Tob Control 2019;0:1–6. 9 Barrington-Trimis JL, Leventhal AM. Adolescents’ Use of “Pod Mod” E-Cigarettes —Urgent Concerns. N Engl J Med 2018; 379:1099-1102. Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1805758?articleTools=true (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 10 Chen-Sankey JC, Kong G, Choi K. Perceived ease of flavored e-cigarette use and ecigarette use progression among youth never tobacco users. PLoS ONE 2019;14(2): e0212353. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212353 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2016. Available: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_sgr_full_report_non-508.pdf (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 12 Canadian Medical Association (CMA) CMA’s Recommendations for Bill S-5: An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Ottawa: CMA; 2017 Apr 7. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13641 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 13 Canadian Medical Association. Health Canada consultation on tobacco products regulations (plain and standardized appearance) Ottawa: CMA; 2018 Sep 6. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13930 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 14 Goniewicz ML. et al. Comparison of Nicotine and Toxicant Exposure in Users of Electronic Cigarettes and Combustible Cigarettes JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(8):e185937. Available: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2718096 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 15 Chan LF. Et al. Pulmonary toxicity of e-cigarettes Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 313: L193–L206, 2017 Available: https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajplung.00071.2017 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 16 Li D, Sundar IK, McIntosh S, et al. Association of smoking and electronic cigarette use with wheezing and related respiratory symptoms in adults: cross-sectional results from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study, wave 2. Tob Control. 0:1-8, 2019. 17 American College of Cardiology. E-Cigarettes Linked to Heart Attacks, Coronary Artery Disease and Depression. Media Release March 7, 2019 Available: https://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-releases/2019/03/07/10/03/ecigarettes-linked-to-heart-attacks-coronary-artery-disease-and-depression (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, states investigating severe pulmonary disease among people who use e-cigarettes. Media Statement 2019 Aug 17. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0817-pulmonary-disease-ecigarettes.html (accessed 2019 Aug 20). 19 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada Consultation on Edible Cannabis, Extracts & Topicals Ottawa: CMA; 2019 Feb 20. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14020 (accessed 2019 Aug 6). 20 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis Submission to Health Canada. 2018 Jan 19 Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13838. (accessed 2019 Aug 6).
Documents
Less detail

Health Canada consultation on potential market for cannabis health products that would not require practitioner oversight

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14125
Date
2019-09-03
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2019-09-03
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) appreciates this opportunity to respond to Health Canada’s consultation on potential markets for cannabis health products that would not require practitioner oversight.1 The CMA’s approach to cannabis is grounded in public health policy. It includes promotion of health and prevention of problematic use; access to assessment, counseling and treatment services; and a harm reduction perspective. The CMA endorsed the Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines2 and has expressed these views in our recommendations to the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation,3 and recommendations regarding Bill C-45.4 As well, we submitted comments to Health Canada with respect to the consultation on the proposed regulatory approach for the Cannabis Act, Bill C-45.5 We also responded to Health Canada’s recent Consultation on Edible Cannabis, Extracts & Topicals.6 Overview The CMA first expressed its concerns about the sale of natural health products containing cannabis in our response to the proposed regulatory approach to the Cannabis Act, Bill C-45.5 We recognize that, in general, health products include prescription health products, non-prescription drugs, natural health products, cosmetics and medical devices. Although all these products are regulated by Health Canada, they are subject to different levels of scrutiny for safety, efficacy and quality, and in some cases, industry does not need to provide scientific evidence to support the claims made on the label. Health Claims As with all health products, the CMA supports an approach in which higher risk products, that is, those for which health claims are made, must be subject to a more meticulous standard of review. Rigorous scientific evidence is needed to support claims of health benefits and to identify potential risks and adverse reactions. We support Health Canada’s proposal that authorized health claims for cannabis health products (CHP) would be permitted for treatment of minor ailments, on the strict condition they are substantiated via a strong evidentiary process. It is the view of the CMA that all such products making a health claim must be reviewed thoroughly for efficacy, as well as safety and quality, for the protection of Canadians.5 Recent experience in the United States supports this approach. A warning letter was sent to Curaleaf Inc. of Wakefield, Massachusetts, by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “for illegally selling unapproved products containing cannabidiol (CBD) online with unsubstantiated claims that the products treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, opioid withdrawal, pain and pet anxiety, among other conditions or diseases.”7 This is not the first time it was necessary for the FDA to take such action. The agency had sent letters on previous occasions to other businesses over claims “to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure serious diseases, such as cancer. Some of these products were in further violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because they were marketed as dietary supplements or because they involved the addition of CBD to food.”7 The CMA shares the FDA’s concerns that such claims “can put patients and consumers at risk by leading them to put off important medical care.”7 A study conducted by Dalhousie University found that only 35.8% of respondents were familiar with the biochemical properties of CBD when asked what cannabinoid they thought was potentially a pain killer.8 Systematic reviews and guidelines have highlighted the state of the science and the limited indications for which there is evidence.9,10,11 Both cannabis and CBD specifically have been approved for use in a few conditions, but more research is needed in this rapidly growing field. For example, medical cannabinoids have been approved in several jurisdictions for the treatment of multiple sclerosis but the evidence of how well it works is limited. As the Canadian authors note, “carefully conducted, high-quality studies with thought given to the biologic activity of different cannabis components are still required to inform on the benefits of cannabinoids for patients with MS.”12 Consumers need to be reassured that health claims are being assessed thoroughly so they can make informed decisions.13 4 Packaging and Labelling Requirements The CMA has laid out its position with respect to packaging and labelling with respect to cannabis products.5,6 Strict packaging requirements are necessary as their wider availability raises several public health issues, not the least of which is ingestion by young children. Requirements for tamper-resistant and child-proof containers need to be in place to enhance consumer safety. To reiterate:
a requirement for plain and standard packaging
prohibition of the use of appealing flavours and shapes,
a requirement for adequate content and potency labelling,
a requirement for comprehensive health warnings,
a requirement for childproof packaging, and
a requirement that the content in a package should not be sufficient to cause a poisoning Prescription Drugs Containing Cannabis The CMA addressed prescription drugs containing cannabis in a previous brief.5 The level of proof required to obtain a Drug Identification Number (DIN) for prescription drugs is considerably higher than the level of proof required for a Natural Product Number (NPN); rigorous scientific evidence to support claims of efficacy is needed for a DIN but not for an NPN. Consumers generally do not know about this distinction, believing that Health Canada has applied the same level of scrutiny to the health claims made for every product. As a result, consumers presently do not have enough information to choose appropriate products. Prescription drugs are subject to Health Canada’s pharmaceutical regulatory approval process, based on each drug’s specific indication, dose, route of administration and target population. Health claims need to be substantiated via a strong evidentiary process. All potential prescription medications containing cannabis must meet a high standard of review for safety, efficacy and quality, equivalent to that of the approval of prescription drugs (e.g., Marinol® and Sativex®), to protect Canadians from further misleading claims. The CMA urges caution especially around exemptions for paediatric formulations that would allow for traits that would “appeal to youth.” The CMA understands that these products, used under strict health professional supervision, should be child friendly, for example, regarding palatability, but we do not support marketing strategies that would suggest their use is recreational (e.g., producing them in candy or animal formats). Recommendations 1. The CMA recommends that all cannabis health products, including those with CBD, making a health claim must be reviewed thoroughly for efficacy, as well as safety and quality, for the protection of Canadians. 2. The CMA recommends that strict packaging requirements be put in place with respect cannabis health products as their wider availability raises several public health issues, not the least of which is ingestion by young children. 3. The CMA recommends tamper-resistant and child-proof containers need to be in place to enhance consumer safety. 4. The CMA recommends that all potential prescription medications containing cannabis must meet a high standard of review for safety, efficacy and quality, equivalent to that of the approval of prescription drugs to protect Canadians from further misleading claims. 5 1Health Canada. Document: Consultation on Potential Market for Cannabis Health Products that would not Require Practitioner Oversight. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2019. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-potential-market-cannabis/document.html (accessed 2019 Aug 8). 2 Fischer B, Russell C, Sabioni P, et al. Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines: A comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations. AJPH. 2017 Aug;107(8):e1-e12. Available: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303818?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&. (accessed 2019 Aug 8). 3 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. CMA submission to the Government of Canada – Task Force on cannabis, legalization and regulation. Ottawa: CMA; 2016 Aug 29. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11954 (accessed 2019 Aug 8). 4 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Bill C-45: The Cannabis Act. Submission to the House of Commons Health Committee. Ottawa: CMA; 2017 Aug 18. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13723 (accessed 2019 Aug 8). 5 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis. Ottawa: CMA; 2018 Jan 19. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13838 (accessed 2019 Aug 8). 6 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada Consultation on Edible Cannabis, Extracts & Topicals Ottawa: CMA; Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14020 (accessed 2019 Aug 8). 7 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA warns company marketing unapproved cannabidiol products with unsubstantiated claims to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, opioid withdrawal, pain and pet anxiety. Media Release. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2019 Jul 23. Available: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-company-marketing-unapproved-cannabidiol-products-unsubstantiated-claims-treat-cancer (accessed 2019 Aug 15). 8 Charlebois S., Music J., Sterling B. Somogyi S. Edibles and Canadian consumers’ willingness to consider recreational cannabis in food or beverage products: A second assessment. Faculty of Management: Dalhousie University; May, 2019 Available: https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/management/News/News%20%26%20Events/Edibles%20and%20Canadian%20Consumers%20English_.pdf (accessed 2019 Aug 20). 9 Allan GM. Et al. Simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care. Canadian Family Physician. Feb 2018;64(2):111. Available: https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/64/2/111.full.pdf (accessed 2019 Aug 29). 10 Health Canada. Information for Health Care Professionals. Cannabis (marihuana, marijuana) and the cannabinoids) Dried or fresh plant and oil administration by ingestion or other means Psychoactive agent. Ottawa: Health Canada; October 2018. Available: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/information-medical-practitioners/information-health-care-professionals-cannabis-cannabinoids-eng.pdf (accessed 2019 Aug 29). 11 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. Available: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx (accessed 2019 Aug 29). 12 Slaven M., Levine O. Cannabinoids for Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(6):e183484. Available: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2706491 (accessed 2019 Aug 26). 13 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What You Need to Know (And What We’re Working to Find Out) About Products Containing Cannabis or Cannabis-derived Compounds, Including CBD Consumer Updates. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2019 July 17. Available: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-you-need-know-and-what-were-working-find-out-about-products-containing-cannabis-or-cannabis (accessed 2019 Aug 29).
Documents
Less detail

Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14165
Date
2019-10-17
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-10-17
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Homeless and vulnerably housed populations are heterogeneous and continue to grow in numbers in urban and rural settings as forces of urbanization collide with gentrification and austerity policies.2 Collectively, they face dangerous living conditions and marginalization within health care systems.3 However, providers can improve the health of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed, most powerfully by following evidence-based initial steps, and working with communities and adopting anti-oppressive practices.1,4,5 Broadly speaking, “homelessness” encompasses all individuals without stable, permanent and acceptable housing, or lacking the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it.6 Under such conditions, individuals and families face intersecting social, mental and physical health risks that significantly increase morbidity and mortality.7,8 For example, people who are homeless and vulnerably housed experience a significantly higher prevalence of trauma, mental health conditions and substance use disorders than the general population.7,9 Canadian research reports that people who experience homelessness face life expectancies as low as 42 years for men and 52 years for women.7 A generation ago, homeless Canadians were largely middleaged, single men in large urban settings.10 Today, the epidemiology has shifted to include higher proportions of women, youth, Indigenous people (Box 1), immigrants, older adults and people from rural communities.13,14 For example, family homelessness (and therefore homelessness among dependent children and youth) is a substantial, yet hidden, part of the crisis.15 In 2014, of the estimated 235 000 homeless people in Canada, 27.3% were women, 18.7% were youth, 6% were recent immigrants or migrants, and a growing number were veterans and seniors.10 Practice navigators, peer-support workers and primary care providers are well placed to identify social causes of poor health and provide orientation to patient medical homes.16,17 A patient’s medical home 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.”18 Medical care is “readily accessible, centred on the patients’ needs, provided throughout every stage of life, and seamlessly integrated with other services in the health care system and the community” (https://patientsmedicalhome.ca). Primary care providers are also well positioned to mobilize health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment, and rehabilitation services.19 GUIDELINE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS CPD Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience Kevin Pottie MD MClSc, Claire E. Kendall MD PhD, Tim Aubry PhD, Olivia Magwood MPH, Anne Andermann MD DPhil, Ginetta Salvalaggio MD MSc, David Ponka MDCM MSc, Gary Bloch MD, Vanessa Brcic MD, Eric Agbata MPH MSc, Kednapa Thavorn PhD, Terry Hannigan, Andrew Bond MD, Susan Crouse MD, Ritika Goel MD, Esther Shoemaker PhD, Jean Zhuo Jing Wang BHSc, Sebastian Mott MSW, Harneel Kaur BHSc, Christine Mathew MSc, Syeda Shanza Hashmi BA, Ammar Saad, Thomas Piggott MD, Neil Arya MD, Nicole Kozloff MD, Michaela Beder MD, Dale Guenter MD MPH, Wendy Muckle BScN MHA, Stephen Hwang MD, Vicky Stergiopoulos MD, Peter Tugwell MD n Cite as: CMAJ 2020 March 9;192:E240-54. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190777 CMAJ Podcasts: author interview at https://soundcloud.com/cmajpodcasts/190777-guide See related article at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.200199 KEY POINTS
Clinical assessment and care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations should include tailoring approaches to a person’s gender, age, Indigenous heritage, ethnicity and history of trauma; and advocacy for comprehensive primary health care.
As initial steps in the care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations, permanent supportive housing is strongly recommended, and income assistance is also recommended.
Case-management interventions, with access to psychiatric support, are recommended as an initial step to support primary care and to address existing mental health, substance use and other morbidities.
Harm-reduction interventions, such as supervised consumption facilities, and access to pharmacologic agents for opioid use disorder, such as opioid agonist treatment, are recommended for people who use substances. GUIDELINE CMAJ
MARCH 9, 2020
VOLUME 192
ISSUE 10 E241 However, the social and health resources available to homeless and vulnerably housed people may vary based on geographic setting, municipal resources, housing coordination, and patients’ mental health and substance use–related care needs. In addition, many physical and mental health disorders remain undiagnosed or inconsistently treated because of missed opportunities for care, patient mistrust of the health care system or limited access to health services.3 Homeless and vulnerably housed people can benefit from timely and effective health, addiction and social interventions. Our guideline provides initial steps for practice, policy and future research, and is intended to build collaboration among clinicians, public health providers and allied health providers. Values such as trauma-informed and patient-centred care, and dignity are needed to foster trust and develop sustainable therapeutic relationships with homeless and vulnerably housed people.20,21 Scope The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to inform providers and community organizations of the initial priority steps and effective interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed people. The guideline addresses upstream social and health needs (i.e., housing), as well as downstream health-related consequences of inadequate housing. The target audiences are health providers, policymakers, public health practitioners and researchers. Our guideline does not aim to address all conditions associated with homelessness, nor does it aim to discuss in depth the many etiologies of homelessness, such as childhood trauma, the housing market, or the root causes of low social assistance rates and economic inequality. Rather, this guideline aims to reframe providers’ approach toward upstream interventions that can prevent, treat and work toward ending the morbidity and mortality associated with homelessness. A parallel set of Indigenous-specific clinical guidelines is currently being developed by an independent, Indigenous-led team.22 This process recognizes the distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to develop and strengthen their own economies, social and political institutions; the direct links between historic and ongoing colonial policies and Indigenous homelessness; and the need for Indigenous leadership and participation in research that is about Indigenous Peoples. Recommendations The steering committee and guideline panel members developed and approved recommendations to improve social and health outcomes for homeless and vulnerably housed people. The order of these recommendations highlights priority steps for homeless health care. We list a summary of the recommendations in Table 1 and we present our list of good practice statements in Table 2. These good practice statements are based on indirect evidence and support the delivery of the recommendations. The methods used to develop the recommendations are described later in this document. A summary of how to use this guideline is available in Box 2. Permanent supportive housing
Identify homelessness or housing vulnerability and willingness to consider housing interventions.
Ensure access of homeless or vulnerably housed individuals to local housing coordinator or case manager (i.e., call 211 or via a social worker) for immediate link to permanent supportive housing and/or coordinated access system (moderate certainty, strong recommendation). Evidence summary Our systematic review (Tim Aubry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) identified 14 trials on permanent supportive housing (PSH).30–43 Several trials across Canada and the United States showed that PSH initiatives house participants more rapidly compared with usual services (73 v. 220 d; adjusted absolute difference 146.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 118.0 to 174.9);30 increase the number of people who maintain stable housing at 2 years (pooled odds ratio [OR] 3.58, 95% CI 2.36 to 5.43);30,40 and significantly increase the percentage of days spent stably housed.41 No trials showed a significant improvement in mental health symptoms compared with standard care.30,31,33,34,41,42 Two studies found that the mental health of PSH participants did not improve as much as that of usual care participants (e.g., mean difference –0.49, 95% CI –0.85 to –0.12).30,31 The At Home/Chez Soi trial showed small improvements in quality of life for high-needs (adjusted standardized mean difference 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.24)30 and moderate-needs (mean difference 4.37, 95% CI 1.60 to 7.14) homeless participants in patients receiving PSH.41 Youth receiving PSH saw larger improvements in their quality of life during the first 6 months (mean difference 9.30, 95% CI 1.35 to 17.24), which diminished over time (mean difference 7.29, 95% CI –1.61 to 16.18).44 No trials showed a significant improvement in substance use compared with standard care.30,33,41–43 Most trials reported no effect of PSH on acute care outcomes (e.g., number of emergency department visits and percentage of participants admitted to hospital).30,41 However, 2 trials suggest that PSH participants had lower rates of hospital admission (rate reductions of 29%, 95% CI 10 to 44) and time in hospital (e.g., mean difference –31, 95% CI –48 to –14).34,38,45 One trial found no effect of PSH on job tenure, hours of work per week or hourly wage compared with standard care.46 Participants receiving PSH may have increased odds of employment, but this depends on the severity of participant needs.46 One trial found no effect on income outcomes.46 Box 1: Indigenous homelessness Indigenous homelessness is a term used to describe First Nations, Métis and Inuit individuals, families or communities who lack stable, permanent and appropriate housing, or the immediate prospects, means or ability to acquire such housing. However, this term must be interpreted through an Indigenous lens to understand the factors contributing to this condition. These factors include individuals, families and communities isolated from their relationships to land, water, place, family, kin, each other, animals, cultures, languages and identities as well as the legacy of colonialism and genocide.11 It is estimated that urban Indigenous people are 8 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population.11,12 GUIDELINE E242 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate, because blinding of participants and personnel was not feasible in any of the trials we examined as a result of the nature of the intervention. Furthermore, several trials did not employ allocation concealment or blinding of outcome-assessment procedures, which could introduce high risks of detection and performance biases. Income assistance
Identify income insecurity.
Assist individuals with income insecurity to identify incomesupport resources and access income (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We identified 10 trials on income-assistance interventions, including rental assistance,47–56 financial empowerment,47 social enterprise interventions,48 individual placement and support,48,54 and compensated work therapy.52 Our systematic review showed the benefit that income-assistance interventions have on housing stability (Gary Bloch, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., and Vanessa Brcic, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC: unpublished data, 2020). Rental assistance increased the likelihood of being stably housed (OR 4.60, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.83).56 Rental assistance combined with case management increased the number of days in stable housing per 90-day period compared with case management alone (mean Table 1: Summary of evidence-based recommendations Recommendations and clinical considerations Grade rating* Recommendation 1: A homeless or vulnerably housed person Moderate certainty
Ensure access for homeless or vulnerably housed individuals to local housing coordinator or case manager (i.e., call 211 or via a social worker) for immediate link to permanent supportive housing and coordinated access system. Clinical considerations: Many jurisdictions will provide alternative housing services for specific marginalized populations, for example, Indigenous people, women and families, youth, those who identify as LGBTQ2+, those with disabilities, refugees and migrants. Strong recommendation Recommendation 2: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with experience of poverty, income instability or living in a low-income household Low certainty
Assist individuals with income insecurity to identify income-support resources and access income. Clinical considerations: Consult poverty screening tools when needed (e.g., https://cep.health/clinical-products /poverty-a-clinical-tool-for-primary-care-providers). Conditional recommendation Recommendation 3: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with multiple comorbid or complex health needs (including mental illness and/or substance use) Low certainty
Identify history of severe mental illness, such as psychotic or mood and anxiety disorders, associated with substantial disability, substance use, or multiple/complex health needs.
Ensure access to local community mental health programs, psychiatric services for assessment, and linkage to intensive case management, assertive community treatment or critical time intervention where available. Clinical considerations: Call 211 or consult primary care providers, social workers or case managers familiar with local access points and less intensive community mental health programs. Conditional recommendation Recommendation 4: A homeless or vulnerably housed person currently using opioids Very low certainty
Identify opioid use disorder.
Ensure access within primary care or via an addiction specialist to opioid agonist therapy (OAT), potentially in collaboration with a public health or community health centre for linkage to pharmacologic interventions. Clinical considerations: Encourage all patients taking opioid medication to have a naloxone kit. Though barriers to prescribing methadone and buprenorphine remain, be aware of new regulations that aim to facilitate OAT access and options in your jurisdiction, in particular for buprenorphine. Conditional recommendation Recommendation 5: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with substance use disorder Very low certainty
Identify, during history or physical examination, problematic substance use, including alcohol or other drugs.
Identify the most appropriate approach, or refer to local addiction and harm-reduction/prevention services (e.g., supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs) via appropriate local resources such as public health or community health centre or local community services centre. Clinical considerations: In case of active opioid use disorder, facilitate patient access to OAT. Patients should be made aware of supervised consumption facility locations (Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/ doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1). Conditional recommendation Note: LGBTQ2+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and two-spirited. *See Box 2 for definitions. †211 is a special abbreviated telephone number reserved in Canada and the United States as an easy-to-remember 3-digit telephone number meant to provide information and referrals to health, human and social service organizations. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E243 difference 8.58, p < 0.004).55 Compensated work therapy was found to reduce the odds of homelessness (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3).52 No income interventions showed an effect on mental health outcomes.47,52,55,56 The impact of these interventions on substance use outcomes were mixed. Provision of housing vouchers did not affect substance use over 3 years;55 however, compensated work therapy showed immediate reductions in drug (reduction: –44.7%, standard error [SE] 12.8%; p = 0.001) and alcohol use problems (–45.4%, SE 9.4%; p = 0.001), as well as the number of substance use–related physical symptoms (–64.4%, SE 8.0%; p = 0.001).52 These differences, however, tended to decline with time. No significant effects were found on overall quality-of-life, finances, health and social relations scores. Provision of housing vouchers resulted in higher family-relations score and satisfaction, and quality of housing compared with standard care.55 One trial reported that rental assistance was associated with reduced emergency department visits and time spent in hospital, but this reduction was not significantly different than in the comparator group.56 Individual placement and support was found to improve employment rates only when there was high fidelity to the model (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.16).54 Financial-empowerment education and provision of housing vouchers had no effect on employment outcomes.47,55 Financial-empowerment education and individual placement and support had no effect on hourly wages.47,54 Provision of housing vouchers had no effect on monthly income.55 The certainty of the evidence was rated low because several trials introduced high risk of detection and performance bias. Furthermore, 1 trial reported low consent rates of 47% and a 1:4 sampling ratio that further limited statistical power.52 As well, participants in the control group wanting to enter income-assistance programs after completing the study had incentives to underreport symptoms, which introduced high risk for measurement bias. Case management
Identify history of severe mental illness, such as psychotic or mood and anxiety disorders, associated with substantial disability, substance use disorders, or multiple or complex health needs.
Ensure access to local community mental health programs, psychiatric services for assessment and linkage to intensive case management, assertive community treatment or critical time intervention where available (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary Our systematic review examined the effectiveness of standard case management, as well as specific intensive casemanagement interventions, such as assertive community treatment, intensive case management and critical time intervention among homeless and vulnerably housed populations and corresponding level of need (David Ponka, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). We included a total of 56 citations, of which 10 trials reported on standard case management,51,57–65 8 trials on assertive community treatment,66–73 16 trials on intensive case management74–89 and 5 trials on critical time intervention.90–94 Box 2: How to use and understand this GRADE guideline (www.gradeworkinggroup.org) This guideline supplies providers with evidence for decisions concerning interventions to improve health and social outcomes for people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. This guideline is not meant to replace clinical judgment. Statements about clinical considerations, values and preferences are integral parts of the recommendations meant to facilitate interpretation and implementation of the guideline. Recommendations in this guideline are categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong or conditional recommendations. Strong recommendations indicate that all or almost all fully informed patients would choose the recommended course of action, and indicate to clinicians that the recommendation is appropriate for all or almost all individuals. Strong recommendations represent candidates for quality-of-care criteria or performance indicators. Conditional recommendations indicate that most informed patients would choose the suggested course of action, but an appreciable minority would not. With conditional recommendations, clinicians should recognize that different choices will be appropriate for individual patients, and they should help patients arrive at a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Conditional recommendations should not be used as a basis for standards of practice (other than to mandate shared decision-making). Good practice statements represent common-sense practice, are supported by indirect evidence and are associated with assumed large net benefit. Clinical considerations provide practical suggestions to support implementation of the GRADE recommendation. GRADE certainty ratings High: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate: further research is likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low: any estimate of the effect is very uncertain. Table 2: Good practice statements to support delivery of care Good practice statement Indirect evidence (reference) 1. Homeless and vulnerably housed populations should receive trauma-informed and personcentred care. 23–26 2. Homeless and vulnerably housed populations should be linked to comprehensive primary care to facilitate the management of multiple health and social needs. 27 3. Providers should collaborate with public health and community organizations to ensure programs are accessible and resources appropriate to meet local patient needs. 28,29 GUIDELINE E244 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 Of 10 trials on standard case management, 10 evaluated housing stability. Only 3 reported significant decreases in homelessness,57,62,63 an effect that diminished over time in 1 trial of a time-limited residential case management in which participants in all groups accessed substantial levels of services.57 A program tailored to women reduced the odds of depression at 3 months (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.99), but did not show improvements in the women’s overall mental health status (mean difference 4.50, 95% CI –0.98 to 9.98).64 One trial reported higher levels of hostility (p < 0.001) and depression symptoms (p < 0.05) among female participants receiving nurse-led standard case management compared with those receiving standard care.60 Few studies reported on substance use, quality of life, employment or income outcomes. Findings of assertive community treatment on housingstability, quality-of-life and hospital-admission outcomes are mixed. Two trials found that participants receiving the treatment reported fewer days homeless (p < 0.01)71 and more days in community housing (p = 0.006),70 whereas 2 trials reported no effect on episodes of homelessness or number of days homeless.66,73 Further, these interventions showed an added benefit in reducing the number of participants admitted to hospital (mean difference –8.6, p < 0.05) and with visits to the emergency department (mean difference –1.2, p = 0.009).67 Most trials of assertive community treatment reported no significant differences in mental health outcomes, including psychiatric symptoms, substance use, or income-related outcomes between the treatment and control groups. Intensive case management reduced the number of days homeless (pooled standardized mean difference –0.22, 95% CI –0.40 to –0.03), but not the number of days spent in stable housing.78,80,89 In most studies, there was no major improvement in psychological symptoms between the treatment and control groups. However, 1 trial reported significantly greater reductions in anxiety, depression and thought disturbances after 24 months (mean difference change from baseline –0.32, p = 0.007), as well as improved life satisfaction (mean difference 1.23, p = 0.001) using intensive case management.86 One trial reported no significant difference in quality of life.83 Findings on substance use were mixed. Six of the 10 trials reported that intensive case management was associated with improvements in substance use behaviours.74,78,82,84,87,88 Participants receiving intensive case management reported fewer visits to the emergency department (mean difference 19%, p < 0.05) but did not have shorter hospital stays compared with control groups.85 Intensive case management had no effect on the number of days of employment, or on income received from employment; however, income received by participants through public assistance increased (e.g., mean difference 89, 95% CI 8 to 170).78,85 Critical time intervention was beneficial in reducing the number of homeless nights (mean difference –591, p < 0.001) and the odds of homelessness (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90) during the final 18 weeks of follow-up.91 Participants receiving the treatment were rehoused sooner than those receiving standard care,95 but did not spend more days rehoused.90 Adults receiving critical time intervention showed significant improvements in psychological symptoms (mean difference –0.14, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.01).90 However, findings for children’s mental health were mixed: children aged 1.5–5 years showed improvements in internalizing (ß coefficient –3.65, 95% CI –5.61 to –1.68) and externalizing behaviours (ß coefficient –3.12, 95% CI –5.37 to –0.86), whereas changes for children aged 6–10 years and 11–16 years were not significant.93 There were no significant effects of critical time intervention on substance-use,90 quality-of-life90,92 or income-related outcomes.96 Two trials reported mixed findings on hospital admission outcomes; in 1 study, allocation to critical time intervention was associated with reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96) and total number of nights in hospital (p < 0.05) in the final 18 weeks of the trial.97 However, another study reported a greater total number of nights in hospital for the treatment group compared with usual care (1171 v. 912).98 The certainty of the evidence was rated low because several trials introduced high risk of detection and performance bias. Opioid agonist therapy
Ensure access to opioid agonist therapy in primary care or by referral to an addiction specialist, potentially in collaboration with public health or community health centre for linkage to pharmacologic interventions (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We conducted a review of systematic reviews on pharmalogic interventions for opioid use disorder.99 Twenty-four reviews, which included 352 unique primary studies, reported on pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder among general populations.100–123 We expanded our inclusion criteria to general populations, aware that most studies among “general populations” had a large representation of homeless populations in their samples. We did not identify any substantial reason to believe that the mechanisms of action of our interventions of interest would differ between homeless populations who use substances and the general population of people who use substances. Reviews on pharmacologic interventions reported on the use of methadone, buprenorphine, diacetylmorphine (heroin), levo-a-acetylmethadol, slow-release oral morphine and hydromorphone for treatment of opioid use disorder. We found pooled all-cause mortality rates of 36.1 and 11.3 per 1000 person years for participants out of and in methadone maintenance therapy, respectively (rate ratio 3.20, 95% CI 2.65 to 3.86), and mortality rates of 9.5 per 1000 person years for those not receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy compared with 4.3 per 1000 person years among those receiving the therapy (rate ratio 2.20, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.61).116 Overdose-specific mortality rates were similarly affected, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 12.7 and 2.6 per 1000 person years for participants out of and in methadone maintenance therapy, and rates of 4.6 and 1.4 per 1000 person years out of and in buprenorphine maintenance therapy.116 Compared with nonpharmacologic approaches, methadone maintenance therapy had no significant GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E245 effect on mortality (relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.39).110 With respect to morbidity, pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder reduced the risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) acquisition (risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.63)112 and HIV infection.103 Adverse events were reported for all agents.100,109,119,122 Treatment with methadone and buprenorphine was associated with reduced illicit opioid use (standardized mean difference –1.17, 95% CI –1.85 to –0.49).109 Availability of buprenorphine treatment expanded access to treatment for patients unlikely to enrol in methadone clinics and facilitated earlier access for recent initiates to opioid use.117 The relative superiority of one pharmacologic agent over another on retention outcomes remains unclear; however, use of methadone was found to show better benefits than nonpharmacologic interventions for retention (risk ratio 4.44, 95% CI 3.26 to 6.04).110 The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, primarily because of inconsistency, high risk of bias and evidence from nonrandomized studies. Harm-reduction interventions
Identify problematic substance use, including alcohol or other drugs.
Identify the most appropriate approach or refer to local addiction and harm reduction/prevention services (e.g., supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs) via appropriate local resources, such as public health or community health centre or les centres locaux de services communautaires (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We conducted a review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities and managed alcohol programs.99 Two systematic reviews, which included 90 unique observational studies and 1 qualitative meta-synthesis reported on supervised consumption facilities.124–126 For managed alcohol programs, 1 Cochrane review had no included studies,127 and 2 greyliterature reviews reported on 51 studies.128,129 Establishment of supervised consumption facilities was associated with a 35% decrease in the number of fatal opioid overdoses within 500 m of the facility (from 253.8 to 165.1 deaths per 100 000 person years, p = 0.048), compared with 9% in the rest of the city (Vancouver).124 There were 336 reported opioid overdose reversals in 90 different individuals within the Vancouver facility over a 4-year period (2004–2008).125 Similar protective effects were reported in Australia and Germany. Observational studies conducted in Vancouver and Sydney showed that regular use of supervised consumption facilities was associated with decreased syringe sharing (adjusted OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82), syringe reuse (adjusted OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.01) and public-space injection (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.87).125 These facilities mediated access to ancillary services (e.g., food and shelter) and fostered access to broader health support.125,126 Attendance at supervised consumption facilities was associated with an increase in referrals to an addiction treatment centre and initiation of methadone maintenance therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.40).125 Evidence on supervised consumption facilities was rated very low to low, as all available evidence originated from nonrandomized studies. There was a lack of high-quality evidence for managed alcohol programs. Few studies reported on deaths among clients of these programs.128 The effects of managed alcohol programs on hepatic function are mixed, with some studies reporting improvement in hepatic laboratory markers over time, and others showing increases in alcohol-related hepatic damage;129 however, this may have occurred regardless of entry into such a program. This evidence suggested that managed alcohol programs result in stabilized alcohol consumption and can facilitate engagement with medical and social services.128 Clients experienced significantly fewer social, health, safety and legal harms related to alcohol consumption.129 Individuals participating in these programs had fewer hospital admissions and a 93% reduction in emergency service contacts.128 The programs also promoted improved or stabilized mental health128 and medication adherence.129 Cost effectiveness and resource implications Permanent supportive housing We found 19 studies assessing the cost and net cost of housing interventions.30,41,45,130–145 In some studies, permanent supportive housing interventions were associated with increased cost to the payers, and the costs of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical and social services as a result of the intervention.30,41,131–134,142 Six studies showed that these interventions saved payers money.135,137,139,141,144,145 Four of these studies, however, employed a pre–post design.135,139,141,145 Moreover, 1 cost-utility analysis of PSH suggested that the provision of housing services was associated with increased costs and increased quality-adjusted life years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$62 493 per quality-adjusted life year.136 Compared with usual care, PSH was found to be more costly to society (net cost Can$7868, 95% CI $4409 to $11 405).138 Income assistance Two studies55,146 focused on the cost effectiveness of incomeassistance interventions. Rental assistance with clients receiving case-management intervention had greater annual costs compared with usual care or groups receiving only case management.55 For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$58 (95% CI $4 to $111) from the perspective of the payer, US$50 (95% CI –$17 to $117) from the perspective of the health care system and US$45 (95% CI –$19 to $108) from the societal perspective. The benefit gained from temporary financial assistance was found to outweigh its costs with a net savings of US$20 548.146 Case management Twelve publications provided evidence on cost and costeffectiveness of case-management interventions.44,55,67,69,73,75,88,96,147–150 Findings of these studies were mixed; the total cost incurred by clients of standard case management was higher than that of clients receiving usual or standard care61,88 and assertive GUIDELINE E246 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 community treatment,67,147 but lower compared with a US clinical case-management program that included housing vouchers and intensive case management.55 Cost-effectiveness studies using a societal perspective showed that standard case management was not cost effective compared with assertive community treatment for people with serious mental disorders or those with a concurrent substance-use disorder, as it was more expensive.67 For intensive case management, the cost of supporting housing with this program could be partially offset by reductions in the use of emergency shelters and temporary residences.41 Intensive case management is more likely to be cost effective when all costs and benefits to society are considered.41 A pre–post study showed that providing this program to high-need users of emergency departments resulted in a net hospital cost savings of US$132 726.150 Assertive community treatment interventions were associated with lower costs compared with usual care.66,67,73,148,149 We identified only 1 study on the cost effectiveness of critical time intervention that reported comparable costs (US$52 574 v. US$51 749) of the treatment compared with the usual services provided to men with severe mental illness.96 Interventions for substance use We identified 2 systematic reviews that reported findings from 6 studies in Vancouver on the cost effectiveness of supervised consumption facilities;124,125 5 of these 6 studies found the facilities to be cost effective. After consideration of facility operating costs, supervised consumption facilities saved up to Can$6 million from averted overdose deaths and incident HIV cases. Similarly, Can$1.8 million was saved annually from the prevention of incident HCV infection. Clinical considerations Providers can, in partnership with directly affected communities, employ a range of navigation and advocacy tools to address the root causes of homelessness, which include poverty caused by inadequate access to social assistance, precarious work, insufficient access to quality child care, social norms that allow the propagation of violence in homes and communities, inadequate supports for patients and families living with disabilities or going through life transitions, and insufficient and poor-quality housing stock.151 In addition, providers should tailor their approach to the patient’s needs and demographics, taking into account access to services, personal preferences and other illnesses.152 Providers should also recognize the social and human value of accepting homeless and vulnerably housed people into their clinical practices. The following sections provide additional evidence for underserved and marginalized populations. Women A scoping review of the literature on interventions for homeless women (Christine Mathew, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) yielded 4 systematic reviews153–156 and 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)36,60,92,95,157–161 that focused specifically on homeless and vulnerably housed women. Findings showed that PSH was effective in reducing the risk of intimate partner violence and improving psychological symptoms.158 For women with children experiencing homelessness, priority access to permanent housing subsidies can reduce child separations and foster care placements, allowing women to maintain the integrity of their family unit.158 As well, Housing First programs for families, critical time interventions during times of crisis, and therapeutic communities are associated with lower levels of psychological distress, increased self-esteem and improved quality of life for women and their families.92,155 A gender-based analysis highlighted the importance of safety, service accessibility and empowerment among homeless women. We suggest that providers focus on patient safety, empowerment among women who have faced genderbased violence, and improve access to resources, including income, child care and other social support services. Youth A systematic review on youth-specific interventions reported findings from 4 systematic reviews and 18 RCTs.162 Permanent supportive housing improved housing stability. As well, individual cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to result in significant improvements in depression scores, and family-based therapies are also promising, resulting in reductions in youth substance use through restoring the family dynamic. Findings on motivational interviewing, skill building and case-management interventions were inconsistent, with some trials showing a positive impact and others not identifying significant benefits. Refugee and migrant populations A qualitative systematic review on homeless migrants (Harneel Kaur, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) identified 17 qualitative articles that focused on the experiences of homeless migrants.163–179 Findings indicated that discrimination, limited language proficiency and severed social networks negatively affected homeless migrants’ sense of belonging and access to social services, such as housing. However, employment opportunities provided a sense of independence and improved social integration. Methods Composition of participating groups In preparation for the guideline, we formed the Homeless Health Research Network (https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/ projects/homeless-health-guidelines), composed of clinicians, academics, and governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. The Homeless Health Guideline Steering Committee (K.P. [chair], C.K., T.A., A.A., G.S., G.B., D.P., E.A., V.B., V.S. and P.T.) was assembled to coordinate guideline development. Expert representation was sought from eastern and western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Prairie provinces for membership on the steering committee. In addition, 5 people with lived experience of homelessness (herein referred to as “community scholars”180) were recruited to participate in the guideline-development activities. A management committee (K.P., C.K. and P.T.) oversaw the participating groups and monitored competing interests. The steering committee decided to develop a single guideline publication informed by a series of 8 systematic reviews. The GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E247 steering committee assembled expert working groups to operationalize each review. Each working group consisted of clinical topic experts and community scholars who were responsible for providing contextual expertise. The steering committee also assembled a technical team, which provided technical expertise in the conduct and presentation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, the steering committee assembled the guideline panel, which had the responsibility to provide external review of the evidence and drafted recommendations. The panel was composed of 17 individuals, including physicians, primary care providers, internists, psychiatrists, public health professionals, people with lived experience of homelessness, medical students and medical residents. Panel members had no financial or intellectual conflicts of interest. A full membership list of the individual teams’ composition is available in Appendix 2, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1. Selection of priority topics We used a 3-step modified Delphi consensus method (Esther Shoemaker, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) to select priority health conditions for marginalized populations experiencing homelessness or vulnerable housing. Briefly, between May and June 2017, we developed and conducted a survey (in French and English), in which we asked 84 expert providers and 76 people with lived homelessness experience to rank and prioritize an initial list of needs and populations. We specifically asked participants, while answering the Delphi survey, to keep in mind 3 priority-setting criteria when considering the unique challenges of implementing health care for homeless or vulnerably housed people: value added (i.e., the opportunity for a unique and relevant contribution), reduction of unfair and preventable health inequities, and decrease in burden of illness (i.e., the number of people who may have a disease or condition).181 The initial top 4 priority needs identified were as follows: facilitating access to housing, providing mental health and addiction care, delivering care coordination and case management, and facilitating access to adequate income. The priority marginalized populations identified included Indigenous people; women and families; youth; people with acquired brain injury, or intellectual or physical disabilities; and refugees and other migrants (Esther Shoemaker, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). Each working group then scoped the literature using Google Scholar and PubMed to determine a list of interventions and terms relating to each of the priority-need categories. Each working group came to consensus on the final list of interventions to be included (Table 3). Guideline development We followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for the development of this clinical guideline, including the identification of clinical questions, systematic reviews of the best available evidence, Table 3: Descriptions of priority-need interventions Intervention Description Permanent supportive housing
Long-term housing in the community with no set preconditions for access. Housing may be paired with the provision of individualized supportive services that are tailored to participants’ needs and choices, including assertive community treatment and intensive case management.
This guideline groups the Housing First model (a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing housing) with permanent supportive housing. Income assistance
Benefits and programs that improve socioeconomic status. This may include assistance that directly increases income and programs that help with cost reduction of basic living necessities.
This guideline also groups employment programs (e.g., individual placement and support, and compensated work therapy) in this category. Case management
Standard case management allows for the provision of an array of social, health care and other services with the goal of helping the client maintain good health and social relationships.
Intensive case management offers the support of a case manager who brokers access to an array of services. Case-management support can be available for up to 12 hours per day, 7 days a week, and each case manager often has a caseload of 15–20 service users.
Assertive community treatment offers team-based care to individuals with severe and persistent mental illness by a multidisciplinary group of health care workers in the community. This team should be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Critical time intervention supports continuity of care for service users during times of transition. Case management is administered by a critical time intervention worker and is a time-limited service, usually lasting 6–9 months. Pharmacologic interventions for substance use disorder
Pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder, including methadone, buprenorphine, diacetylmorphine, levo-a-acetylmethadol and naltrexone.
Pharmacologic agents for reversal of opioid overdose: opioid antagonist administered intravenously or intranasally (e.g., naloxone). Harm reduction for substance use disorders
Supervised consumption facilities: facilities (stand-alone, co-located or pop-up) where people who use substances can consume preobtained substances under supervision.
Managed alcohol programs: shelter, medical assistance, social services and the provision of regulated alcohol to support residents with severe alcohol use disorder. GUIDELINE E248 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 assessment of the certainty of the evidence and development of recommendations.182 We conducted a series of systematic reviews to answer the following clinical question: Should PSH, income assistance, case management, pharmacologic agents for opioid use, and/or harm-reduction interventions be considered for people with lived experience of homelessness? Systematic reviews for each intervention were driven by a logic model. A detailed description of the methods used to compile evidence summaries for each recommendation, including search terms, can be found in Appendix 3, available at www.cmaj.ca/ lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1. We sought evidence on questions considering population, interventions and comparisons according to published a priori protocols.183–186 We used relevant terms and structured search strategies in 9 bibliographic databases for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies. The technical team reviewed titles, abstracts and full texts of identified citations, selected evidence for inclusion and compiled evidence reviews, including cost-effectiveness and resource-use data, for consideration by the guideline panel. The technical team collected and synthesized data on the following a priori outcomes: housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, employment and income. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses with random effects and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Where pooling of results was not appropriate, we synthesized results narratively. In addition to the intervention and cost-effectiveness reviews, the technical team conducted 3 systematic reviews to collect contextual and population-specific evidence for the populations prioritized through our Delphi process (women, youth, refugees and migrants) (Christine Mathew, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020; Harneel Kaur, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020).162 Additionally, we conducted 1 qualitative literature review to capture patient values and preferences, focused on the experiences of people who are homeless in engaging with our selected interventions.20 Drafting of recommendations The steering committee hosted a 2-day knowledge-sharing event, termed the “Homeless Health Summit,” on Nov. 25–26, 2018. Attendees included expert working group members, community scholars, technical team members, and other governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. Findings from all intervention reviews were presented and discussed according to the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework.187 After the meeting, the steering committee drafted GRADE recommendations (Box 2) through an iterative consensus process. All steering-committee members participated in multiple rounds of review and revision of the drafted clinical recommendations. Guideline panel review We used the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to facilitate the development of recommendations187–189 (Appendix 4, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1). We used GRADEpro and the Panel Voice software to obtain input from the guideline panel.190 Panellists provided input on the wording and strength of the draft recommendations. They also provided considerations for clinical implementation. We required endorsement of recommendations by 60% of panel members for acceptance of a recommendation. After review by the guideline panel, the steering committee reviewed the final recommendations before sign-off. Good practice statements We developed a limited number of good practice statements to support the delivery of the initial evidence-based recommendations. A good practice statement characteristically represents situations in which a large and compelling body of indirect evidence strongly supports the net benefit of the recommended action, which is necessary for health care practice.191–193 Guideline-development groups consider making good practice statements when they have high confidence that indirect evidence supports net benefit, there is a clear and explicit rationale connecting the indirect evidence, and it would be an onerous and unproductive exercise and thus a poor use of the group’s limited resources to collect this evidence. The steering committee came to a consensus on 3 good practice statements based on indirect evidence. Identification of implementation considerations We completed a mixed-methods study to identify determinants of implementation across Canada for the guideline (Olivia Magwood, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). Briefly, the study included a survey of 88 stakeholders and semistructured interviews with people with lived experience of homelessness. The GRADE Feasibility, Acceptability, Cost (affordability) and Equity (FACE) survey collected data on guideline priority, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and intent to implement. We used a framework analysis and a series of meetings (Ottawa, Ont., Jan. 13, 2020; Hamilton, Ont., Aug. 16, 2019; Gatineau, Que., July 18, 2019) with relevant stakeholders in the field of homeless health to analyze our implementation data. Management of competing interests Competing interests were assessed using a detailed form adapted from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest194 and the Elsevier sample coauthor agreement form for a scientific project, contingencies and communication.195 These forms were collected at the start of the guideline activities for the steering committee, guideline panel and community scholars. All authors submitted an updated form in June 2019 and before publication. The management committee iteratively reviewed these statements and interviewed participants for any clarifications and concerns. A priori, the management committee had agreed that major competing interests would lead to dismissal. There were no competing interests declared. Implementation Our mixed-methods study (Olivia Magwood, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) looking at guideline priority, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and intent to implement, identified the following concerns regarding implementation of this guideline. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E249 Stakeholders highlighted the importance of increasing primary care providers’ knowledge of the process of applying to PSH programs and informing their patients about the resources available in the community. The major concerns regarding feasibility arose around the limited availability of existing services, such as housing, as well as administrative and human resources concerns. For example, not all primary care providers work in a team-based comprehensive care model and have access to a social worker or care coordinator who can help link the patient to existing services. Furthermore, wait lists for PSH are frequently long. Despite this, all stakeholders agreed that access to PSH was a priority and is a feasible recommendation. Allied health practitioners and physicians do not always agree with their new role in this area. Some feedback suggested pushback from family physicians who have limited time with patients and less experience exploring social determinants of health, such as housing or income. The initial steps outlined in this guideline would come at an opportunity cost for them. Stigma attached to the condition of homelessness was recognized as an important barrier to care for homeless populations. Many stakeholders recognized that successful implementation of these recommendations may require moderate costs to increase the housing supply, income supports and human resources. However, supervised consumption facilities, with their range of benefits, were perceived as cost-saving. Many interventions have the potential to increase health equity, if available and accessible in a local context. Many stakeholders highlighted opportunities to increase knowledge of the initial steps and advocate on a systematic level to increase availability of services. Suggested performance measures We developed a set of performance measures to accompany this guidleline for consideration by providers and policy-makers:
The proportion of adults who are assessed for homelessness or vulnerable housing over 1 year.
The proportion of eligible adults who are considered for income assistance over 1 year.
The proportion of eligible adults using opioids who are offered opioid agonist therapy over 1 year. Updates The Homeless Health Research Network will be responsible for updating this guideline every 5 years. Other guidelines This guideline complements other published guidelines. This current guideline aims to support the upcoming Indigenousspecific guidelines that recognize the importance of Indigenous leadership and methodology that will recognize distinct underlying causes of Indigenous homelessness (Jesse Thistle, York University, Toronto, Ont.: personal communication, 2020). The World Health Organization has developed guidelines to promote healthy housing standards to save lives, prevent disease and increase quality of life.196 Other guidelines specific to opioid use disorder exist,197,198 including 1 for “treatment-refractory” patients.199 In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence has published guidelines for outpatient treatment of schizophrenia and has published multimorbidity guidelines (www.nice.org.uk/guidance). The National Health Care for the Homeless Council in the US has adapted best practices to support front-line workers caring for homeless populations.200 How is this guideline different? This guideline distills initial steps and evidence-based approaches, to both homeless and vulnerably housed people, with the assistance of patients and other stakeholders. It also introduces a new clinical lens with upstream interventions that provide a social and health foundation for community integration. Its initial steps support the vision of the Centre for Homelessness Impact in the UK, which envisions a society where the experience of homelessness, in instances where it cannot be prevented, is only ever rare, brief and nonrecurrent.201 Finally, we hope that our stakeholder engagement inspires and equips future students, health providers and the public health community to implement the initial step recommendations. Gaps in knowledge Evidence-based policy initiatives will need to address the accelerating health and economic disparities between homeless and general housed populations. As primary care expands its medical home models,27 there will be a research opportunity for more traumainformed care202 to support the evidence-based interventions in this guideline. Indeed, clinical research can refine how providers use the initial steps protocol: housing, income, case management and addiction. With improved living conditions, care coordination and continuity of care, research and practice can shift to treatable conditions, such as HIV and HCV infection, substance use disorder, mental illness and tuberculosis.203 Medical educators will also need to develop new training tools to support the delivery of interventions. Curricula and training that support the delivery of interventions, such as traumainformed and patient-centred care, will also be needed.12 Many of the recommended interventions in this guideline rely on collaboration of community providers, housing coordinators and case management. Interdisciplinary primary care research and maintenance of linkages to primary care will benefit from new homeless health clinic networks. Monitoring transitions in care and housing availability will be an important research goal for Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the associated Reaching Home program. Conclusion Homelessness has become a health emergency. Initial steps in addressing this crisis proposed in this guideline include strongly recommending PSH as an urgent intervention. The guideline also recognizes the trauma, disability, mental illness and stigma GUIDELINE E250 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 facing people with lived homelessness experience and thus recommends initial steps of income assistance, intensive case management for mental illness, and harm-reduction and addictiontreatment interventions, including access to opioid agonist therapy and supervised consumption facilities. The successful implementation of this guideline will depend on a focus on the initial recommendations, trust, patient safety and an ongoing collaboration between primary health care, mental health providers, public health, people with lived experience and broader community organizations, including those beyond the health care field. References 1. Frankish CJ, Hwang SW, Quantz D. Homelessness and health in Canada: research lessons and priorities. Can J Public Health 2005;96(Suppl 2):S23-9. 2. 31 days of promoting a better urban future: Report 2018. Nairobi (Kenya): UN Habitat, United Nations Human Settlement Programme; 2018. Available: https://oldweb.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final-short-version -UN-Habitat-Urban-October-Report.pdf (accessed 2019 Apr. 1). 3. Wen CK, Hudak PL, Hwang SW. Homeless people’s perceptions of welcomeness and unwelcomeness in healthcare encounters. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1011-7. 4. Coltman L, Gapka S, Harriott D, et al. Understanding community integration in a housing-first approach: Toronto At Home/Chez Soi community-based research. Intersectionalities 2015;4:39-50. 5. Hwang SW, Burns T. Health interventions for people who are homeless. Lancet 2014;384:1541-7. 6. Canadian definition of homelessness. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness; 2012. Available: www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/ attachments/Definition of Homelessness.pdf (accessed 2019 Apr. 1). 7. Hwang SW, Wilkins R, Tjepkema M, et al. Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. BMJ 2009;339: b4036. 8. Nordentoft M, Wandall-Holm N. 10 year follow up study of mortality among users of hostels for homeless people in Copenhagen. BMJ 2003;327:81. 9. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet 2014;384:1529-40. 10. Gaetz S, Dej E, Richter T, et al. The state of homelessness in Canada 2016. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press; 2016. 11. Thistle J. Indigenous definition of homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press; 2017. 12. Belanger YD, Awosoga O, Head GW. Homelessness, urban Aboriginal people, and the need for a national enumeration. Aboriginal Policy Studies 2013;2: 4-33. 13. Taylor M. How is rural homelessness different from urban homelessness? Toronto: The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub; 2018. Available: www.homelesshub.ca/blog/how-rural-homelessness-different -urban-homelessness (accessed 2019 Feb. 6). 14. Rodrigue S. Hidden homelessness in Canada. Cat no 75-006-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2016. 15. Gulliver-Garcia T. Putting an end to child & family homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Raising the Roof; 2016. 16. Andermann A.; CLEAR Collaboration. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ 2016; 188:E474-83. 17. Jackson GL, Powers BJ, Chatterjee R, et al. The patient-centered medical home: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:169-78. 18. A new vision for Canada: family practice — the patient’s medical home 2019. Mississauga (ON): The College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. 19. Declaration of Alma-Ata. Proceedings of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata; 1978 Sept. 6–12. Geneva: World Health Organization. 20. Magwood O, Leki VY, Kpade V, et al. Common trust and personal safety issues: A systematic review on the acceptability of health and social interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness. PLoS One 2019;14:e0226306. 21. Luchenski S, Maguire N, Aldridge RW, et al. What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations. Lancet 2018;391:266-80. 22. Thistle JA, Laliberte N. Pekiwewin (Coming Home): Clinical practice guidelines for health and social service providers working with Indigenous people experiencing homelessness. Verbal concurrent session presented at the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness Conference, 2019 Nov. 4; Edmonton. 23. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995;152:1423-33. 24. Racine N, Killam T, Madigan S. Trauma-informed care as a universal precaution: beyond the adverse childhood experiences questionnaire. JAMA Pediatr 2019 Nov. 4 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3866. 25. Reeves E. A synthesis of the literature on trauma-informed care. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2015;36:698-709. 26. Hopper E, Bassuk E, Olivet J. Shelter from the storm: trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. Open Health Serv Policy J 2009;2:131-51. 27. A new vision for Canada: family practice — The patient’s medical home. Mississauga (ON): College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. Available: www. cfpc.ca/A_Vision_for_Canada (accessed 2019 Dec. 2). 28. Valaitis RK, O’Mara L, Wong ST, et al. Strengthening primary health care through primary care and public health collaboration: the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2018;19:378-91. 29. Akhtar-DaneshN, Valaitis R, O’Mara L, et al. Viewpoints about collaboration between primary care and public health in Canada.BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:311. 30. Aubry T, Goering P, Veldhuizen S, et al. A multiple-city RCT of housing first with assertive community treatment for homeless Canadians with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2016;67:275-81. 31. Cherner RA, Aubry T, Sylvestre J, et al. Housing first for adults with problematic substance use. J Dual Diagn 2017;13:219-29. 32. Goldfinger SM, Schutt RK, Tolomiczenko GS, et al. Housing placement and subsequent days homeless among formerly homeless adults with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 1999;50:674-9. 33. Hwang SW, Gogosis E, Chambers C, et al. Health status, quality of life, residential stability, substance use, and health care utilization among adults applying to a supportive housing program. J Urban Health 2011;88:1076-90. 34. Lipton FR, Nutt S, Sabatini A. Housing the homeless mentally ill: a longitudinal study of a treatment approach. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1988;39:40-5. 35. Martinez TE, Burt MR. Impact of permanent supportive housing on the use of acute care health services by homeless adults. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:992-9. 36. McHugo GJ, Bebout RR, Harris M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of integrated versus parallel housing services for homeless adults with severe mental illness. Schizophr Bull 2004;30:969-82. 37. Rich AR, Clark C. Gender differences in response to homelessness services. Eval Program Plann 2005;28:69-81. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.05.003. 38. Sadowski LS, Kee RA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;301:1771-8. 39. Siegel CE, Samuels J, Tang D-I, et al. Tenant outcomes in supported housing and community residences in New York City. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:982-91. 40. Stefancic A, Tsemberis S. Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: a four-year study of housing access and retention. J Prim Prev 2007;28:265-79. 41. Stergiopoulos V, Hwang SW, Gozdzik A, et al.; At Home/Chez Soi Investigators. Effect of scattered-site housing using rent supplements and intensive case management on housing stability among homeless adults with mental illness: a randomized trial. JAMA 2015;313:905-15. 42. Tsemberis S, Gulcur L, Nakae M. Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. Am J Public Health 2004;94:651-6. 43. Young MS, Clark C, Moore K, et al. Comparing two service delivery models for homeless individuals with complex behavioral health needs: preliminary data from two SAMHSA treatment for homeless studies. J Dual Diagn 2009;5: 287-304. 44. Kozloff N, Adair CE, Palma Lazgare LI, et al. “Housing First” for homeless youth with mental illness. Pediatrics 2016;138:e20161514. 45. Gulcur L, Stefancic A, Shinn M, et al. Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum of care and housing first programmes. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 2003;13:171-86. doi: 10.1002/casp.723. 46. Poremski D, Stergiopoulos V, Braithwaite E, et al. Effects of Housing First on employment and income of homeless individuals: results of a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv 2016;67:603-9. 47. Booshehri LG, Dugan J, Patel F, et al. Trauma-informed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): a randomized controlled trial with a twogeneration impact. J Child Fam Stud 2018;27:1594-604. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E251 48. Ferguson KM. Employment outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of two employment interventions with homeless youth. J Soc Social Work Res 2018;9:1-21. 49. Forchuk C, MacClure SK, Van Beers M, et al. Developing and testing an intervention to prevent homelessness among individuals discharged from psychiatric wards to shelters and “No Fixed Address”. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2008;15:569-75. 50. Gubits D, Shinn M, Wood M, et al. What interventions work best for families who experience homelessness? Impact estimates from the family options study. J Policy Anal Manage 2018;37:735-66. 51. Hurlburt MS, Hough RL, Wood PA. Effects of substance abuse on housing stability of homeless mentally Ill persons in supported housing. Psychiatr Serv 1996;47:731-6. 52. Kashner TM, Rosenheck R, Campinell AB, et al. Impact of work therapy on health status among homeless, substance-dependent veterans: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002;59:938-44. 53. Pankratz C, Nelson G, Morrison M. A quasi-experimental evaluation of rent assistance for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. J Community Psychol 2017;45:1065-79. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21911. 54. Poremski D, Distasio J, Hwang SW, et al. Employment and income of people who experience mental illness and homelessness in a large Canadian sample. Can J Psychiatry 2015;60:379-85. 55. Rosenheck R, Kasprow W, Frisman L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of supported housing for homeless persons with mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60:940-51. 56. Wolitski RJ, Kidder DP, Pals SL, et al.; Housing and Health Study Team. Randomized trial of the effects of housing assistance on the health and risk behaviors of homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2010;14:493-503. 57. Conrad KJ, Hultman CI, Pope AR, et al. Case managed residential care for homeless addicted veterans. Results of a true experiment. Med Care 1998; 36:40-53. 58. Graham-Jones S, Reilly S, Gaulton E. Tackling the needs of the homeless: a controlled trial of health advocacy. Health Soc Care Community 2004;12:221-32. 59. Lapham SC, Hall M, Skipper BJ. Homelessness and substance use among alcohol abusers following participation in project H&ART. J Addict Dis 1995;14:41-55. 60. Nyamathi A, Flaskerud JH, Leake B, et al. Evaluating the impact of peer, nurse case-managed, and standard HIV risk-reduction programs on psychosocial and health-promoting behavioral outcomes among homeless women. Res Nurs Health 2001;24:410-22. 61. Nyamathi AM, Zhang S, Salem BE, et al. A randomized clinical trial of tailored interventions for health promotion and recidivism reduction among homeless parolees: outcomes and cost analysis. J Exp Criminol 2016;12:49-74. 62. Sosin MR, Bruni M, Reidy M. Paths and impacts in the progressive independence model: a homelessness and substance abuse intervention in Chicago. J Addict Dis 1995;14:1-20. 63. Towe VL, Wiewel EW, Zhong Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a rapid rehousing intervention for homeless persons living with HIV/AIDS: impact on housing and HIV medical outcomes. AIDS Behav 2019;23:2315-25. 64. Upshur C, Weinreb L, Bharel M, et al. A randomized control trial of a chronic care intervention for homeless women with alcohol use problems. J Subst Abuse Treat 2015;51:19-29. 65. Weinreb L, Upshur CC, Fletcher-Blake D, et al. Managing depression among homeless mothers: pilot testing an adapted collaborative care intervention. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2016;18. 66. Clarke GN, Herinckx HA, Kinney RF, et al. Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care. Ment Health Serv Res 2000;2:155-64. 67. Essock SM, Frisman LK, Kontos NJ. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment teams. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1998;68:179-90. 68. Essock SM, Mueser KT, Drake RE, et al. Comparison of ACT and standard case management for delivering integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:185-96. 69. Fletcher TD, Cunningham JL, Calsyn RJ, et al. Evaluation of treatment programs for dual disorder individuals: modeling longitudinal and mediation effects. Adm Policy Ment Health 2008;35:319-36. 70. Lehman AF, Dixon LB, Kernan E, et al. A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:1038-43. 71. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Allen G, et al. Experimental comparison of the effects of three treatment programs for homeless mentally ill people. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1992;43:1005-10. 72. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Klinkenberg WD, et al. An experimental comparison of three types of case management for homeless mentally ill persons. Psychiatr Serv 1997;48:497-503. 73. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Klinkenberg WD, et al. Treating homeless clients with severe mental illness and substance use disorders: costs and outcomes. Community Ment Health J 2006;42:377-404. 74. Braucht GN, Reichardt CS, Geissler LJ, et al. Effective services for homeless substance abusers. J Addict Dis 1995;14:87-109. 75. Burnam MA, Morton SC, McGlynn EA, et al. An experimental evaluation of residential and nonresidential treatment for dually diagnosed homeless adults. J Addict Dis 1995;14:111-34. 76. Cauce AM, Morgan CJ, Wagner V, et al. Effectiveness of intensive case management for homeless adolescents: rof a 3-month follow-up. J Emot Behav Disord 1994;2:219-27. 77. Clark C, Rich AR. Outcomes of homeless adults with mental illness in a housing program and in case management only. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:78-83. 78. Cox GB, Walker RD, Freng SA, et al. Outcome of a controlled trial of the effectiveness of intensive case management for chronic public inebriates. J Stud Alcohol 1998;59:523-32. 79. Felton CJ, Stastny P, Shern DL, et al. Consumers as peer specialists on intensive case management teams: impact on client outcomes. Psychiatr Serv 1995; 46:1037-44. 80. Grace M, Gill PR. Improving outcomes for unemployed and homeless young people: findings of the YP4 clinical controlled trial of joined up case management. Aust Soc Work 2014;67:419-37. 81. Korr WS, Joseph A. Housing the homeless mentally ill: Findings from Chicago. J Soc Serv Res 1996;21:53-68. 82. Malte CA, Cox K, Saxon AJ. Providing intensive addiction/housing case management to homeless veterans enrolled in addictions treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Addict Behav 2017;31:231-41. 83. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Gath D. Social services case-management for longterm mental disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1995;345:409-12. 84. Orwin RG, Sonnefeld LJ, Garrison-Mogren R, et al. Pitfalls in evaluating the effectiveness of case management programs for homeless persons: lessons from the NIAAA Community Demonstration Program. Eval Rev 1994;18: 153-207. 85. Rosenblum A, Nuttbrock L, McQuistion H, et al. Medical outreach to homeless substance users in New York City: preliminary results. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37:1269-73. 86. Shern DL, Tsemberis S, Anthony W, et al. Serving street-dwelling individuals with psychiatric disabilities: outcomes of a psychiatric rehabilitation clinical trial. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1873-8. 87. Stahler GJ, Shipley TF Jr, Bartelt D, et al. Evaluating alternative treatments for homeless substance-abusing men: outcomes and predictors of success. J Addict Dis 1996;14:151-67. 88. Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:155-64. 89. Toro PA, Passero Rabideau JM, Bellavia CW, et al. Evaluating an intervention for homeless persons: results of a field experiment. J Consult Clin Psychol 1997;65:476-84. 90. de Vet R, Beijersbergen MD, Jonker IE, et al. Critical time intervention for homeless people making the transition to community living: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Community Psychol 2017;60:175-86. 91. Herman DB, Conover S, Gorroochurn P, et al. Randomized trial of critical time intervention to prevent homelessness after hospital discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2011;62:713-9. 92. Lako DAM, Beijersbergen MD, Jonker IE, et al. The effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women’s shelters: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Public Health 2018;63:513-23. 93. Shinn M, Samuels J, Fischer SN, et al. Longitudinal impact of a family critical time intervention on children in high-risk families experiencing homelessness: a randomized trial. Am J Community Psychol 2015;56:205-16. 94. Susser E, Valencia E, Conover S, et al. Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men: a“ critical time” intervention after discharge from a shelter. Am J Public Health 1997;87:256-62. 95. Samuels J, Fowler PJ, Ault-Brutus A, et al. Time-limited case management for homeless mothers with mental health problems: effects on maternal mental health. J Soc Social Work Res 2015;6:515-39. 96. Jones K, Colson PW, Holter MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of critical time intervention to reduce homelessness among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:884-90. GUIDELINE E252 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 97. Tomita A, Herman DB. The impact of critical time intervention in reducing psychiatric rehospitalization after hospital discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2012;63: 935-7. 98. Jones K, Colson P, Valencia E, et al. A preliminary cost effectiveness analysis of an intervention to reduce homelessness among the mentally ill. Psychiatr Q 1994;65:243-56. 99. Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, Beder M, et al. The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons: a systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder. PLoS ONE 15(1):e0227298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227298. 100. Bahji A, Bajaj N. Opioids on trial: a systematic review of interventions for the treatment and prevention of opioid overdose. Can J Addict 2018;9:26-33. 101. Clark N, Lintzeris N, Gijsbers A, et al. LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(2):CD002210. 102. Ferri M, Davoli M, Perucci CA. Heroin maintenance treatment for chronic heroin-dependent individuals: a Cochrane systematic review of effectiveness. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006;30:63-72. 103. Gowing L, Farrell MF, Bornemann R, et al. Oral substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(8):CD004145. 104. Jones HE, Heil SH, Baewert A, et al. Buprenorphine treatment of opioiddependent pregnant women: a comprehensive review. Addiction 2012; 107(Suppl 1):5-27. 105. Karki P, Shrestha R, Huedo-Medina TB, et al. The impact of methadone maintenance treatment on HIV risk behaviors among high-risk injection drug users: a systematic review. Evid Based Med Public Health 2016;2:pii: e1229. 106. Kirchmayer U, Davoli M, Verster AD, et al. A systematic review on the efficacy of naltrexone maintenance treatment in opioid dependence. Addiction 2002;97: 1241-9. 107. Larney S, Gowing L, Mattick RP, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2014;33:115-28. 108. Lobmaier P, Kornør H, Kunøe N, et al. Sustained-release naltrexone for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD006140. 109. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(2):CD002207. 110. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD002209. 111. Minozzi S, Amato L, Vecchi S, et al. Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(4):CD001333. 112. Platt L, Minozzi S, Reed J, et al. Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;9:CD012021. 113. Roozen HG, de Waart R, van der Windt DAWM, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of naltrexone in the maintenance treatment of opioid and alcohol dependence. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2006;16:311-23. 114. Saulle R, Vecchi S, Gowing L. Supervised dosing with a long-acting opioid medication in the management of opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD011983. 115. Simoens S, Matheson C, Bond C, et al. The effectiveness of community maintenance with methadone or buprenorphine for treating opiate dependence. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:139-46. 116. Sordo L, Barrio G, Bravo MJ, et al. Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ 2017;357:j1550. 117. Helm S, Trescot AM, Colson J, et al. Opioid antagonists, partial agonists, and agonists/antagonists: the role of office-based detoxification. Pain Physician 2008;11:225-35. 118. Strang J, Groshkova T, Uchtenhagen A, et al. Heroin on trial: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of diamorphine-prescribing as treatment for refractory heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry 2015;207:5-14. 119. Thomas CP, Fullerton CA, Kim M, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv 2014;65:158-70. 120. Weinmann S, Kunstmann W, Rheinberger P. Methadone substitution — a scientific review in the context of out-patient therapy in Germany [article in German]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2004;98:673-82. 121. Wilder C, Lewis D, Winhusen T. Medication assisted treatment discontinuation in pregnant and postpartum women with opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015;149:225-31. 122. Klimas J, Gorfinkel L, Giacomuzzi SM, et al. Slow release oral morphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder. BMJ Open 2019;9: e025799. 123. Maglione MA, Raaen L, Chen C, et al. Effects of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder on functional outcomes: a systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2018;89:28-51. 124. Kennedy MC, Karamouzian M, Kerr T. Public health and public order outcomes associated with supervised drug consumption facilities: a systematic review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2017;14:161-83. 125. Potier C, Laprévote V, Dubois-Arber F, et al. Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;145:48-68. 126. McNeil R, Small W. ‘Safer environment interventions’: a qualitative synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med 2014;106:151-8. 127. Muckle W, Muckle J, Welch V, et al. Managed alcohol as a harm reduction intervention for alcohol addiction in populations at high risk for substance abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD006747. 128. Ezard N, Dolan K, Baldry E, et al. Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) for Sydney’s homeless. Canberra (AU): Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; 2015. 129. Nielsen E, Novotna G, Berenyi R, et al. Harm reduction interventions for chronic and severe alcohol use among populations experiencing homelessness: a literature review. Regina: University of Regina, Carmichael Outreach Inc.; 2018. 130. Basu A, Kee R, Buchanan D, et al. Comparative cost analysis of housing and case management program for chronically ill homeless adults compared to usual care. Health Serv Res 2012;47:523-43. 131. Culhane DP, Metraux S, Hadley T. Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Hous Policy Debate 2002;13:107-63. 132. Dickey B, Latimer E, Powers K, et al. Housing costs for adults who are mentally ill and formerly homeless. J Ment Health Adm 1997;24:291-305. 133. Gilmer TP, Manning WG, Ettner SL. A cost analysis of San Diego County’s REACH program for homeless persons. Psychiatr Serv 2009;60:445-50. 134. Gilmer TP, Stefancic A, Ettner SL, et al. Effect of full-service partnerships on homelessness, use and costs of mental health services, and quality of life among adults with serious mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010;67:645-52. 135. Hunter S, Harvey M, Briscombe B, et al. Evaluation of housing for health permanent supportive housing program. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 2017. 136. Holtgrave DR, Wolitski RJ, Pals SL, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the housing and health intervention for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2013;17:1626-31. 137. Larimer ME, Malone DK, Garner MD, et al. Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. JAMA 2009;301:1349-57. 138. Latimer EA, Rabouin D, Cao Z, et al.; At Home/Chez Soi Investigators. Costeffectiveness of Housing First intervention with intensive case management compared with treatment as usual for homeless adults with mental illness: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e199782. 139. Lenz-Rashid S. Supportive housing program for homeless families: Foster care outcomes and best practices. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017;79:558-63. 140. Lim S, Gao Q, Stazesky E, et al. Impact of a New York City supportive housing program on Medicaid expenditure patterns among people with serious mental illness and chronic homelessness. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:15. 141. McLaughlin TC. Using common themes: cost-effectiveness of permanent supported housing for people with mental illness. Res Soc Work Pract 2010;21: 404-11. 142. Mares AS, Rosenheck RA. A comparison of treatment outcomes among chronically homelessness adults receiving comprehensive housing and health care services versus usual local care. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011;38:459-75. 143. Pauley T, Gargaro J, Falode A, et al. Evaluation of an integrated cluster care and supportive housing model for unstably housed persons using the shelter system. Prof Case Manag 2016;21:34-42. 144. Schinka JA, Francis E, Hughes P, et al. Comparative outcomes and costs of inpatient care and supportive housing for substance-dependent veterans. Psychiatr Serv 1998;49:946-50. 145. Srebnik D, Connor T, Sylla L. A pilot study of the impact of housing firstsupported housing for intensive users of medical hospitalization and sobering services. Am J Public Health 2013;103:316-21. 146. Evans WN, Sullivan JX, Wallskog M. The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness. Science 2016;353:694-9. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E253 147. Clark RE, Teague GB, Ricketts SK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment versus standard case management for persons with cooccurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders. Health Serv Res 1998;33:1285-308. 148. Lehman AF, Dixon L, Hoch JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 1999;174:346-52. 149. Wolff N, Helminiak TW, Morse GA, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of three approaches to case management for homeless mentally ill clients. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:341-8. 150. Okin RL, Boccellari A, Azocar F, et al. The effects of clinical case management on hospital service use among ED frequent users. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:603-8. 151. Hwang SW. Homelessness in health. CMAJ 2001;164:229-33. 152. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Patient experience in adult NHS services: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS services — patient experience in generic terms. NICE Clinical Guidelines No 138. London (UK): Royal College of Physicians; 2012. Available: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ books/NBK115230 (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 153. Jonker IE, Sijbrandij M, Van Luijtelaar MJA, et al. The effectiveness of interventions during and after residence in women’s shelters: a meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health 2015;25:15-9. 154. Rivas C, Ramsay J, Sadowski L, et al. Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(12):CD005043. 155. Speirs V, Johnson M, Jirojwong S. A systematic review of interventions for homeless women. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:1080-93. 156. Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA 2003;289:589-600. 157. Constantino R, Kim Y, Crane PA. Effects of a social support intervention on health outcomes in residents of a domestic violence shelter: a pilot study. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2005;26:575-90. 158. Gubits D, Shinn M, Wood M, et al. Family options study: 3-year impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families. 2016. doi: 10.2139/ ssrn.3055295. 159. Milby JB, Schumacher JE, Wallace D, et al. To house or not to house: the effects of providing housing to homeless substance abusers in treatment. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1259-65. 160. Nyamathi AM, Leake B, Flaskerud J, et al. Outcomes of specialized and traditional AIDS counseling programs for impoverished women of color. Res Nurs Health 1993;16:11-21. 161. Nyamathi A, Flaskerud J, Keenan C, et al. Effectiveness of a specialized vs. traditional AIDS education program attended by homeless and drug-addicted women alone or with supportive persons. AIDS Educ Prev 1998;10:433-46. 162. Wang JZ, Mott S, Magwood O, et al. The impact of interventions for youth experiencing homelessness on housing, mental health, substance use, and family cohesion: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2019;19:1528. 163. Couch J. ‘My life just went zig zag’: refugee young people and homelessness. Youth Stud Aust 2011;30:22-32. 164. Couch J. ‘Neither here nor there’: refugee young people and homelessness in Australia. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017;74:1-7. 165. Couch J. On their own: perceptions of services by homeless young refugees. Dev Pract 2012;(31):19-28. 166. D’Addario S, Hiebert D, Sherrell K. Restricted access: The role of social capital in mitigating absolute homelessness among immigrants and refugees in the GVRD. Refuge 2007;24:107-15. 167. Dwyer P, Brown D. Accommodating “others”?: housing dispersed, forced migrants in the UK. J Soc Welf Fam Law 2008;30:203-18. 168. Flatau P, Smith J, Carson G, et al. The housing and homelessness journeys of refugees in Australia. AHURI Final Rep No 256. Melbourne (AU): Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited; 2015. 169. Hulín M, Hulínová VA, Martinkovic M, et al. Housing among persons of international protection in the Slovak Republic. Rajagiri J Soc Dev 2013;5. 170. Idemudia ES, Williams JK, Wyatt GE. Migration challenges among Zimbabwean refugees before, during and post arrival in South Africa. J Inj Violence Res 2013;5:17-27. 171. Im H. A social ecology of stress and coping among homeless refugee families. Vol. 73, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy; 2012:355. Available: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc9&NEWS= N&AN=2012-99130-061 (accessed 2019 Sept. 1). Login required to access content. 172. Kissoon P. From persecution to destitution: a snapshot of asylum seekers’ housing and settlement experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom. J Immigr Refug Stud 2010;8:4-31. 173. Kissoon P. An uncertain home: refugee protection, illegal immigration status, and their effects on migrants’ housing stability in Vancouver and Toronto. Can Issues 2010;64-7. 174. Mostowska M. Migration and homelessness: the social networks of homeless Poles in Oslo. J Ethn Migr Stud 2013;39:1125-40. 175. Mostowska M. Homelessness abroad: “place utility” in the narratives of the Polish homeless in Brussels. Int Migr 2014;52:118-29. 176. Paradis E, Novac S, Sarty M, et al. Homelessness and housing among status immigrant, non-status migrant, and Canadian-born Families in Toronto. Can Issues 2010. 177. Sherrell K, D’Addario S, Hiebert D. On the outside looking in: the precarious housing situations of successful refugee claimants in the GVRD. Refuge 2007;24:64-75. 178. Sjollema SD, Hordyk S, Walsh CA, et al. Found poetry: finding home — a qualitative study of homeless immigrant women. J Poetry Ther 2012;25:205-17. 179. Walsh CA, Hanley J, Ives N, et al. Exploring the experiences of newcomer women with insecure housing in Montréal Canada. J Int Migr Integr 2016;17: 887-904. 180. Kendall CE, Shoemaker ES, Crowe L, et al. Engagement of people with lived experience in primary care research: living with HIV Innovation Team Community Scholar Program. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:730-1. 181. Swinkels H, Pottie K, Tugwell P, et al.; Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health (CCIRH). Development of guidelines for recently arrived immigrants and refugees to Canada: Delphi consensus on selecting preventable and treatable conditions. CMAJ 2011;183:E928-32. 182. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction — GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64: 383-94. 183. Pottie K, Mathew CM, Mendonca O, et al. PROTOCOL: A comprehensive review of prioritized interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness. Campbell Syst Rev 2019;15:e1048. 184. Magwood O, Gebremeskel A, Ymele Leki V, et al. Protocol 1: The experiences of homeless and vulnerably housed persons around health and social services. A protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. Available: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/sites/methods.cochrane. org.equity/files/public/uploads/protocol-_the_experiences_of_homeless_and_ vulnerably_housed_persons_around_health_and_social_services.pdf (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 185. Kpade V, Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, et al. Protocol 3: Harm reduction and pharmacotherapeutic interventions for persons with substance use disorders: a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. 186. Wang J, Mott S, Mathew C, et al. Protocol: Impact of interventions for homeless youth: a narrative review using health, social, Gender, and equity outcomes. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. Available: https://methods.cochrane.org/ equity/sites/methods.cochrane.org.equity/files/public/uploads/youth_narrative _review_protocol.pdf (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 187. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016;353:i2089. 188. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 2016;353:i2016. 189. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;76:89-98. 190. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [software]. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University; 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available: https://gradepro.org (accessed 2019 Feb. 1). 191. Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA. When does a good practice statement not justify an evidence based guideline? J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:477-9. 192. Guyatt GH, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, et al. Guideline panels should seldom make good practice statements: guidance from the GRADE Working Group. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:3-7. 193. Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, Djulbegovic B, et al. Guideline panels should not GRADE good practice statements. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:597-600. 194. Drazen JM, de Leeuw PW, Laine C, et al. Toward more uniform conflict disclosures: the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form. JAMA 2010;304:212-3. GUIDELINE E254 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 195. Primack RB, Cigliano JA, Parsons ECM, et al. Coauthors gone bad; how to avoid publishing conflict and a proposed agreement for co-author teams [editorial]. Biol Conserv 2014;176:277-80. 196. WHO housing and health guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. 197. Korownyk C, Perry D, Ton J, et al. Managing opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER simplified guideline. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:321-30. 198. Bruneau J, Ahamad K, Goyer M-È, et al.; CIHR Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse. Management of opioid use disorders: a national clinical practice guideline. CMAJ 2018;190:E247-57. 199. Fairbairn N, Ross J, Trew M, et al. Injectable opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder: a national clinical guideline. CMAJ 2019;191:E1049-56. 200. Montauk SL. The homeless in America: adapting your practice. Am Fam Physician 2006;74:1132-8. 201. Teixeira L, Russell D, Hobbs T. The SHARE framework: a smarter way to end homelessness. London (UK): Centre for Homelessness Impact; 2018; Available: www. homelesshub.ca/resource/share-framework-smarter-way-end-homelessness (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 202. Purkey E, Patel R, Phillips SP. Trauma-informed care: better care for everyone. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:170-2. 203. Homelessness & health: What’s the connection [fact sheet]. Nashville (TN): National Health Care for the Homeless Council; 2011. Available: https://nhchc.org/wp-content /uploads/2019/08/Hln_health_factsheet_Jan10-1.pdf (accessed 2019 June 1). Competing interests: Gary Bloch is a founding member, former board member and currently a clinician with Inner City Health Associates (ICHA), a group of physicians working with individuals experiencing homelessness in Toronto, which provided funding for the development of this guideline. He did not receive payment for work on the guideline and did not participate in any ICHA board decision-making relevant to this project. Ritika Goel, Michaela Beder and Stephen Hwang also receive payment for clinical services from ICHA, and did not receive payment for any aspect of the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared. This article has been peer reviewed. Affiliations: C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre (Pottie, d Wendy Muckle led the Homeless Health Summit. Esther Shoemaker led the Delphi consensus. Olivia Magwood led the reviews on lived experiences and substance use, Tim Aubry led the review on housing, Gary Bloch and Vanessa Brcic led the review on income, David Ponka and Eric Agbata led the review on case management, Jean Zhuo Jing Wang and Sebastian Mott led the homeless youth review, Harneel Kaur led the homeless migrant review, Christine Mathew and Anne Andermann led the homeless women review, Syeda Shanza Hashmi and Ammar Saad led medical student engagement and competency review, Thomas Piggott co-led the GRADE Assessment with Olivia Magwood and Kevin Pottie, Michaela Beder and Nicole Kozloff contributed substantially to the substance use review, and Neil Arya and Stephen Hwang provided critical policy information. All of the named authors engaged in the writing and review, gave final approval of the version of the guideline to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Funding: This guideline was supported by a peer-reviewed grant from the Inner City Health Associates, and supplemental project grants from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Employment Social Development Canada, Canadian Medical Association and Champlain Local Integrated Health Network. Personnel from collaborating agencies provided nonbinding feedback during the preparation of systematic reviews and the guideline. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or final approval of the guideline. Final decisions regarding the protocol and issues that arose during the guideline-development process were solely the responsibility of the guideline steering committee. Acknowledgements: The authors thank everyone who participated in the development of this guideline, including community scholars, technical team leads, guideline panel members and working group members. Endorsements: Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Federation of Medical Students, The College of Family Physicians of Canada, Public Health Physicians of Canada, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, Canadian Nurses Association Disclaimer: The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agencies. Correspondence to: Kevin Pottie, kpottie@uottawa.ca
Documents
Less detail

The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change - Policy brief for Canada

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14257
Date
2019-11-01
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-11-01
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change Policy brief for Canada 1 Finding: Exposure to wildfires is increasing in Canada, with more than half of the 448,444 Canadians evacuated due to wildfires between 1980 and 2017 displaced in the last decade. Recommendation: Incorporate lessons learned from recent severe wildfire seasons into a strengthened pan-Canadian emergency response approach that anticipates increasing impacts as the climate continues to change. Finding: The percentage of fossil fuels powering transport in Canada remains high, though electricity and biofuels are gaining ground. Fine particulate air pollution generated by transportation killed 1063 Canadians in 2015, resulting in a loss of economic welfare for Canadians valued at approximately $8 billion dollars. Recommendation: Develop provincial and territorial legislation requiring automakers to gradually increase the annual percentage of new light-duty vehicles sold that are zero emissions, working toward a target of 100% by 2040. Finding: Canada has the third-highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions from healthcare in the world, with healthcare accounting for approximately 4% of the country’s total emissions. Recommendation: Establish a sustainable healthcare initiative that assembles experts from research, education, clinical practice, and policy to support Canada’s healthcare sector in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preventing pollution-related deaths, consistent with healthcare’s mandate to ‘do no harm’ and the timelines and goals of the Paris Agreement, charting a course for zero-emissions healthcare by 2050. Finding: The health of Canadians is at risk due to multiple and varied risks of climate change, including those described in this policy brief (see Figure 1). An ongoing, coordinated, consistent and pan-Canadian effort to track, report, and create healthy change is required. Recommendation: Integrate health considerations into climate-related policymaking across sectors, including in Canada’s updated 2020 Nationally Determined Contribution Commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, and increase ambition to ensure Canada commits to doing its fair share in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Introduction Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century,1 and tackling it could be our greatest health opportunity.2 “The health of a child born today will be impacted by climate change at every stage in their life. Without significant intervention, this new era will come to define the health of an entire generation.”3 However, another path is possible: a world that meets the ambition of the Paris Agreement and proactively adapts to protect health from the climate impacts we cannot now avoid. This year’s briefing presents key findings and recommendations toward this path. Key messages and recommendations Health and climate change in Canada Imagine an infant born today in Canada. This child enters a country warming at double the global rate, with the average temperature in Canada having increased 1.7oC between 1948-2016.4 The North is warming even faster: areas in the Northwest Territories’ Mackenzie Delta are now 3oC warmer than in 1948.5 Climate-related impacts on health and health systems are already being felt,6 with examples outlined in Figure 1. By the time the child is in their twenties, in all feasible emissions scenarios, Canada will have warmed by at least 1.5oC as compared to a 1986-2005 reference period.4 Two scenarios are possible for the remainder of the child’s life. If GHG emissions continue to rise at the current rate (a situation referred to by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the “high emissions scenario,” or ‘RCP8.5’) temperature increases in Canada will continue after 2050, reaching 6oC relative to 1986-2005 by the time the child is in their child’s sixties.4 Globally, this degree of warming places populations at a greater risk of wildfires, extreme heat, poor air quality, and weather-related disasters. It will also lead to changes in vector-borne disease, as well as undernutrition, conflict, and migration. These impacts and others negatively impact mental health,3 including via ecological anxiety and grief.8 Climate change will not impact everyone equally, and can widen existing disparities in health outcomes between and within populations, with Indigenous populations, people in low-resource settings,28 and future generations29 disproportionately affected.30 This degree of warming has the potential to disrupt core public health infrastructure and overwhelm health services.2 Alternatively, if global emissions peak soon and quickly fall to net zero, consistent with the IPCC’s low-emissions scenario, (RCP 2.6), temperatures will remain steady from 2040 onwards.4 Measures needed to accomplish this, such as increasing clean energy, improving Figure 1: Examples of impacts of Climate Change on Health and Health Systems in Canada Indicators of climate-related health impacts and adaptation This year’s policy brief presents information on three key indicators of climate-related health impacts and adaptive responses. Additional recommendations can also be found in the 2017 and 2018 policy briefs.6,24 Wildfires Lancet Countdown data indicates that the number of daily population wildfire exposure events increased from an average of 35,300 in 2001-2004 to 54,100 in 2015-2018, not including those subjected to wildfire smoke. Canadian data supports increasing impacts: more than half of the 448,444 Canadians evacuated due to wildfires between 1980-2017 were displaced in the last decade.35 These exposures not only pose a threat to public health, but also result in major economic and social burdens. 2019 marks a crux point for humanity: choices and policies made in the lead up to the 2020 UNFCCC Nationally Determined Contribution submissions will determine whether the world follows the disastrous high-emissions scenario, or the safer low-emissions path. Children are taking to the streets to demand a livable world. It is the task of today’s political leaders and other adults to exert maximal effort within their spheres of influence in order to set a course for a healthy response to climate change. public transit, cycling and walking rates, and adhering to a plantrich diet in accordance with Canada’s new food guide, decrease emissions, and also improve health and decrease healthcare costs.30 Canada is not on track: in 2016, total Canadian GHG emissions were 704 Mt CO2e, an increase of more than 100 Mt since 1990.31 Policies and measures currently under development but not yet implemented are forecast to reduce national emissions to 592 Mt CO2e by 2030,32 79 Mt CO2e above Canada’s 2030 target of 513 MtCO2e 32—a goal which is itself too weak to represent a fair contribution by Canada to the emissions reductions necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. The Earth as a whole is warming less quickly than Canada—but still far too fast. The IPCC and the World Health Organization have emphasized that keeping global surface temperature warming to 1.5oC is key to obtaining the best outcomes now possible for human health.33,34 To do so would require global net human-caused emissions to fall by about 45% from 2010 by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ by 2050.34 Updated Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement are due to be submitted by 2020: policymakers must integrate health considerations through proposed interventions. Figure 2: Number of Wildfire Evacuees in Canada 1980-2017.* Source: Wildland Fire Evacuation Database, Natural Resources Canada.35 (used with permission) *N.B. Reporting for 2017 only includes evacuations up to and including July In a mid-range GHG emissions scenario, wildfires in Canada are projected to rise 75% rise by the end of the 21st century,36 necessitating a strong adaptive response. Human health impacts of fire include death, trauma, and major burns,37 anxiety during wildfire periods,35,38 and post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression related to evacuations.39,40 Wildfire smoke also travels vast distances41 and increases asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, with growing evidence of an association with all-cause mortality.41 Impacts on health systems can be severe: during the Fort McMurray fire hospital staff evacuated 103 patients in a matter of hours,10,42 and the 2017 British Columbia wildfires resulted in 700+ staff displaced, 880 patients evacuated, and 19 sites closed by the Interior Health Authority, at a cost of $2.7 million.12 Such devastating events also generate significant emissions, contributing to climate change, and helping to generate conditions conducive to future blazes.43 Much can be done to lessen the health impacts of wildfires. Qualitative data indicates that populations who are better-briefed on the local evacuation plan, as well as ways to lessen the risk of fire to their property, are not only more prepared but also less anxious.35,38 Building codes can be changed to help keep smoke out, primary care practitioners can ensure vulnerable patients receive at-home air filtration systems and respiratory medications prior to wildfire season,44 public health professionals can collaborate with municipal officials to maximize smoke forecast-informed outdoor and well-ventilated indoor recreation opportunities,38 and health personnel can help ensure evacuation plans are clearly communicated.45 Sustainable and healthy transport since 2000, they account for less than 4% of the energy used in transport (Figure 3). This rate of change is inconsistent with the emissions pathway required to keep today’s and future children safe. Support is therefore required for investments in public transit,47 and cycling infrastructure,48 creating win-wins for health by increasing physical activity levels and improving community cohesion, while reducing chronic disease, healthcare costs and GHG emissions.49,50 Zero emissions vehicles also reduce air pollution and are increasingly affordable: the up-front cost of electric vehicles is forecast to become competitive on an un-subsidized basis from 2024 onwards.51 British Columbia recently passed legislation requiring all new cars sold to be zero-emission by 2040.52 Other provinces would benefit from matching this ambition. Figure 3: Per Capita Fuel Consumption for Transport in Canada. Source: Lancet Countdown Transport-related pollution is harming the health of Canadians. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution related to land-based transportation was responsible for approximately 1063 deaths in 2015 in Canada, resulting in a loss of economic welfare for Canadians valued at approximately $8 billion dollars.24 Additionally, Canada has the highest pediatric asthma rate amongst countries of comparable income level, with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from traffic responsible for approximately 1 in 5 new cases of asthma in children.46 With transport responsible for 24% of national GHG emissions in 2017,31 decarbonizing this sector must be prioritized. Progress is entirely too slow: total fuel consumption for road transport per capita decreased 5.4% from 2013 to 2016. While per capita use of electricity and biofuels for transport increased by 600% Healthcare sector emissions Though Canadians are proud of the care they provide for one another with this country’s system of universal healthcare,53 Lancet Countdown analysis reveals an area which should give pause to all who endeavor to “do no harm”: Canada’s healthcare system has the world’s third highest emissions per capita. Previous analysis showed healthcare sector emissions to be responsible for 4.6% of the national total,54 as well as more than 200,000 tons of other pollutants, resulting in 23,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost annually.54 Emissions from the health sector represent a strategic mitigation target in a single-payer healthcare system straining under the weight of an inexorably increasing burden of disease. While Canadian healthcare sector emissions are increasing, the world-leading Sustainable Development Unit in England reported an 18.5% decrease in National Health Service, public health and social care system emissions from 2007-2017 despite an increase in clinical activity.55 Despite healthcare being a provincial jurisdiction, there is a role for pan-Canadian sustainability initiatives to unite diverse experts spanning public health and the spectrum of clinical disciplines, economics, sustainability science and beyond. This demands health sector-wide education, consistent with existing efforts to increase environmental literacy for health professionals.56 1. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 2009;373(9676):1693-733. 2. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, et al. The 2018 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. Lancet 2018; vol. 392: 2479–514. 3. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, et al. The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet 2019; vol. 394: 1836–78. 4. Government of Canada. Canada’s Changing Climate Ottawa, Ontario,; 2019. 5. Government of the Northwest Territories. Climate Observations in the Northwest Territories (1957-2012) Inuvik * Norman Wells * Yellowknife * Fort Smith. 6. Howard C, Rose C, Hancock T. Lancet Countdown 2017 Report: Briefing for Canadian Policymakers. Lancet Countdown and Canadian Public Health Association; 2017 October 31st, 2017. 7. Rosol R, Powell-Hellyer S, Chan HM. Impacts of decline harvest of country food on nutrient intake among Inuit in Arctic Canada: impact of climate change and possible adaptation plan. Int J Circumpolar Health 2016;75(1):31127. 8. Cunsolo A, Ellis N. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change 2018;8:275-81. 9. Yao J, Eyamie J, Henderson SB. Evaluation of a spatially resolved forest fire smoke model for population-based epidemiologic exposure assessment. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2016;26(3):233-40. 10. Hampshire G. Hospital heroes get patients to safety during Fort McMurray fire: 17 buses took 105 patients to safety in dramatic evacuation. CBC News. 2016. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/hospital-heroesget- patients-to-safety-during-fort-mcmurray-fire-1.3574416. 11. Kirchmeier-Young M, Zwiers F, Gillett N, Cannon A. Attributing extreme fire risk in Western Canada to human emissions. Climatic Change 2017;144(2):365-79. 12. British Columbia Interior Health Authority. Wildfire Emergency Response 2017. 2018. 13. Kirchmeier-Young M, Gillett N, Zwieres F, Cannon A, Anslow F. Attribution of the Influence of Human-Induced Climate Change on an Extreme Fire Season. Earth’s Future: American Geophysical Union 2018. 14. Alberta Health. Impact of Wildfires on the Mental Health of Fort McMurray Residents: Neurotic Disorders, Daily Physician Visits within an Emergency Department 2015 vs. 2016. Alberta Health, Health Standards, Quality and Performance Division, Analytics and Performance Reporting Branch,; 2016. 15. Teufel B, Diro GT, What K, Mildrad SM, Jeong DI, Ganji A, et al. Investigation of the 2013 Alberta flood from weather and climate perspectives. Climate Dynamics 2017:2881-99. 16. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Alberta Flood 2013: The five people we lost. 2014. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/calgary/features/albertaflood2013/ alberta-flood-deaths/. 17. United Nurses of Alberta. UNA Calgary office closed, many health facilities affected by southern Alberta flooding. 2013 June 21, 2013. 18. Yusa A, Berry P, J JC, Ogden N, Bonsal B, Stewart R, et al. Climate Change, Drought and Human Health in Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12(7):8359-412. 19. Smoyer-Tomic KE, Klaver JD, Soskolne CL, Spady DW. Health Consequences of Drought on the Canadian Prairies. EcoHealth 2004. 20. Government of Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Impact of Climate Change on Canadian Agriculture. 2015 [Oct 22, 2017]; Available from: http:// www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/agriculture- and-climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/? id=1329321987305 21. Cryderman K. Drought in Western Canada is becoming an agricultural nightmare for farmers. 2018. Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/ canada/alberta/article-drought-in-western-canada-is-becoming-an-agricultural- nightmare-for/. 22. Ziska LH, Makra L, Harry SK, Bruffaerts N, Hendrickx M, Coates F, et al. Temper-ature-related changes in airborne allergenic pollen abundance and seasonality across the northern hemisphere: a retrospective data analysis. Lancet Planet Health 2019;3(3):e124-e31. 23. Nelder MP, Wijayasri S, Russell CN, Johnson KO, Marchand-Austin A, Cronin K, et al. The continued rise of Lyme disease in Ontario, Canada: 2017. Canadian Communicable Disease Review 2018;44(10):231-6. 24. Howard C, Rose C, Rivers N. Lancet Countdown 2018 Report: Briefing for Canadian Policymakers. Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Public Health Association, The Lancet Countdown; 2018 November. 25. a. Regional Public Health Department of Montreal. Epidemiological Investigation Heat Wave Summer 2018 in Montréal - Summary. 2019. b. Vogel MM, Zscheischler J, Wartenburger R, et al. Concurrent 2018 hot extremes across Northern hemisphere due to human-induced climate change. Earth's Future, 2019; vol. 7, 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2019EF001189 26. Fenech A. Yes, Mr. Premier, Your Province is Shrinking! 2014 [cited 2019 Sept 20, 2019]; Available from: http://projects.upei.ca/climate/2014/02/16/ yes-mr-premier-your-province-is-shrinking/ 27. Kelleya C, Mohtadib S, Canec M, Seagerc R, Kushnirc Y. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2015;112 no 11: 3241–6,. 28. Berry HL, Bowen K, Kjellstrom T. Climate change and mental health: a causal pathways framework. Int J Public Health 2010;55(2):123-32. 29. Walpole SC, Rasanathan K, Campbell-Lendrum D. Natural and unnatural synergies: climate change policy and health equity. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87(10):799-801. 30. Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock J, Byass P, Cai W, et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet 2015;386(10006):1861-914. 31. Government of Canada. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2018 [June 13, 2018.]; Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/ services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html 32. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Progress Towards Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target. 2019 [Sept 3, 2019]; Available from: https://www.canada. ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cesindicators/progress-towards-canada- greenhouse-gas-reduction-target/2019/progress-towards-ghg-emissions- target-en.pdf 33. Ebi K, Campbell-Lendrum D, Wyns A. The 1.5 Health Report--Synthesis on Health and Climate Science in the IPCC SR1.5. 2018 2018. 34. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Warming of 1.5C--Summary for Policymakers. 2018 October 8, 2018. 35. Christianson A. Wildland Fire Evacuations in Canada. Natural Resources Canada; 2017. 36. Wotton M, Nock C, Flannigan M. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2010;19(3):253-71. 37. Cameron PA, Mitra B, Fitzgerald M, Scheinkestel CD, Stripp A, Batey C, et al. Black Saturday: the immediate impact of the February 2009 bushfires in Victoria, Australia. Med J Aust 2009;191(1):11-6. 38. Dodd W, Scott P, Howard C, Scott C, Rose C, Cunsolo A, et al. Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can J Public Health 2018;109(3):327-37. 39. McDermott BM, Lee EM, Judd M, Gibbon P. Posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychopathology in children and adolescents following a wildfire disaster. Can J Psychiatry 2005;50(3):137-43. 40. Papanikolaou V, Adamis D, Mellon RC, Prodromitis G. Psychological distress following wildfires disaster in a rural part of Greece: a case-control population- based study. Int J Emerg Ment Health 2011;13(1):11-26. 41. Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure. Environ Health Perspect 2016;124(9):1334-43. 42. Matear D. The Fort McMurray, Alberta wildfires: Emergency and recovery management of healthcare services. J Bus Contin Emer Plan 2017;11(2):128- 50. 43. Liu Y, Goodrick S, Heilman W. Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and climate: Wildfire–climate interactions. Forest Ecology and Management 2014;317:80- 96. 44. Barn PK, Elliott CT, Allen RW, Kosatsky T, Rideout K, Henderson SB. Portable air cleaners should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke. Environ Health 2016;15(1):116. 45. Maguet S. Public Health Responses to Wildfire Smoke Events. BC Center for Disease Control; 2018. 46. Achakulwisut P, Brauer M, Hystad P, Anenberg SC. Global, national, and urban burdens of paediatric asthma incidence attributable to ambient NO2 pollution: estimates from global datasets. Lancet Planet Health 2019;3(4):e166-e78. 47. Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4):273-80. 48. United Kingdom Department of Transport. Value for Money Assessment for Cycling Grants. 2014. 49. Woodcock J, Tainio M, Cheshire J, O’Brien O, Goodman A. Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study. BMJ 2014;348:g425. 50. Maizlish N, Woodcock J, Co S, Ostro B, Fanai A, Fairley D. Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay area. Am J Public Health 2013;103(4):703-9. 51. Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019. 52. Zussman R. Legislation introduced to require all new cars sold in B.C. to be zero-emission by 2040. Global News Online. 2019. Available from: https:// globalnews.ca/news/5152429/legislation-introduced-electric-cars/2019. 53. Thompson N. More Canadians take pride in symbols of the country’s present than its past: survey. 2019. 54. Eckelman MJ, Sherman JD, MacNeill AJ. Life cycle environmental emissions and health damages from the Canadian healthcare system: An economic- environmental-epidemiological analysis. PLoS Med 2018;15(7):e1002623. 55. National Health System Sustainable Development Unit. Reducing the use of natural resources in health and social care 2018 report. 2018. 56. Parkes M, Poland B, Allison A, Cole DC, Culbert I, Gislason MK, et al. In press-Preparing for the future of public health: Ecological determinants of health and the call for an eco-social approach to public health education. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2019. DOI: 10.17269/s41997-019-00263-8. References Organisations and acknowledgements The concept of this brief was developed by the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change. This brief was written by Courtney Howard, MD; Chris Buse, PhD; Caren Rose, PhD; Andrea MacNeill, MD, MSc; and Margot Parkes, MBChB, MAS, PhD. Review was provided by Owen Adams, PhD; Ian Culbert; and Sandy Buchman, MD. Thanks to Sarah Henderson, PhD; Peter Barry, PhD; Brian Wiens, PhD; Robin Edger, LLB, LLM; Jeff Eyamie, and Ashlee Cunsolo, PhD for their assistance. Contributions and review on behalf of the Lancet Countdown were provided by Jess Beagley and Nick Watts, MBBS. THE LANCET COUNTDOWN The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is an international, multi-disciplinary collaboration that exists to monitor the links between public health and climate change. It brings together 35 academic institutions and UN agencies from every continent, drawing on the expertise of climate scientists, engineers, economists, political scientists, public health professionals, and doctors. Each year, the Lancet Countdown publishes an annual assessment of the state of climate change and human health, seeking to provide decision-makers with access to high-quality evidence-based policy guidance. For the full 2019 assessment, visit www.lancet countdown.org/2019-report . THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION The Canadian Medical Association (CMA), formed in Quebec City in 1867, has led some of Canada’s most important health policy changes. As we look to the future, the CMA will focus on advocating for a healthy population and a vibrant profession. THE CANADIAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) is a national, independent, non-governmental organization that advances public health education, research, policy and practice in Canada and around the world through the Canadian Journal of Public Health, position statements, discussion documents and other resources.
Documents
Less detail

Support life-saving supervised consumption and overdose prevention sites: open letter to Premier Doug Ford and Health Minister Christine Elliott

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13931
Date
2018-08-30
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2018-08-30
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
Dear Premier Ford and Minister Elliott: We write to you as organizations concerned about the health and welfare of some of the most vulnerable Ontarians, following reports that your government plans to undertake an unnecessary review of the evidence on supervised consumption sites (SCS),1 and the even more troubling announcement that you are imposing a moratorium on the approval of new overdose prevention sites (OPS).2 All the available evidence, including substantial peer-reviewed scientific literature, demonstrates conclusively that these health services save lives and promote the health of people who use drugs. This includes opening doors to treatment. Rather than conduct an unnecessary review and delay expansion of these services, the Ontario government should work with community organizations and health providers to rapidly scale up these services. Delays mean more preventable overdose deaths and new infections of HIV, hepatitis C and other illnesses that could be averted. Multiple reviews of the evidence have already been done, and have established that SCS and OPS:
provide a needed health service, reducing overdose deaths and the sharing of drug-injection equipment (and the associated risk of transmission of blood-borne infections);
increase access to addiction treatment and other necessary health services; and
benefit public order by reducing public injecting.3 As you know, Canada is experiencing a large-scale opioid overdose crisis. In Ontario alone, overdose deaths related to opioids increased by 45 per cent in 2017, with more than three people dying every day during that year.4 The opioid overdose epidemic has been called “the worst drug safety crisis in Canadian history.”5 HIV, hepatitis C and other infections, as well as overdose deaths, are preventable if the right measures are taken. These include increasing voluntary access to treatment for problematic drug use (where Ontario must do better), and also simultaneously scaling up evidence-based harm reduction services such as SCS and OPS. We urge you to heed the recommendations of experts in public health, front-line clinicians, harm reduction staff, and people with lived experience of drug use. Rather than impeding access to life-saving health services, we urge you to work with community organizations and other health services providers to ensure greater, equitable access to SCS and OPS for the people of Ontario. Signed: Aboriginal Legal Services ACAS—Asian Community AIDS Services Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights Addiction Services of Thames Valley Addictions and Mental Health Ontario Africans in Partnership Against AIDS AIDS Coalition of Nova Scotia AIDS Committee of North Bay and Area AIDS Committee of Toronto AIDS Committee of Windsor AIDS Committee of York Region AIDS Vancouver Island Alliance for Healthier Communities Atlantic Interdisciplinary Research Network on Hepatitis C and HIV Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention Breakaway Addiction Services Broadbent Institute Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network) CACTUS Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network Canadian AIDS Society Canadian Association of Community Health Centres Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network Canadian Medical Association Canadian Mental Health Association—Thunder Bay Branch Canadian Nurses Association Canadian Positive People Network Canadian Public Health Association Canadian Research Initiative on Substance Misuse—Prairie Node Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy Canadian Treatment Action Council Casey House CATIE Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Centre for Social Innovation Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic Community Legal Assistance Sarnia Community Legal Services of Ottawa / Services juridiques communautaires d’Ottawa Community YWCA Muskoka Courage Co-Lab Inc. Direction 180 Dopamine Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation Elevate NWO Elgin-Oxford Legal Clinic Four Counties Addiction Services Team Gerstein Crisis Centre Guelph Community Health Centre Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge Drug Strategy Halifax Area Network of Drug Using People (HANDUP) Harm Reduction Nurses Association Health Providers Against Poverty HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario HIV Edmonton HIV/AIDS Regional Services HIV/AIDS Resources and Community Health Houselink Community Homes Housing Action Now! Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) Injured Workers Community Legal Clinic Inner City Health and Wellness Program Interagency Coalition on AIDS and Development (ICAD) Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Services Lake Country Community Legal Clinic Lakeside HOPE House Lanark County Interval House L’Anonyme Legal Clinic of Guelph and Wellington County Maggie’s Toronto Sexwork Action Project Maison Fraternité Mission Services of Hamilton Inc. Mississauga Community Legal Services MODIFY: Drug Insight From Youth Moms Stop the Harm mumsDU - moms united and mandated to saving the lives of Drug Users Native Youth Sexual Health Network Neighbourhood Legal Services London & Middlesex Nipissing Community Legal Clinic OHIP for All Ontario AIDS Network (OAN) Ontario Nurses’ Association Ontario Positive Asians (OPA+) Ottawa Salus Overdose Prevention Ottawa Parkdale Activity Recreation Centre Parkdale Community Legal Services Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre PASAN PHS Community Services Society Planned Parenthood Toronto Queer Ontario Racial Health Equity Network Realize Reelout Arts Project Regent Park Community Health Centre Regional HIV/AIDS Connection Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services Sandy Hill Community Health Centre South Riverdale Community Health Centre Stonegate Community Health Centre Street Health Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Ryerson Chapter Superior North Emergency Medical Service Syme Woolner Neighbourhood and Family Centre Tanner Steffler Foundation The AIDS Committee of Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo and Area The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay The Interfaith Coalition to Fight Homelessness The Mental Health Consumer Survivor Project for Simcoe County Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board Thunder Bay Drug Strategy Timmins-Temiskaming Community Legal Clinic Toronto Overdose Prevention Society Toronto People With AIDS Foundation Waterloo Region Community Legal Services WellFort Community Health Services West Neighbourhood House West Toronto Community Legal Services Women & HIV/AIDS Initiative, Ontario YW Kitchener–Waterloo YWCA Hamilton YWCA Niagara Region YWCA Toronto Endnotes 1 F. Merali, “PCs ‘playing politics with people’s lives’ on injection sites, drug policy expert warns,” CBC News, August 4, 2018. Available at: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/supervised-injection-sites-waiting-1.4771143. 2 K. Bueckert, “Ontario puts new overdose prevention sites approvals on hold,” CBC News, August 11, 2018. Available at: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ontario-overdose-prevention-sites-approval-hold-1.4782132. 3 E.g., M. Kennedy, M. Karamouzian & T. Kerr. “Public Health and Public Order Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: A Systematic Review,” Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 2017; 14(5): 161-183, doi: 10.1007/s11904-017-0363-y. Available at: www.salledeconsommation.fr/_media/public-health-and-public-order-outcomes-associated-with-supervised-drug-consumption-facilities-a-systematic-review.pdf. 4 Public Health Ontario, “Opioid-related morbidity and mortality in Ontario,” May 23, 2018. Available at: www.publichealthontario.ca/en/dataandanalytics/pages/opioid.aspx#/trends. 5 Municipal Drug Strategy Coordinators’ Network of Ontario, “Opioid Epidemic: Call for Urgent Action That Can Save Lives Now,” December 9, 2015.
Documents
Less detail

Open letter to Ontario Minister of Health about the newly proposed “Consumption and Treatment Services” model

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13932
Date
2018-10-31
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2018-10-31
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Dear Minister Elliott: We write to you as organizations concerned about the health and welfare of some of the most vulnerable Ontarians, in response to the October 22 announcement that your government plans to replace supervised consumption sites (SCS) and low-barrier overdose prevention sites (OPS) with “Consumption and Treatment Services.”1 While we welcome the stated commitment to maintain existing SCS and OPS in Ontario, we are deeply concerned that your government’s new approach to supervised consumption services is creating more barriers instead of facilitating the rapid-scale up of a diversity of much-needed supervised consumption services across the province. This is especially troubling in the context of the public health crisis in which we now find ourselves. In particular, we are concerned by the decision to impose one “Consumption and Treatment Services” model on service providers and essentially terminate low-threshold, flexible OPS. These life-saving services are part of a continuum of service models that should be made available to all people who use drugs who need them, including the most marginalized. Thousands of overdoses have been reversed using this model, and no deaths recorded at these sites. As you know, OPS were created in response to the urgent need for rapid roll-out of these vital services. A specific legal regime under a federal class exemption issued to Ontario was put in place to allow for their rapid implementation in response to the current crisis. The requirement for both OPS and SCS, including already authorized ones, to undergo a new application process for funding is sapping concerted efforts from the federal and provincial governments to respond to the overdose crisis. Not only does the new application process replicate the onerous federal exemption process for SCS (such as requiring applicants to engage in ongoing community consultations), it will also impose additional requirements including requiring applicants to provide treatment and rehabilitation services and to conduct seemingly more extensive data reporting, monitoring and evaluations — all without dedicating additional funding to allow organizations to adequately comply. Moreover, the requirement for service providers to provide treatment and rehabilitation services is not in line with harm reduction values of meeting people where they are. At the same time, the arbitrary decision to cap the number of sites at 21 without any justification means people who do not reside near existing or impending sites will be denied access to life-saving care, at a time when overdose deaths in Ontario are at an all-time high, with more than three people dying every day in 2017.2 Denying funding to new sites will undoubtedly mean more preventable overdose deaths and new HIV, hepatitis C and other infections. We agree that there are inadequate drug treatment, mental health services and supportive housing options available for people who use drugs, and providing greater support for these services is laudable. But this should not come at the expense of life-saving supervised consumption services, including low-threshold services that are varied, responsive and meet the needs of their communities. We urge you to reconsider the decision to create new hurdles for service providers to receive funding to provide supervised consumption services and to limit the number of sites to 21. We call on you to work with people who use drugs, community organizations and other health service providers to ensure greater, equitable access to SCS and OPS for the people of Ontario. Lives are at stake. Sincerely, Richard Elliott, Executive Director, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network Ryan Peck, Executive Director, HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario Dr. F. Gigi Osler, President, Canadian Medical Association Michael Villeneuve, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nurses Association Ian Culbert, Executive Director, Canadian Public Health Association Sarah Ovens, Coordinator, Toronto Overdose Prevention Society Cc. The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario 1 Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care News Release: Ontario Government Connecting People with Addictions to Treatment and Rehabilitation, October 22, 2018, online: https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2018/10/ontario-government-connecting-people-with-addictions-to-treatment-and-rehabilitation.html. 2 Public Health Ontario, “Opioid-related morbidity and mortality in Ontario” (May 23, 2018), online: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/dataandanalytics/pages/opioid.aspx#/trends.
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
  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

526 records – page 2 of 53.