As Canada's population ages, concern is growing about the capacity of our health care system to respond to the increased demands that will be placed on it. Of particular concern is the capacity to deal with an expected surge in the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, a major cause of disability in Canadians aged 65 and older.
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) shares this concern. In August 2012, CMA's General Council passed a resolution supporting the development of a national dementia strategy.
About three quarters of a million Canadians currently live with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia and cognitive impairment. People with dementia may live for years with the condition, and will eventually need round-the-clock care. Our knowledge of how to prevent dementia is limited, and we do not fully understand its causes. Though treatments are available that may delay progression of the patient's condition, there is no known cure. Dementia currently costs Canada roughly $33 billion per year, both in direct health care expenses and in indirect costs, such as lost earnings of the patient's caregivers.
Since the number one risk factor for dementia is age, there is no question that with the aging of Canada's population, its prevalence will increase. The Alzheimer Society of Canada predicts that by 2031, 1.4 million Canadians will have dementia, and by 2040 the annual cost to the country will reach $293 billion.
Other countries, including Australia, Norway, Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom, have developed national strategies to address the dementia epidemic. CMA recommends strongly that Canada join this list. A national strategy could address issues of pressing concern such as
* The need for research on the prevention and treatment of dementia;
* The occupation of acute-care hospital beds by patients with dementia while awaiting placement in more appropriate long-term care settings. This both increases health-care costs and exacerbates Canada's waiting-list problem, blocking hospital beds which could otherwise be used for other patients.
* The emotional and financial burden faced by spouses, children or other informal caregivers of patients with dementia.
A Dementia Strategy for Canadians
Given the terrible toll that dementia currently takes on Canadians and their health care, and given the certainty that this toll will grow more severe in coming decades, the CMA believes that it is vital for Canada to develop a focused strategy to address it.
The Alzheimer Society of Canada recommends that a national dementia strategy encompass the following elements:
1. Increased investment in research on key aspects of dementia, including prevention, treatment options, and improving quality of life.
2. Increased support for informal caregivers. This should take several forms.
a. Financial support. The 2011 federal budget introduced a Family Caregiver Tax Credit of up to $300 a year. However, this does not adequately reimburse the cost of a caregiver's time, which studies have shown is often much higher.
b. Programs to relieve the stress experienced by caregivers; this can include education and skill-building, and the provision of respite care and other support services.
3. An emphasis on brain health and risk reduction, early diagnosis and intervention.
4. An integrated system of care facilitated by effective co-ordination and case management.
5. A strengthened dementia workforce, which includes both developing an adequate supply of specialists and improving the diagnosis and treatment capabilities of all frontline health professionals.
The Government of Canada has supported similar condition-specific strategies, most recently the Canadian Cancer Strategy, initially funded in 2006 and renewed for five years beyond 2012. This strategy focuses on prevention and screening, early detection, clinical care, supporting the patient's journey, targeted research, and work with the First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities. We believe that a national strategy for dementia, bringing together partners such as the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Institute of Aging), the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, and other patient and health professional groups, will enhance the ability of our health care system to respond to the coming dementia epidemic in a compassionate and cost-effective manner.
In 2012, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Institute of Aging) and the Alzheimer Society of Canada have invested about $30 million in research. We propose that an initial investment in a National Dementia Strategy be $25 million per year for five years: $10 million for research, $10 million for caregiver support and respite care, and $5 million for knowledge transfer, partnership development and administrative support.
Therefore the Canadian Medical Association recommends:
That the Government of Canada fund the development and implementation of a National Dementia Strategy for an initial five-year period.
The CMA is ready to work with governments, patients and their families, health professional associations and other stakeholders to make this recommendation a reality.
Alzheimer Society of Canada. A New Way of Looking at Dementia in Canada. Based on a study conducted by RiskAnalytica. C. 2010
Canadian Medical Association. A More Robust Economy Through a Healthier Population. 2012-2013 pre-budget submission.
The Canadian Medical Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to Health Canada's Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on December 15, 2012.
CMA provided comments on the proposed changes when Health Canada first announced them in June 2011. Our position on these changes, and indeed on the entire Medical Marihuana Access Program (MMAP), has been consistent since the program was initiated. We remain deeply concerned that, though the program has made a physician's authorization the key to a patient's access to medical marijuana, physicians and other health professionals have little to no evidence-based information about its use as medical therapy. As our President, Dr. Anna Reid, noted in December, the regulatory proposals are "equivalent to asking doctors to prescribe while blindfolded."
Health Canada gives two reasons for its regulatory proposal: first, to address concerns about the safety of home grow-ops; and secondly, to reduce the cost of administering a program that has proven more popular than anticipated. Neither of these reasons is related to improving patient care or advancing our clinical knowledge of marijuana as a medical treatment.
CMA understands that many Canadians suffer constant pain from chronic or terminal illnesses and are searching for anything that will provide relief. We know that some patients find that use of marijuana relieves their symptoms and that some health professionals also believe it has therapeutic value. However, we are concerned that these claims remain inadequately supported by scientific research. Controlled studies of medical marijuana have been published recently and some have shown benefits. However, these studies are few in number, of short duration and with small samples, and knowledgeable clinicians say that more research is required. In addition, some say that marijuana has become more potent since it became a popular recreational drug in the 1960s, though others disagree,1 and growers say they can develop strains tailored to the needs of individual medical users.2 Though these claims are part of the popular understanding of medical marijuana, there is no scientifically valid evidence that supports them.
What Physicians Have Told Us
In May 2012, CMA surveyed members of its "e-panel" of physicians to obtain more information about their attitudes and needs regarding medical marijuana. The survey received just over 600 responses out of more than 2,200, for a 27 per cent response rate. Among the findings:
* About 70 per cent of respondents had been asked by patients to approve medical marijuana, though only four per cent said they were asked to do so "often." Of those who were asked, one-third reported that they "never" supported such requests, while 18 per cent "usually" did so.
* 64 per cent of respondents were concerned that patients who request medical marijuana may actually be using it for recreational purposes;
* A large majority of respondents said they would find more information on the appropriate use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and on its therapeutic benefits and risks, useful or very useful.
* About two-thirds agreed or strongly agreed that they would feel more comfortable if:
o Physicians wishing to use medical marijuana in their practices were required to undergo special training and licensing; and,
o Health Canada offered them protection from liability.
* In open-ended questions, some respondents expressed favourable views on marijuana's medical benefits. However, a larger number expressed concern over its harmful effects, such as: psychotic symptoms, especially in younger people; potential for addiction and dependency; and the risks to lung health from smoking it or any other substance.
Marijuana is Not Like Other Therapeutic Products
Theoretically, marijuana, when used for medicinal purposes, is regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. However, because of its unique legal position, Health Canada has exempted it from the applications of the Act and its regulations, and it has not undergone the scrutiny of benefits and risks required of other therapeutic products approved for use in Canada, be they prescription-only or over-the-counter.
According to the Food and Drugs Act (FDA), all drugs requiring a health professional's authorization must be approved for use by Health Canada, based on evidence of effectiveness obtained from controlled clinical trials, which remain the best currently available means of validating knowledge. In addition, Health Canada has a system of post-market surveillance to keep track of problems that arise with prescription drugs in real-world use. Though the CMA has been critical of some aspects of this system,3 we acknowledge that it has added to our body of knowledge on drug safety risks. If marijuana were not an illegal product, it might have been assessed through some form of pre-approval and post-approval surveillance. By exempting marijuana from the FDA's pre-approval and post-approval requirements, Health Canada has lost an opportunity to improve our knowledge of the drug's therapeutic uses.
The Views of Canadians
A recent online survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid on behalf of the CMA provides insight into the views of Canadians on Health Canada's regulatory proposal.4 The survey found:
* 92 per cent of Canadians think it is very or somewhat important that Health Canada not remove itself from its oversight role until guidelines are put in place for physicians;
* 90 per cent believe that research on the effectiveness, safety and risks of medical marijuana is needed before Health Canada removes itself from the authorization process;
* 85 per cent of Canadians believe medical marijuana should be subject to the same rigorous testing and approval standards as other medicines;
* 79 per cent agree that Health Canada has a responsibility to maintain its role in the authorization process.;
The Role of the Physician
The CMA cannot with certainty predict the consequences of these regulatory changes for the practising physician (and, if the regulations are approved, for the nurse practitioner as well). However, we have several causes for concern:
* The gatekeeper role of health professionals: The most significant change, from our point of view, is that Health Canada is removing itself from the approval process, making it a transaction between the patient, the practitioner and the licensed producer. In addition, Section 125 of the regulatory proposal would reduce the content of the authorization form, from its current two-page format to a brief document requiring little more information than is required for a standard medical prescription.
We are concerned that these changes will put an even greater onus on physicians than do the current regulations. The CMA agrees with the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities that the lack of evidence to support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes signifies that it is not a medical intervention. In our opinion, putting physicians in the role of gatekeeper for access to marijuana is inappropriate and may be an abdication of responsibility on Health Canada's part.5 Such a move could increase physicians' liability risk and put them at odds with their medical regulatory authorities, which have no choice but to continue to advise physicians to exercise extreme caution.
The CMA believes, as does the Canadian Medical Protective Association, that a drug's approval under the Food and Drugs Act does not impose a legal obligation on physicians or nurse practitioners to authorize its use if, in their judgment, it is clinically inappropriate. The Ontario Court of Appeal reached a similar decision recently in the case of R. v. Mernagh.
* Protection of Physician Privacy. Under the proposed regulations, health information and physician data - such as the patient's name and date of birth, or the provider's licence number - will be collected by licensed producers who may not be subject to the same regulatory and privacy constraints as the health care sector. The draft regulations also indicate that the licensed producer is expected to confirm that the data on the "medical document" is correct and complete - in other words, health providers who authorize medical marijuana use will receive correspondence from the producer. We are very concerned about the risks this would pose to the privacy of patient and health care provider information. We believe Health Canada should conduct a privacy impact assessment of its proposed regulations or, if it has done so, to share the results.
* Physicians as Dispensers. Section 124 of the proposed regulations would allow authorized health care practitioners to "sell, provide or administer dried marijuana." This is contrary to Article 46 of the CMA Guidelines for Physicians in Interactions with Industry, which states that "Physicians should not dispense pharmaceuticals or other products unless they can demonstrate that these cannot be provided by an appropriate other party."6
* Other possible consequences. We are also concerned about other potential consequences of the regulatory changes. Will more people go to health professionals requesting an authorization, on the assumption that the new regulations will make it easier to get? Will entrepreneurs seize the opportunity to establish "dispensaries" whose intended clientele are not those in legitimate medical need, as recent news stories have suggested?7 Will medical marijuana advocates put increased pressure on physicians to authorize its use?
Meeting the Information Needs of Physicians
In one respect, Health Canada has listened to physicians' concerns regarding the lack of evidence about medical marijuana, and acknowledged the need to remedy this problem. Though it is not addressed in the draft regulations, Health Canada has established an Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) to help provide comprehensive information to health professionals. The CMA has attended meetings of this committee in an observer capacity, suggested the names of practising physicians to serve as members, and made a presentation to the committee at its meeting in November 2012.
If the EAC follows the CMA's suggestions, it will consider actively supporting the following activities:
* Funding of scientific research on the clinical risks and benefits of marijuana;
* Knowledge translation activities to convert this research into accessible, user-friendly tools for education and practice;
* Development of best practice guidelines in the therapeutic use of marijuana. Though this guideline would of necessity be based on "C" level evidence, it would be an improvement on what now exists; and
* Support for a compulsory training and licensing program for physicians wanting to authorize marijuana for medicinal purposes.
The CMA believes that the EAC should be given the mandate and resources to undertake these activities.
Health Canada's stated mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. The CMA believes that if Health Canada wants its Medical Marihuana Access Program to serve this mission, it should not withdraw from administering the program, leaving it to health professionals working within a large knowledge gap. Rather, it should support solid research into the use of marijuana as medication and make a commitment to share this knowledge with the health professional community and to support best clinical practices.
1 Bonsor K: "How marijuana works". Accessed at http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm
3 CMA Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health: Post-Market Surveillance of Prescription Drugs (February 28, 2008). Accessed at http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Submissions/2008/brief-drug-en-08.pdf
4 Online survey of 1,000 Canadians the week of Feb. 24, 2013 conducted by Ipsos-Reid. Summary report of the poll can be accessed at www.cma.ca/advocacy/cma-media-centre.
5 Letter to Health Canada from Yves Robert, MD, President of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, November 4, 2011.
6 CMA. 2004. Guidelines for Physicians in Interactions with Industry. Guideline can be accessed online: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD08-01.pdf
7 Lee J. "Ross Rebagliati to Open medical marijuana franchise." Vancouver Sun. January 23, 2013. Accessed at http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Ross+Rebagliati+open+medical+marijuana+franchise/7860946/story.html
In its Economic Action Plan 2011(Budget 2011), the Government of Canada committed to consult stakeholders on the next long-term plan for public infrastructure which would extend beyond the expiry of the current framework, the Building Canada Plan, on March 31, 2014.
The CMA’s 2012-13 pre-budget brief recommends that the federal government ensure health infrastructure is eligible for funding as part of the next long-term plan for public infrastructure. The purpose of which is to address a particular health infrastructure deficit that is preventing the optimization of health care resources and exacerbating wait times and ensure that Canadian communities are able to meet the current and emerging care needs of their older seniors. The CMA has prepared this brief to provide further details on the scope of the proposed infrastructure funding for the health sector, its rationale and economic benefit, and how it could be applied.
2. Overview of proposal
The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure health sector infrastructure for long-term care facilities is eligible for funding under the next long-term infrastructure program. This funding should be applicable both for new capital projects and for renovating/retrofitting existing facilities.
This recommendation, and the recognition of the need for additional capacity in the long-term care sector, is part of a pan-Canadian approach to redirect alternate level of care patients from hospitals to homes, communities and long-term care facilities, where they can receive more appropriate care at a lower cost. It costs $842 per day for a hospital bed versus $126 per day for a long-term care bed. If ALC patients were moved to more appropriate care settings, in this case, from hospital to long-term care, this would save the health care system about $1.4 billion a year.
For the purposes of this recommendation, long-term care facilities include long-term care residential homes, assisted living units and other types of innovative residential models that ensure residents are in the setting most appropriate to their needs. The long-term care sector is facing significant change due to increasing numbers of older seniors and their increasingly complex care needs. These pressures not only relate to the construction of new facilities but apply to the need to maintain existing facilities, including retrofitting to meet higher regulatory requirements, as well as struggling to meet higher care needs of their increasingly elderly population.
The CMA’s recommendation to ensure that long-term care infrastructure qualify under the next long-term infrastructure plan is one component of the association’s Health Care Transformation initiative and would support a pan-Canadian approach for continuing care, which would integrate home care and facility-based long-term, respite and palliative care services fully within the health care system.
The rationale behind the recommendation for health infrastructure to qualify for the next long-term infrastructure plan is based primarily on the care needs of Canada’s growing seniors’ population and its impact on Canada’s health care system. Communities across Canada face a common problem of a lack of resources to properly meet the housing and care needs of their seniors population. Demographic trends indicate this problem will only intensify. However, as demonstrated below, investing in seniors can generate substantial direct and indirect economic benefits.
Meeting the needs of Canada’s growing seniors population and their changing care needs
While all advanced countries are expected to age over the coming decades, the Canadian population is projected to age more rapidly than that of most other OECD countries, according to a recent report from Finance Canada. Statistics Canada reports the number of seniors (65+) in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million in 2005 to 9.8 million in 2036, with their share of the total population increasing from 13.2 per cent to 24.5 per cent. The number and proportion of older seniors – those 75 and older – are expected to increase significantly as well. Ontario’s population of people aged 75 and up is expected to grow by almost 30 per cent between 2012 and 2021. According to Statistics Canada’s medium-growth population projection scenario, the population aged 80 years or over will increase 2.6 times by 2036 – to 3.3 million persons.
While the rate of residency in long-term care facilities among seniors has been declining, as the aging of Canada’s population accelerates, the demand for residential care will nonetheless increase significantly over the near term due to higher numbers of elderly seniors.
Not only is the size of the elderly population increasing, but their health needs are changing too, particularly among those requiring residential care. Long-term care residents are older today than in previous years and have more complex health needs than ever before. A Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) comparison of home care clients and seniors who are living in residential care found that “seniors in residential care were more likely to require extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bathing and toileting (74 per cent versus 18 per cent). They were also more likely to have moderate to severe cognitive impairment (60 per cent versus 14 per cent). The number of residents with dementia is expected to increase. In 2011, 747,000 Canadians were living with cognitive impairment, including dementia – that’s 14.9 per cent of Canadians 65 and older. By 2031, this figure will increase to 1.4 million. At the request of the House of Commons Finance Committee, the CMA submitted a national dementia strategy. This proposal to fund long-term care facilities supports such a strategy.
Many existing residential facilities are poorly equipped to meet the care needs of their residents, which are more complex now than when these facilities were originally built. For example, many facilities do not meet current building safety standards and the limited provincial and municipal funding available is usually insufficient to bring them up to code. Also, there is a lack of units with shared space to better support residents with dementia, as well as a shortage of appropriate units to care for residents who are disabled or obese. Renovations are also required to make better use of long-term care beds for other purposes such as providing short-stay respite care or transitional care. According to the Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres, the lack of physical facilities necessary for care was the reason most often given by homes for declining to admit a long-term care wait-list client.
Opportunity to improve health care efficiency and reallocate existing program spending
We recognize that addressing the current gap in long-term care residency options is only one strategy to improve the effectiveness of Canada’s health care system. However, we believe it is a critical component of an integrated continuum of care strategy that provides for increased home and community supports. Improving options for seniors will have a positive cascading effect on many other elements of the system. Not only will seniors reside in more appropriate and safer settings but acute care resources will be better used. Consider that about 45 per cent of provincial and territorial governments’ health care spending in 2009 went toward those 65 years and older, while this group constituted only 14 per cent of the population.
A major issue facing Canada’s health care system is the high number of alternate level of care patients (ALC) who occupy acute care beds. ALC patients are those who have completed the acute care phase of their treatment but remain in an acute care bed or who are admitted into a hospital bed due to the lack of a more appropriate care setting. In most cases, these people would be better served living in their own home with the appropriate level of supports or in a long-term care residence.
The high number of ALC patients in hospitals is a problem experienced across the country. The total number of hospital bed days for ALC patients in 2007-2008 (latest figures) was 1.7 million.
Furthermore, the lack of options for ALC patients also contributes to a high percentage of these patients being readmitted to hospital within 30 days of discharge (see Appendix A). According to CIHI figures, 85 per cent of ALC patients were older than age 65, with almost half waiting for placement in long-term care. A high percentage of ALC patients suffer from dementia.
It costs $842 per day for a hospital bed versus $126 per day for a long-term care bed. If ALC patients were moved to more appropriate care settings, in this case, from hospital to long-term care, this would save the health care system about $1.4 billion a year. The presence of ALC patients in hospitals also lead to longer surgical wait times and longer delays in the emergency department as acute care beds remain unavailable. In fact, the Wait Time Alliance – an alliance of 14 national medical organizations and specialties – has said “the most important action to improve timely access to specialty care for Canadians is by addressing the ALC issue.”
Available wait-time data (See Appendix B) for long-term care show that wait times to access a long-term care bed can often be measured in, not months or days, but years. Data from Ontario for 2004 to 2008 found that less than 50 per cent of seniors with high or very high needs were placed in a long-term care facility within a year of being put on a wait list. The average wait time for placement in Quebec is 13 months (ranging between five months and four years). The most recent report by Ontario’s Auditor General found that 15 per cent of patients on the provincial wait list for long-term care passed away while waiting for placement.
The wait to access residential care can vary immensely depending on where one resides. Often the wait is longer for residents in small, rural and northern communities. Sometimes the only route to securing a placement is for the resident to move to a facility in another community.
According to Statistics Canada, there are 261,945 long-term care beds in operation in Canada (latest figures, 2009/10.) How many residential beds will be required in the future to meet the growing number of elderly seniors?
The Conference Board of Canada has produced a bed forecast tied to the growth of the population aged 75 and over and based on a decreased bed ratio demand of 0.59 per cent per year to reflect the greater shift to community-based services and supportive housing options being advanced at the provincial level. This bed ratio demand is described by the Canadian Healthcare Association as representing a modest shift from the current reliance on long-term care to community services. Based on these assumptions, it has been estimated that Canada will require an average of 10,535 new beds per year over the next 35 years, for a total of 637,721 beds by 2047. Demand would vary over the 35-year period, peaking between 2022 and 2040 (See Appendix C). The five-year projection for beds is as follows:
Table 1: Projected shortage in long-term care beds, 2014 to 2019
[SEE PDF FOR CORRECT DISPLAY OF TABLE]
Year Number of additional beds required
Projected 5-year shortage 29,693
As shown, there is a projected shortage of 29,693 beds over the next five years. For the purposes of longer-term planning, the gap in beds required for the following five-year period (2019-2023) is as follows:
Table 2: Projected shortage in long-term care beds, 2019 to 2023
[SEE PDF FOR CORRECT DISPLAY OF TABLE]
Year Number of additional beds required
As previously outlined, the rising gap in bed numbers is affected by the increased numbers in people aged 75 and older anticipated over the next 35 years.
The estimated cost to construct 10,535 beds (the average number of beds required to be built per year from 2013 to 2047) is $2.8 billion, based on a cost estimate of $269,000 per bed. This figure could include both public and private spending.
The purpose of this bed projection is to provide a sense of the immense challenge Canada faces in addressing the needs of a vulnerable segment of its older seniors population. It is important to note that this forecast does not include the significant investments required to renovate and retrofit the existing stock of residential facilities, not only to meet the current standards but to effectively respond to the complex care needs of residents requiring long-term care today and in the future. Similarly, the potential facility capacity expansions through retrofit or renovation are not included. Moreover, innovative capital investment in residential facilities can provide opportunities for their greater use by other members of the community. They can, for example, provide short-stay respite to support families and convalescent care programs such as those found in the United Kingdom. We also recognize that supportive housing and healthy aging programming are important components of an integrated solution to the ALC issue and to ensuring seniors reside in the most appropriate place.
4. How the funding would work
Health infrastructure could qualify under a communities component of the next long-term infrastructure plan where this federal funding can be leveraged with provincial and and / or municipal investment (e.g. 1/3 federal component matched by + 2/3 provincial and / or municipal). This funding allocation could also include the use of public-private partnership models.
Investing in Canada’s Continuing Care Sector Provides a Wide Range of Economic Benefits
Construction of new residential care models and renovating/retrofitting existing facilities will provide significant economic opportunities for many communities across Canada (See Appendix E for detailed figures).
Based on Conference Board of Canada estimates, the construction and maintenance of 10,535 long-term care beds (the average number of new beds needed per year from 2013 to 2047) will yield direct economic benefits on an annual basis that include $1.23 billion contribution to GDP and 14,141 high value jobs during the capital investment phase and $637 million contribution to GDP and 11,604 high value jobs during the facility operation phase (based on an average annual capital investment); and close the significant gap between the projected long-term care bed shortages and current planned investment.
When indirect economic contributions are included, the total estimated annual contribution to Canada’s GDP reaches almost $3 billion, yielding 37,528 new jobs (construction, care providers and other sectors). Details on these economic benefits are provided in Appendix F, but a summary is presented below:
Table 3: Average annual total economic contribution of new residential care facilities
[SEE PDF FOR CORRECT DISPLAY OF TABLE]
(10, 535 new beds per year at market prices)
GDP (in 2013 $millions)
Number of jobs created
Average direct contribution to GDP of investing in new facilities (construction)
Average direct contribution to GDP of operating the new facilities
Average indirect contribution to GDP of investing in new facilities (construction)
Average indirect contribution to GDP of operating the new facilities
TOTAL (both direct and indirect)
For every 100 jobs created in the construction of long-term care facilities, an additional 72 jobs would be created in other sectors, while for every 100 jobs created in the long-term care sector, 14 jobs would be created in other sectors.
The numbers provided above reflect the annual average contribution. On a time specific level, covering the five-year period between 2014 and 2018, an estimated 167,840 jobs would be created, based on the construction of 29,693 new beds.
Another important economic benefit is the return in government revenues. The increase in construction and operating spending per average year will provide over $425 million in federal government revenues and over $370 million in provincial revenues (See Appendix G).
As previously identified, an improved stock of long-term care beds will provide many other economic spinoffs, including savings in health care costs that can be reallocated to better meet Canadians’ health care needs and to provide greater support for families in their role as caregivers. Without adequate provision of long-term care resources, Canada’s labour force may experience a productivity drag through increased leaves and absenteeism to care for elderly relatives.
The aging of our population touches all Canadians – from seniors who need the services to families who serve as caregivers and/or contribute financially to the care of aging relatives. Recent data show that 32 per cent of caregivers who provide more than 21 hours of care per week report distress in their role – four times the proportion of distressed caregivers who provide less than 10 hours of informal care per week.
The federal government has a long history of allocating capital investment in the health sector. Previous examples include the Hospitals and Construction Grants Program in 1948, the Health Resources Fund established in 1966 and, more recently, the funding of capital projects at research hospitals under the Canada Foundation for Innovation Leading Edge and New Initiatives Funds in 2012.
All communities across Canada are strongly affected by the social and health care needs of their growing senior and long-term care populations (see Appendix H for a sample of recent news stories.) Federal capital investment will help narrow the significant gap between the projected long-term care bed shortages and current planned investment in the area of residential care facilities. Further, it would have a cascading effect leading to a more effective and efficient Canadian health care system.
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the federal government allocate $2.3 billion over a five-year period in the next long-term infrastructure plan for the construction, renovation and retrofitting of long-term care facilities. Long-term care facilities include long-term care residential homes, assisted living units and other types of innovative residential models that ensure residents are in the most care setting most appropriate to their needs. This funding could be delivered as part of the communities component of the next long-term infrastructure plan.
1 Department of Finance Canada. Economic and fiscal implications of Canada's aging population. Ottawa, 2012.
2 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. 2012 annual report. 2012. http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en12/2012ar_en.pdf. Accessed 01/30/13.
3 Statistics Canada. Population projections for Canada, provinces and territories 2009 to 2036. June 2010. 91-520-X
4 Alzheimer's Society Ontario. Facts about dementia. http://www.alzheimer.ca/en/on/About-dementia/Dementias/What-is-dementia/Facts-about-dementia. Accessed 01/30/13.
5 Canadian Medical Association. Toward a Dementia Strategy for Canada. Ottawa, 2013. http://www.cma.ca/submissions-to-government Accessed 01/30/13.
6 Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors. Proposals for the Ontario Budget. Fiscal Year 2012-13. March 2012.
7 David Walker. Caring for our aging population and addressing alternate level of care. Report Submitted to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. June 30, 2011. Toronto.
8 Long Term Care Innovation Expert Panel. Why not now? A bold, five-year strategy for innovating Ontario's system of care for older adults. March 2012. http://www.oltca.com/axiom/DailyNews/2012/June/LTCIEPFullREport_web_jun6.pdf. Accessed 01/30/13.
9 For an example of an integrated continuum of post-acute care model see CARP, One Patient: CARP's Care Continuum. http://www.carp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/One-Patient-Brief-Updated-Oct-18.pdf. Accessed 01/30/13.
10 Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Improving the accessibility, quality and sustainability of long-term care in Canada. CLHIA Report on Long-Term Care Policy. June 2012.
11 Wait Time Alliance. Time out! Report card on wait times in Canada. 2011. http://www.waittimealliance.ca/media/2011reportcard/WTA2011-reportcard_e.pdf. Accessed 01/30/13.
12 Correspondence with officials from Bruyère Continuing Care in Ottawa. January 2013.
13 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health care in Canada, 2011 2011. .
14 Rapport du Vérificateur général du Québec à l'Assemblée nationale pour l'année 2012-2013.
15 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. 2012 annual report. 2012.
16 The .59 per cent decrease in bed ratio is presented as Scenario 2 in Lazurko, M. and Hearn, B. Canadian Continuing Care Scenarios 1999-2041, KPMG Final Project Report to FPT Advisory Committee on Health Services, Ottawa. 2000. Presented in Canadian Healthcare Association, New Directions for Facility-Based Long-Term Care. 2009. http://www.cha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CHA_LTC_9-22-09_eng.pdf. Accessed 01/30/13.
17 Canadian Institute for Health Information, Health Care in Canada, 2011.
In 2010, physician delegates to the CMA's annual General Council voted in favour of a ban on mixed martial arts prize fighting matches in Canada. The CMA's complete policy on head injury and sport, the central concern of physicians with respect to mixed martial arts, is attached as an appendix to this brief. A key recommendation in this policy is that physicians discourage participation in sports in which intentional trauma to the head and body is the objective of the sport, as is the case with mixed martial arts (MMA).
MMA prize fighting, like commercial boxing, is distinct from healthy sport because the basic tenet is to win by deliberately incapacitating one's opponent through violent bodily assault. Professional fighters train in different martial arts disciplines in order to develop the widest possible set of fighting techniques. Blows delivered by hands, feet, elbows and knees are entirely permissible.1 "Bouts" are won in a number of ways that include deliberate head injury such as knockout (KO) and technical knockout (TKO). Physician and referee stoppage are recognized as a necessary option for the declaration of a winner in order to prevent continued violence.4; 5
Despite the introduction of rules and regulations meant to ensure fighter safety, MMA is a violent sport with a high risk of injury. Publications seem to indicate that the overall injury rate in professional MMA competitions ranges approximately from 23 to 28 injuries per 100 fight participations, which is similar to that found in other combat sports involving striking, including boxing.1; 5; 7 Organizers support the rules because they realize that prize fighting can't be sustained as a business if the fighters are unable to return to the ring.
The injuries vary in severity but include many types of head injury: ocular injuries, such as rupture of the bony orbit or of the eye itself; facial injuries including fractures; spine injuries; concussion; and tympanic membrane ruptures.2, 6, 7
Most sanctioned matches end in a submission, judge's decision or referee/physician stoppage, as opposed to KO or TKO. It is important to note that the overall risk of critical injury, defined as a persistent acquired brain injury, permanent blindness, permanent functional loss of limb or paralysis, appears to be low. The ability of referees to intercede and for fighters to voluntarily concede victory to their opponents, as well as the presence of physicians at the ringside, are all thought to play a role in minimizing the risk of critical injury.7
The risk of traumatic brain injury and concussion nevertheless remains one of the chief concerns with respect to MMA. KO rates are thought to be lower in professional MMA events than in similar boxing competitions, but it is not clear why. It is well known that knockouts are the result of brain injury4 and at least one study reported that blunt trauma to the head was a common reason for match stoppage. One study reported a severe concussion rate of 16.5 per 100 fighter participations (3.3% of all matches). 6 Regrettably, as in other combat sports, long-term follow-up of players is insufficient to measure how often head injury leads to permanent brain damage.1, 3
Whether you defend or condemn MMA, the true nature and rate of severe brain injuries is speculative.6 Similarly, the absence of longitudinal studies means that the true long-term health implications of MMA fighting can only be surmised.
Risk factors for injury
Unsurprisingly, losing fighters are at a considerably greater risk for sustaining injury. It is notable that fighters losing by KO or TKO appear to have a higher overall incidence of injury.4 An increased duration of fighting is associated with an increased incidence of injury.3, 5 However, it remains unclear how age and fight experience contribute to the risk for sustaining injury.2, 3, 4 It appears that fighters with head injury continue to fight and sustain further injury, head injury being more clearly associated with injury than are either inexperience or age.
Despite the sport's growing popularity, professional MMA competitions are currently illegal in Canada. Indeed, section 83(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that only boxing matches, where only fists are used, are legal. However, the governments of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Northwest Territories have regulated/licensed MMA through athletic governing commissions, effectively circumventing the Criminal Code. The legality of the sport in New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia currently varies by municipality.
The CMA recommends that Section 83(2) of the Criminal Code, the ban on mixed martial arts, be maintained in its current form.
The CMA recommends that the federal government undertake further research on head injuries and concussion in Canada, including expanding current surveillance tools for the incidence of these injuries.
1. Bledsoe, G. H. (2009). Mixed martial arts. In R. Kordi, N. Maffulli, R. R. Wroble, & W. A. Angus (Eds.), Combat Sports Medicine (1st ed., pp. 323-330). London: Springer.
2. Buse, G. J. (2006). No holds barred sport fighting: A 10 year review of mixed martial arts competition. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(2),169-172.
3. Bledsoe, G. H., Hsu, E. B., Grabowski, J. G., Brill, J. D., & Li, G. (2006). Incidence of injury in professional mixed martial arts competitions. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5(Combat Sports Special Issue), 136-142.
4. Walrod, B. (2011). Current review of injuries sustained in mixed martial arts competition. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 10(5), 288-289.
5. Unified Fighting Championship. (n.d.). Unified rules and other important regulations of mixed martial arts. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations
6. Ngai, K. M., Levy, F., & Hsu, E. B. (2008). Injury trends in sanctioned mixed martial arts competition: A 5-year review from 2002 to 2007. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 42(8), 686-689.
7. Scoggin III, J. F., Brusovanik, G., Pi, M., Izuka, B., Pang, P., Tokomura, S. et al. (2010). Assessment of injuries sustained in mixed martial arts competition. American Journal of Orthopedics, 39(5), 247-251.
The Canadian Medical Association is pleased to present its views to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding income inequality in Canada.
The Canadian Medical Association represents 78,000 physicians in Canada; its mission is to serve and unite the physicians of Canada and to be the national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest standards of health and health care.
Income inequality is a growing problem in Canada. According to a Conference Board of Canada report, high income Canadians have seen their share of income increase since 1990 while the poorest and even the middle-income groups have lost income share. In 2010 the top quintile of earners accounted for 39.1% of Canadian income while the bottom quintile only accounted for 7.3%. These numbers led to a ranking for Canada of 12 out of 17 among other high income countries in terms of income inequality.1 Research by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has largely confirmed these results.2
Part 2: Why Income Inequality Matters to Canadian Physicians
The issue of income inequality is an important one for Canada's physicians. As physicians, we are not the experts in housing, in early childhood development, income equality and so on. But we are the experts in recognizing the impact of these factors on the health of our patients.
Hundreds of research papers have confirmed that people in the lowest socio-economic groups carry the greatest burden of illness.3 In 2001, people in the neighbourhoods with the highest 20% income lived about three years longer than those in the poorest 20% neighbourhoods.4 Mental health is affected as well. Suicide rates in the lowest income neighbourhoods are almost twice as high as in the wealthiest neighbourhoods.5
Studies suggest that adverse socio-economic conditions in childhood can be a greater predictor of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in adults than later life circumstances and behavioural choices.6
Finally, the countries reporting the highest population health status are those with the greatest income equality, not the greatest wealth.7
These differences in health outcomes have an impact on the health care system. Most major diseases including heart disease and mental illness follow a social gradient with those in lowest socio-economic groups having the greatest burden of illness.8 Those within the lowest socio-economic status groups are 1.4 times more likely to have a chronic disease, and 1.9 times more likely to be hospitalized for care of that disease.9
Income plays a role in access to appropriate health care as well. Individuals living in lower income neighbourhoods, younger adults and men are less likely to have primary care physicians than their counterparts.10 Women and men from low-income neighbourhoods are more likely to report difficulties making appointments with their family doctors for urgent non-emergent health problems. They were also more likely to report unmet health care needs.11
People with lower socio-economic status are more likely to be hospitalized for ambulatory care sensitive conditions and mental health12, admissions which could potentially be avoided with appropriate primary care.13
Those with higher socio-economic status are more likely to have access to and utilize specialist services.14 Utilization of diagnostic imaging services is greater among those in higher socio-economic groups.15 Access to preventive and screening programs such as pap smears and mammography are lower among disadvantaged groups.16
It is not just access to insured services that is a problem. Researchers have reported that those in the lowest income groups are three times less likely to fill prescriptions, and 60% less able to get needed tests because of cost.17 Services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy to name two are often not covered unless they are provided in-hospital or to people on certain disability support programs.18 Access to psychologists is largely limited to people who can pay for them, through private insurance or out of their own pockets.19 Similar access challenges exist for long-term care, home care and end-of-life care.
There is a financial cost to this disparity. According to a 2011 report, low-income residents in Saskatoon alone consume an additional $179 million in health care costs than middle income earners.20 A 2010 study by CIHI found increased costs for avoidable hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions were $89 million for males and $71 million for females with an additional $248 million in extra costs related to excess hospitalizations for mental health reasons.21
The societal cost of poor health extends beyond the cost to the health care system: healthier people lose fewer days of work and contribute to overall economic productivity.22 According to data in the U.K., those living in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods experience almost 20 years less disability-free life than those in the highest income neighbourhoods. These individuals will become disabled before they are eligible for old age services, striking two blows to the economy: they will no longer be able to contribute through productive work, and their disability will consume a great deal of health care services.23
The reasons for this inequitable access are multifaceted and include patient specific barriers as well as challenges within the health care system itself. CMA recognizes the need for physicians to work to address the system related barriers. However, one of the biggest challenges for patients themselves remains economic. Having a low-income can prevent access through lack of transportation options, an inability to get time off work, and the inability to pay for services that are not covered by government insurance.
Health equity is increasingly recognized as a necessary means by which we will make gains in the health status of all Canadians and retain a sustainable publicly funded health care system. Addressing inequalities in health is a pillar of CMA's Health Care Transformation initiative.
Part 3: Ensuring adequate income for all Canadians
"The rates of family and child poverty are unacceptably high taking into account Canada's high quality of living standard."
2010 Report of the Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disability
One reason income is so critical to individual health is that it is so closely linked to many of the other social determinants of health. These include but are not limited to: education, employment, early childhood development, housing, social exclusion, and physical environment.
The CMA and its members are concerned that adequate consideration during the decision-making process is not being given to the social and economic determinants of health, factors such as income and housing that have a major impact on health outcomes.
Recent decisions such as changes to the qualifying age for Old Age Security, and new rules for Employment Insurance, among others, will have far reaching consequences on the income of individuals, especially those in vulnerable populations. We remind the government that every action that has a negative effect on health will lead to more costs to society down the road.
One method to ensure that these unintentional consequences do not occur is to consider the health impact of decisions as part of the policy development and decision-making process.
A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a systematic process for making evidence-based judgments on the health impacts of any given policy and to identify and recommend strategies to protect and promote health. The HIA is used in several countries, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and increasingly the United States.
The HIA can ensure that government departments consider the health impacts of their policies and programs by anticipating possible unintended consequences and taking appropriate corrective action. The use of HIA will allow the federal government to demonstrate leadership in health care in Canada and provide greater accountability to all Canadians.
The CMA recommends that:
1. The federal government recognize the importance of the social and economic determinants of health to the health of Canadians and the demands on the health care system; and
2. The federal government requires a health impact assessment as part of Cabinet decision-making.
We are hearing about the need to address the poverty and income security of Canadians from stakeholders across the country. We have conducted a series of town halls with Canadians asking them questions about how the social and economic conditions of their communities affect their health. From Winnipeg, to Hamilton to Charlottetown we have heard how poverty and a lack of income is undermining Canadians' health.
This public response is not surprising. According to the Conference Board of Canada, more than one in seven children in Canada live in poverty.24 This poverty will severely limit the ability of these children to achieve good health in the future.
There are systemic barriers that contribute to this poverty. The annual welfare income in Canada varies between $3,247 for a single person to $21,213 for a couple with two children. The 'best' of Canadian programs provides an income within only 80% of the poverty line. The lowest income is barely 30% of that needed to 'achieve' poverty.25
It is not just people on social assistance, however, that are facing poverty. Data from 2008 indicates that one in three (33%) of children living in poverty had a parent that was employed. Based a review conducted in 2010, one in 10 workers still earned less than $10 an hour in 2009, with 19% paid less than $12. The same study found that roughly 400,000 full-time adult workers, aged 25+, were making less than $10/hr. and therefore paid less than poverty line wages.26
Some physicians are working directly with patients to try and address the income inadequacy which is undermining their health. Physicians from Health Providers Against Poverty in Ontario have developed a tool for physicians to use in screening their patients for poverty and linking them with provincial/territorial and/or federal programs that might help mitigate the health effects of their poverty. This group is also involved in training health care providers to support this work. While this program and others like it are serving as a 'band aid' solution for some living in poverty, the CMA feels that physicians and their patients should not be placed in this position.
As part of its study on income inequality, the CMA encourages the Finance Committee to review two recent reports from Parliamentary committees on the same topic. The first and most recent is the report of the House of Commons Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disability, Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working in Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada.27 The second is the report of the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness.28
The Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disability, noted that the federal government's efforts to address poverty among Canadian seniors "is generally recognized as one of Canada's most notable achievements of the past 30 years."
The report of the Senate Committee made a number of significant observations, two bear repeating:
* "[W]hen all the programs are working, when the individual gets all possible income and social supports, the resulting income too often still maintains people in poverty, rather than lifting them into a life of full participation in the economic and social life of their communities."
* "[A]t their worst, the existing policies and programs entrap people in poverty, creating unintended perverse effects which make it virtually impossible for too many people to escape reliance on income security programs and even homeless shelters."
The public policy debate on addressing income inequality in Canada is not new. For instance, the 1971 report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty recommended that a guaranteed annual income financed and administered by the federal government be established. In consideration of this concept, from 1974 to 1979, the Governments of Canada and Manitoba funded the Manitoba Basic Guarantee Annual Income Experiment (referred to as "Mincome"). While this was initially designed to be a labour market study, the results were also relevant from a health perspective. A recent study of this data concluded that hospitalizations declined by 8.5 per cent for the Mincome subjects.29
The CMA recommends that:
3. The federal government gives top priority to the development of strategies to minimize poverty in Canada.
Part 4: Addressing access barriers in the health sector
Access to services not covered by provincial health plans remain a large barrier for Canadians. Those with low incomes are less likely to be able to access needed pharmaceuticals and services due to this barrier. One in 10 Canadians can not afford the medications that they are prescribed.30 This further exacerbates the income inequality that exists. While we urge the federal government to take action on reducing poverty among Canadians, at the minimum action needs to be taken to ensure universal access to needed medical care.
The CMA recommends that:
4. Governments, in consultation with the life and health insurance industry and the public, establish a program of comprehensive prescription drug coverage to be administered through reimbursement of provincial/territorial and private prescription drug plans to ensure that all Canadians have access to medically necessary drug therapies;
5. Governments examine methods to ensure that low-income Canadians have greater access to needed medical interventions such as rehabilitation services, mental health, home care, and end-of-life care; and
6. Governments explore options to provide funding for long-term care services for all Canadians. This could include public insurance schemes or registered savings plans allowing Canadians to save for their future long-term care needs.
Finally, there is a need to recognize the effect on income related to providing care to family members who are ill. Many Canadians take time off work to care for their children or parents. Without adequate long-term care resources and supports for home care, Canadians may be forced to take a leave from the workforce to provide this unpaid care. Research suggests that more than one third of parents (38.4%) who care for children with a disability are required to work fewer hours to care for their children.31 While the 2011 federal budget provided some relief in the form of a Family Caregiver Tax Credit of up to $300, it is not enough. A 2004 Canadian study placed the value of a caregiver's time at market rates from $5,221 to $13,374 depending on the community of residence.32 This is a significant amount of unpaid work and may further add to income inequalities. Expanding the tax credit available to these individuals would help but there is a need to provide further supports to family caregivers.
The CMA recommends that:
7. The federal government expands the relief programs for informal caregivers to provide guaranteed access to respite services for people dealing with emergency situations, as well as increase the Family Caregiver Tax Credit to better reflect the annual cost of family caregivers' time at market rates.
Part 5: Conclusion
Once again, we commend the Standing Committee on Finance for agreeing to study this important issue. Canada's physicians see the examples of income inequality in their practices on a daily basis. Tackling this important social issue will contribute to not only reducing the burden of disease in Canada but to providing Canadians with the necessary financial resources to achieve good health.
Summary of Recommendations
The federal government recognizes the importance of the social and economic determinants of health to the health of Canadians and the demands on the health care system
The federal government requires a health impact assessment as part of Cabinet decision-making.
The federal government gives top priority to the development of strategies to minimize poverty in Canada.
Governments, in consultation with the life and health insurance industry and the public, establish a program of comprehensive prescription drug coverage to be administered through reimbursement of provincial/territorial and private prescription drug plans to ensure that all Canadians have access to medically necessary drug therapies.
Governments examine methods to ensure that low-income Canadians have greater access to needed medical interventions such as rehabilitation services, mental health, home care, and end-of-life care; and
Governments explore options to provide funding for long-term care services for all Canadians. This could include public insurance schemes or registered savings plans allowing Canadians to save for their future long-term care needs.
The federal government expand the relief programs for informal caregivers to provide guaranteed access to respite services for people dealing with emergency situations, as well as increase the Family Caregiver Tax Credit to better reflect the annual cost of family caregivers' time at market rates.
1 Conference Board of Canada. How Canada Performs: Income Inequality. Ottawa (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx (accessed 2013 Apr 11).
2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising: An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings. Paris (FR); 2011. Available: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf (accessed 2013 Apr 11).
3 Dunn JR. The Health Determinants Partnership Making Connections Project: Are Widening Income Inequalities Making Canada Less Healthy? Toronto (ON); 2002. Available: http://www.opha.on.ca/our_voice/collaborations/makeconnxn/HDP-proj-full.pdf (accessed 2011 March 15)
4 Wilkins R, Berthelot JM and Ng E. Trends in Mortality by Neighbourhood Income in Urban Canada from 1971 to 1996. Statistics Canada, Ottawa (ON); 2002. Health Reports 13 [Supplement]: pp. 45-71
5 Marmot, M. Fair Society Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: Executive Summary. London (UK): 2010. Available: http://www.marmotreview.org/AssetLibrary/pdfs/Reports/FairSocietyHealthyLivesExecSummary.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 25); Mikkonen J, Raphael D. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Toronto (ON); 2010. Available: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 14)
6 Raphael D. Addressing The Social Determinants of Health In Canada: Bridging The Gap Between Research Findings and Public Policy. Policy Options. March 2003 pp.35-40.
7 Hofrichter R ed. Tackling Health Inequities Through Public Health Practice: A Handbook for Action. The National Association of County and City Health Officials & The Ingham County Health Department. Lansing (USA); 2006. Available: http://www.acphd.org/axbycz/admin/datareports/ood_naccho_handbook.pdf accessed (2012 Mar 16).
8 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership...
9 Canadian Population Health Initiative. Disparities in Primary Health Care Experiences Among Canadians with Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/PHC_Experiences_AiB2012_E.pdf(accessed 2012 Jan 25).
10 Bierman AS, Angus J, Ahmad F, et al. Ontario Women's Health Equity Report : Access to Health Care Services : Chapter 7. Toronto (ON) Project for and Ontario Women's Health Evidence-Based Report; 2010. Available: http://powerstudy.ca/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/Chapter7-AccesstoHealthCareServices.pdf (accessed 2012 Dec 10).
11 Bierman AS, Johns A, Hyndman B, et al. Ontario Women's Health Equity Report: Social Determinants of Health & Populations at Risk: Chapter 12. Toronto (ON) Project for and Ontario Women's Health Evidence-Based Report; 2010. Available: http://powerstudy.ca/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/Chapter12-SDOHandPopsatRisk.pdf (accessed 2012 Dec 10...; Williamson DL, Stewart MJ, Hayward K. Low-income Canadians' experiences with health-related services: Implications for health care reform. Health Policy 2006; 76:106-121.
12 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Hospitalization Disparities by Socio-Economic Status for Males and Females. Ottawa(ON); 2010. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/disparities_in_hospitalization_by_sex2010_e.pdf (accessed 2013 Feb 6)
13 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Hospitalization Disparities by Socio-Economic Status...;Roos LL, Walld R, Uhanova J, et al. Physician Visits, Hospitalizations, and Socioeconomic Status: Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions in a Canadian Setting. HSR 2005; 40(4): 1167-1185.
14 Allin S. Does Equity in Healthcare Use Vary across Canadian Provinces? Healthc Policy 2008; 3(4): 83-99.;Frolich N, Fransoo R, Roos N. Health Service Use in the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority: Variations Across Areas in Relation to Health and Socioeconomic status. Winnipeg (MB) Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. Available: http://mchp-appserv.cpe.umanitoba.ca/teaching/pdfs/hcm_forum_nf.pdf (accessed 2013 Feb 6); McGrail K. Income-related inequities: Cross-sectional analyses of the use of medicare services in British Columbia in 1992 and 2002. Open Medicine 2008; 2(4): E3-10; Van Doorslaer E, Masseria C. Income-Related Inequality in the Use of Medical Care in 21 OECD Countries. Paris(FR) OECD; 2004. Available: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/31743034.pdf (accessed 2013 Feb 6).;Veugelers PJ, Yip AM. Socioeconomic disparities in health care use: Does universal coverage reduce inequalities in health? J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57:424-428.
15 Bierman AS, Angus J, Ahmad F, et al. Ontario Women's Health Equity Report : Access to Health Care Services...Demeter S, Reed M, Lix L, et al. Socioeconomic status and the utilization of diagnostic imaging in an urban setting. CMAJ 2005; 173(10): 1173-1177.
16 Bierman AS, Johns A, Hyndman B, et al. Ontario Women's Health Equity Report: Social Determinants of Health & Populations at Risk: Chapter 12...); Frolich N, Fransoo R, Roos N. Health Service Use in the Winnipeg... Wang L, Nie JX, Ross EG. Determining use of preventive health care in Ontario. Can Fam Physician 2009; 55: 178-179.e1-5; Williamson DL, Stewart MJ, Hayward K. Low-income Canadians' experiences with health-related services...
17 Mikkonen J, Raphael D. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts....
18 Barnes S, Dolan LA, Gardner B, et al. Equitable Access to Rehabilitation : Realizing Potential, Promising Practices, and Policy Directions. Toronto (ON) Wellesley Institute; 2012. Available : http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Equitable-Access-to-Rehabilitation-Discussion-Paper1.pdf (accessed 2013 Feb 6).
19 Kirby M, Goldbloom D, Bradley L. Changing Directions, Changing Lives: The Mental Health Strategy for Canada.Ottawa (ON): Mental Health Commission of Canada; 2012. Available: http://strategy.mentalhealthcommission.ca/pdf/strategy-text-en.pdf (accessed 2013 Mar 12).
20 Saskatoon Poverty Reduction Partnership. From poverty to possibility...and prosperity: A Preview to the Saskatoon Community Action Plan to Reduce Poverty. Saskatoon (SK): Saskatoon Poverty Reduction Partnership; 2011.Available: http://www.saskatoonpoverty2possibility.ca/pdf/SPRP%20Possibilities%20Doc_Nov%202011.pdf (accessed 2012 Mar 13)
21 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Hospitalization Disparities by Socio-economic status...
22 Munro D. Healthy People, Healthy Performance, Healthy Profits: The Case for Business Action on the Socio-Economic Determinants of Health. The Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa (ON); 2008. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/Libraries/NETWORK_PUBLIC/dec2008_report_healthypeople.sflb (accessed 2012 Mar 26).
23 Marmot Sir M. Achieving Improvements in Health in a Changing Environment. Presentation to the World Medical Association, Vancouver (BC); 2010.
24 Conference Board of Canada. How Canada Performs: Child Poverty. Ottawa (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx (accessed 2013 Apr 11).
25 National Council of Welfare. Poverty Trends in Canada: Solving Poverty Information Kit. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada. Ottawa (ON); 2007. Available: http://www.ncw.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ils@-eng.jsp?lid=140 (accessed 2012 Jan 25).
26 Campaign 2000. 2010 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada: 1989 - 2010. Toronto (ON); 2010. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2010EnglishC2000NationalReportCard.pdf (accessed 2013 Apr 11).
27 Hoeppner C, Chair. Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working in Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada. House of Commons Canada. Ottawa (ON); 2010. Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Committee/403/HUMA/Reports/RP4770921/humarp07/humarp07-e.pdf (accessed 2013 Apr 17).
28 Eggleton A, Segal H. In From the Margins: A Call TO Action On Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Ottawa(ON);2009. Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/402/citi/rep/rep02dec09-e.pdf (accessed 2013 Apr 17).
29 Forget, Evelyn L. The town with no poverty: the health effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment. University of Toronto Press. Canadian Public Policy 37(3), 283-305.
30 Law MR, Cheng L, Dhala IA et al. The effect of cost adherence to prescription medications in Canada. CMAJ February 21, 2012 vol. 184 no.3.
31 Campaign 2000. 2010 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty...
32 Chappell NL, Dlitt BH, Hollander JA et al. Comparative Costs of Home Care and Residential Care. The Gerontologist 44(3): 389-400.
This policy addresses the role of the treating physician in assisting their patients return to work after an illness or injury. The treating physician's role is to diagnose and treat the illness or injury, to advise and support the patient, to provide and communicate appropriate information to the patient and the employer, and to work closely with other involved health care professionals to facilitate the patient's safe and timely return to the most productive employment possible. Fulfilling this role requires the treating physician to understand the patient's roles in the family and the workplace. Furthermore, it requires the treating physician to recognize and support the employee-employer relationship and the primary importance of this relationship in the return to work. Finally, it requires the treating physician to have a good understanding of the potential roles of a return-to-work coordinator and of other health care professionals and employment personnel in assisting and promoting the return to work.
The CMA recognizes the importance of a patient returning to all possible functional activities relevant to his or her life as soon as possible after an injury or illness. Prolonged absence from one's normal roles, including absence from the workplace, is detrimental to a person's mental, physical and social well-being. The treating physician should therefore encourage a patient's return to function and work as soon as possible after an illness or injury, provided that a return to work does not endanger the patient, his or her co-workers or society. A safe and timely return to work benefits the patient/employee and his or her family by enhancing recovery and reducing disability. A safe and timely return to work by the employee also preserves a skilled and stable workforce for employers and society and reduces demands on health and social services as well as on disability plans.
In recent years, an increasing level of responsibility in the return-to-work process has been placed on treating physicians. There has been an increased demand for medical information and advice from physicians and other health care providers concerning patient functionality, restricted work and modifications to the workplace to help accommodate the disabled patient. i There has also been a blurring of the lines between the provision of forms/reports for benefits and dealing with requests for information related to helping patients return to work (e.g., completing Functional Abilities Forms). Treating physicians are often asked to provide information related to complex issues affecting patients in the workplace and to assist in the eligibility of insurance claims while lacking information related to job description or the insurance company's definition of disability.
There is also the issue of consent, where employers/insurers are asking employees to sign "blanket consents," which include information well outside what is medically necessary to determine eligibility to return to work. In addition, the complex nature of the return-to-work process can lead to conflict between employees, physicians, and employers. Finally, the majority of physicians outside occupational medicine have not received training on the return-to-work process and thus may feel uncomfortable providing these types of services.
Cooperation from the employee, employer, insurer and health care provider is necessary to ensure a safe and timely return to work for the patient. The purpose of this statement is to address the role of the treating physician in the patient's return to work. A treating physician refers to a physician from any medical specialty - including a family physician - who preferably knows the patient the best. The CMA supports a shift away from reliance on physician certification for work absences and a move toward greater cooperation between the employee and his or her employer with the use of medical input, advice and support from the employee's treating physician and other involved health care professionals.ii
Although this policy addresses the treating physician's role in helping patients return to work after an illness or injury, many of the concepts are applicable to accommodating employees who are in need of a modified work arrangement with their employer.
The Role of the Employer
The employee and the employer generally have an established relationship and this is central to the return-to-work process. In all cases of impairment or disability, an unbiased workplace supervisor, manager or employer representative must be a closely involved partner in this process.
Employers increasingly recognize the value of making changes to the workplace than can facilitate a return to work. The employer's role is to ensure that the workplace culture supports a safe and timely return to work; for example, by being flexible in modifying tasks, schedules and environmental conditions to meet the temporary or permanent needs of the employee. Employees are often unaware of their employer's capacity to accommodate special needs. Direct communication by an employee with his or her employer after an illness or injury often enhances the employee's perception of his or her ability to work. With careful planning and appropriate physician input and advice to both the employee and the employer, an employee may often successfully return to work before full recovery.
The employer and employee have a responsibility to provide the treating physician with any employment-related information that can be useful in giving medical advice and support. It is the employer's responsibility to provide the treating physician with a written job description, identifying the job risks and available work modifications, upon request.
The Role of the Treating Physician
The treating physician's role in helping a patient return to work has four main elements:
1. Providing to the patient medically necessary services related to the injury or illness to achieve optimum health and functionality;
2. Providing objective, accurate and timely medical information for the consideration of eligibility of insurance benefits;
3. Providing objective, accurate and timely medical information as part of the timely return-to-work program; andiii
4. Considering whether to serve as a Timely Return-to-Work Coordinator when requested by the employer/employee or other third party (outlined below).
In relation to the first three elements, the treating physician should remain cognizant of the potential for legal proceedings and should, therefore, ensure, as always, that any statements made regarding a patient's capacity to return to work are defensible in a court of law. The physician should ensure that any statements made are, to the best of the physician's knowledge, accurate and based upon current clinical information about the patientiv. If the physician relies on information that cannot be substantiated independently, then the physician should note in the report the source of the information and the fact that it has not been independently confirmed. Comments unrelated to the treating physician's professional opinion or that are extraneous to the stated objectives should not be included in the report. Reports should be written in language that is appropriate for the intended audience. This may require the physician to avoid medical short forms, or jargon. Where this is not possible, the physician should include, in addition to technical medical terminology, more colloquial terms or explanations to ensure the reader understands the report's contents. Where the physician is not able to answer some of the questions, even with the assistance of the patient, the physician should indicate his or her inability to respond.
For more information with respect to completing forms and reports, please refer to Canadian Medical Protective Association articles entitled "Forms and Reports: The Case for Care (2002)" v and "Reasonable Delays for Filling out Insurance Forms (2007)." vi
Considerations for Treating Physicians who wish to Participate in the Timely Return-to-Work Process
Treating physicians need to ensure that a timely return-to-work plan is incorporated into the care plan for their patient. A timely return-to-work program is one that is initiated early and ensures a safe return to work at the earliest and most appropriate time. The treatment or care plan should be evidence-based, when possible, and should identify the best sequence and timing of interventions for the patient.
The treating physician should facilitate the patient's return to work by encouraging him or her early in treatment or rehabilitation to take an active role in and take responsibility for the return to work, and to communicate directly and regularly with his or her employers. Furthermore, the physician should discuss expected healing and recovery times with the patient, as well as the positive role in physical and psychological healing of a graduated increase in activity.
Unnecessary waiting periods and other obstacles in the care plan should be identified and discussed, when relevant, by those involved in the patient/employee's return to work. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the treating physician to advise the patient that a timely return to work can facilitate his or her recovery by helping to restore or improve functional capabilities. The physician should be familiar with the family and community support systems available to the patient. Moreover, the physician should be knowledgeable about and use, when appropriate, the services of a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals, who can be helpful in facilitating the patient's safe and timely return to work. In cases of employers with occupational medical departments, the treating physician, with the patient's prior expressed consent, may contact the occupational physician or nurse to understand specific workplace policies, supportive in-house resources, essential job demands and possible health and safety hazards in the patient's workplace. Where occupational medical resources are available, the treating physician generally assumes a supportive or advisory medical role. For assistance with specific cases, provincial and territorial medical associations and the Occupational Medicine Specialists of Canada, as well as the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association of Canada, have information identifying physicians who specialize in assisting with the return to work. vii In complex cases, the treating physician should consider referring the patient/employee to medical specialists or other appropriate health care professionals for a comprehensive, objective assessment of his or her functional capabilities and limitations and their relation to the demands of the employee's job.
The Return-to-Work Coordinator
The CMA supports the concept of the return-to-work coordinator as described in the Ontario Medical Association Position Paper, "The Role of the Primary Care Physician in Timely Return to Work."viii A return-to-work coordinator may be a health care professional who "works with the employer and the patient/employee to assist in developing and overseeing a timely return to work program that is individualized to the employee and meets the requirements of the employer. A return to work plan or program is "a compilation of services required to safely and effectively return an individual to work as soon as possible." ix Return to work requires that the employee's capabilities match or exceed the physical, psychological and cognitive requirements of the work offered. It may involve designing a modified work setting and timetable to facilitate reintegration in the workplace based on the patient's physical and psychological condition.
Specific services of the return-to-work coordinator may include:
* Compiling all medical information, along with the employee's workplace and job functions information.
* Providing advice on the limitations, restrictions and modifications that may be necessary to accommodate the employee in a timely return-to-work program.
* Periodically reviewing the prescribed program and suggesting modifications until the patient eventually assumes full-duty status or has resumed work in a modified manner acceptable to all parties.
The treating physician has the choice to assume this role or it may be assumed by an alternate health care provider. It is the employer/insurer's responsibility to ensure that a health care provider is assigned to this role. The treating physician also has the choice to suggest the patient/employee undergo a functional capacity assessment or an independent medical examination (IME). Treating physicians should only provide such services if they have the necessary training and expertise. The CMA believes educational sessions should be provided to support treating physicians who feel they need them and who wish to assume the role of the timely return-to-work coordinator.
If the treating physician agrees to participate in developing a modified work plan, the physician should consider and make recommendations related to the employee's task limitations, schedule modifications, environmental restrictions and medical aids or personal protective equipment. Whenever possible, the physician should state whether restrictions are permanent or temporary and give an estimate of recovery time. The physician should also specify the date when the patient's progress and his or her work restrictions need to be reassessed.
The treating physician must be aware of the risks to the patient, his or her coworkers or the public that could arise from the patient's condition or drug therapy. If the patient's medical condition and the nature of the work performed are likely to endanger the safety of others significantly, the physician must put the public interest before that of the patient/employee.
When the treating physician, acting as a return-to-work coordinator, believes that the patient has recovered sufficiently to return to work safely, the patient should be clearly informed of this judgment. If the employer and the employee cannot agree on a return-to-work plan, the employer should contact the treating physician and employee to identify the minimum level of capability that can be accommodated in the workplace.
When there is a conflict between the employer and the employee, it is recommended that the treating physician use, where available, the skills of an occupational physician. The CMA recommends that, when conflicts occur, conflict-resolution processes be put in place to address all participants' concerns. The treating physician's role should be limited to providing relevant clinical information about the functional limitations of the employee and recommending any corresponding work restrictions.
Ultimately, the employer determines the type of work available and whether a physician's recommendations concerning an employee's return to work can be accommodated. Under provincial and territorial human rights laws, an employer may not discriminate on the basis of disability or other illness and has legal obligations with respect to the accommodation of employees. For details, refer to the Human Rights Code in the relevant jurisdiction.
The CMA holds that legislation should be enacted in all jurisdictions to protect physicians from liability associated with such decisions.
Respecting Patient Confidentiality and Managing Medical Information
Medical records are confidential. Physicians must respect the patient's right to confidentiality except where required or permitted by law to disclose requested information. In general, physicians should not, without the patient's consent, give information to anyone concerning the condition of a patient or any service rendered to a patient, unless required by law to do so. For example, in some cases, provincial or territorial legislation may require physicians to provide information to workers' compensation boards without prior patient approval. Physicians should be aware of the legal requirements with regard to prior patient approval and of the legal requirements in their province or territory. Where a physician has the discretion to make a disclosure (i.e., where it is permitted by law but not required), the decision should be made bearing in mind the duty of confidentiality and the facts of the case. Physicians will want to consider if it is appropriate under the circumstances to advise the patient when a disclosure has been made pursuant to applicable legislation.x
In circumstances where a physician provides a third party with information or an opinion for an individual he/she is not otherwise treating (for example during an IME mandated by the employer), the duty to provide the individual with access to the information, opinion and or notes prepared for the opinion will vary according to the applicable law, the nature of the agreement with the third party and the consent of the individual. Physicians should be aware that their working notes may be, in some circumstances, accessible to an individual being examined for the purpose of a third-party process. Physicians conducting an IME and preparing a report on behalf of a third party should ensure the individual being examined understands the nature and extent of the physician's responsibility to the third party, including that the report will be forwarded to this third party. Moreover, an IME is distinct from a regular physician-patient encounter and, as such, it does not obligate the independent examiner to treat or provide health care to the examinee. However, should the medical examiner discover an unexpected significant clinical finding which requires essential intervention, then he or she should advise the examinee of this fact to enable the examinee to obtain timely medical attention.
The treating physician should not provide information about the patient to the patient's employer without the patient's authorization. The following are best practices when obtaining patient consent:
* Consent should be specific rather than general;
* Written authorization for such disclosure is desirable and may be required in some jurisdictions;
* A separate patient consent should be obtained for each request for medical information; and
* Patient consent should be considered time-limited.
To respect the privacy of the patient, the treating physician should be careful not to provide medical information that is not needed to facilitate the patient's return to work. The patient has the right to examine and copy medical records that pertain to him or her. Patient access to records may be denied only in accordance with the exceptions specified under the relevant privacy legislation, such as reasonable risk of serious harm, solicitor-client privilege or identification of another person. The treating physician should ensure that he/she is familiar with the applicable legislation and rules with respect to a patient's right of access. If access is denied and the patient challenges the treating physician's decision, the onus is on the physician to justify denial of access.
Treating physicians should consult appropriate statements from the relevant provincial or territorial licensing body and from the Canadian Medical Protective Association for additional information and guidance. Physicians should also be aware of any relevant legislation or other legal requirements in their jurisdictions.
Billing for Return-to-Work Services
Many services related to a timely return-to-work program are not covered by public medical insurance. Although often the case, patients should not be required to cover the costs of services related to a timely return-to-work program. The CMA recommends that the requesting party bear these costs.xi Payment should be commensurate with the degree of expertise and the time expended by the physician and office staff. The physician should consult the billing policy of his/her provincial medical association for further guidance.
i Ontario Medical Association, The role of the primary care physician in timely return to work. OMA position paper. Ontario Medical Review, March 2009. https://www.oma.org/Resources/Documents/2009PCPandTimelyReturn.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
ii Canadian Medical Association, Short-Term Illness Certificate, 2010. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-06.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
iii The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Third Party Forms, Update 2012. https://www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedFiles/policies/policies/policyitems/ThirdParty.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
iv The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Medical Certificates policy, Update 2009. https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Medical-Certificates.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
v Canadian Medical Protective Association, Forms and Reports: The Case for Care, Update 2008. http://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/cmpapd04/docs/resource_files/infosheets/2002/com_is0227-e.cfm (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
vi Canadian Medical Protective Association, Reasonable Delays for Filling out Insurance Forms, 2007. http://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/cmpapd04/docs/resource_files/infoletters/2007/com_il0720_2-e.cfm (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
vii See also Presley Reed, The Medical Disability Advisor: Workplace Guidelines for Disability Duration, Reed Group, As amended. and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Guidelines in Preventing Needless Work Disability, 2006. http://www.acoem.org/PreventingNeedlessWorkDisability.aspx. (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
viii Ontario Medical Association, The role of the primary care physician in timely return to work. OMA position paper. Ontario Medical Review, March 2009. https://www.oma.org/Resources/Documents/2009PCPandTimelyReturn.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
ix Ontario Medical Association, The role of the primary care physician in timely return to work. OMA position paper. Ontario Medical Review, March 2009. https://www.oma.org/Resources/Documents/2009PCPandTimelyReturn.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
xCanadian Medical Association, Principles for the Protection of Patients' Personal Health Information. 2004, http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-03.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
xi Canadian Medical Association, Third Party Forms: The Physician's Role (Update 2010). http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-04.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 07).
Position Statement on Prescription Drug Shortages in Canada
The escalation in shortages of prescription drugs in the past few years and the ongoing disruptions to supply experienced in Canada and globally are matters of grave concern to the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and its members. Drug shortages are having a detrimental impact on the delivery of patient care and treatment and the availability of health care services across the country.
CMA has advocated for a thorough examination of the drug supply system to identify points where we in Canada can influence supply problems. Solutions will have to involve the various players in the drug supply chain, from manufacturers through to healthcare providers and levels of government.
Drug shortages are not a problem confined to Canada. In the United States the number of drug shortages from 2006 to 2010 grew by more than 200 per cent.1 In 2011, 251 shortages were reported to the FDA. 2 Canada has not had an accurate record of the number of drugs in short supply over past years but in April 2013 253 drugs were listed on the industry sponsored Canadian Drug Shortage Website.3
Factors that influence the occurrence of a drug shortage can occur at any stage of the drug supply chain and any disruptions can ripple through the system.
Figure 1 Drug supply chain in Canada4 [See PDF]
There are many causes that can lead to a drug shortage. Disruptions in the supply of an active or key ingredient contribute to drug shortages and this is exacerbated when the active ingredient is produced by a single raw material supplier. If the supplier is unable to meet demand than all manufacturers relying on that supply become vulnerable to disruptions. The sourcing of raw materials from outside of North America, primarily China and India, whose safety and regulatory standards may not be stringently enforced can result in regulatory authorities closing down facilities thereby impacting supply of active ingredients or necessitating a lengthy search for a new supplier.
Additional manufacturing issues contributing to shortages can include complex manufacturing processes like those used to make sterile injectables, changes in product formulations, problems in the production process or regulatory enforcement of good manufacturing processes, limited capacity, an unexpected surge in demand, regulatory delays in product approvals and business decisions. 5
Shortages may also be due to factors outside the manufacturers control such as various interruptions in the normal delivery of medicines through the pharmacy supply chain and distribution network6. Just in time inventory management practices can lead to a reduction of available drug inventories. In addition procurement strategies that lead to sole source contracts for bulk purchases has been identified as the single most avoidable cause of drug shortages. 7
Disruptions in the supply of medications have the potential to impact patient care, patient health and the efficiency of the overall health care system.
Among the impacts of drug shortages are:
- delays in access to needed medication;
- delays or disruptions to clinical treatment;
- delayed or cancelled surgeries,
- loss of therapeutic effectiveness when an appropriate alternate therapy is not available;
- increased risk of side effects;
- increased non-compliance when changes in medication make it confusing and harder to comply with a new medication regime particularly for those on long term therapy.8
Any and all of these situations can result in a disruption to clinical stability and deterioration, particularly in patients with complex problems. Drug substitution can also result in unintended consequences. In 2010 an Institute of Safe Medication Practices survey of 1800 US health professionals revealed that in one year drug shortages caused over 1000 incidents involving negative side effects or medical errors. 9 In many instances shortages can lead to an increase in the use of the health care system, be it in physician or emergency room visits or treatments.
A CMA survey of physicians in September 2012 found that 66% of respondents indicated that drug shortages have gotten worse since 2010 and 64% stated that the shortages have had consequences for their patients or practice. Similarly, the results of the 2012 Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) survey of pharmacists found that over 91% of pharmacists indicated that patients had been inconvenienced by shortages and 51% indicated that patients' care had been compromised.10
Drug shortages also have an impact on the practices of physicians and pharmacists. Sixty seven percent of the respondents to the CMA survey stated that drug shortages do have an impact on their practice most notably by increasing time spent on research or consultation with health professional colleagues to source alternative medicine, increase in length of patient visits due to medication substitution concerns, and increase in time spent on forms such as insurance claims. Seventy six percent of hospital pharmacists and 76 percent of community pharmacists also report an impact on their workload and practice.11
Since as early as 2005, the CMA has supported a comprehensive strategy and adequately resourced system for monitoring domestic drug supply. In response to a Health Canada consultation in October 2005 on a report entitled "Developing a Drug Supply Network" CMA recommended that Canada needs such a system to identify shortages and respond quickly to remedy them, and to ensure that policy and regulatory decisions are founded on accurate and reliable knowledge.
In March 2011 this position was reinforced in communication with the Government of Canada stating that Canada needs a sustainable, adequately resourced process to identify shortages, rapidly communicate them to health professionals and respond quickly to resolve them.
1. The Canadian Medical Association supports an investigation into the underlying causes of prescription drug shortages in Canada.
2. The Canadian Medical Association recommends the creation of a monitoring unit to track drug production disruptions in Canada and abroad.
The communication of information to health professionals once a shortage occurs, or is expected, is critical to their ability to make patient centered decisions and provide continuity of optimum care. CMA has participated on a Multi Stakeholder Working Group on Drug Shortages that has had the pharmaceutical industry and health professional organizations working together to establish a national drug shortage reporting website. CMA provided key input on the needs of needs of physicians to ensure that information required to provide optimum care when managing a drug shortage such as product information including name, manufacturer, formulation, strength, package size, expected duration of shortage, notification that shortage is resolved as well as automatic alerts and search and sort functionality was included on the website.
The establishment of the Canadian drug shortage website marks an improvement in the management of drug shortages but significant issues remain. Of great concern are drugs that are 'single sourced'. When there are shortages of single sourced medications there are no clear substitutes. Related to this are the unintended consequences of sole sourcing products from one manufacturer to secure a lower price. This introduces a vulnerability to the marketplace if the sole supplier experiences production disruptions. The 2011 production stoppage at a Sandoz facility in Quebec due to regulatory compliance issues and a subsequent fire in the plant resulted in a scramble to find alternate sources of many essential medications. The CMA supports the development of strategies at the provincial/territorial and federal level to discourage single source purchasing decisions. The inclusion of incentives or penalties for guaranteed supplies, or a contingency plan for supply disruptions should be inserted into purchase contracts. We must be extremely careful not to exacerbate supply problems while trying to address cost issues.
3. The Canadian Medical Association calls for a review of the supply processes in place for drugs and equipment considered essential for medical practice.
4. The Canadian Medical Association supports strategies to discourage single-source purchasing decisions for prescription medications.
Advance notice, by manufacturers to Health Canada, of expected drug shortages can provide a window of opportunity for the manufacturer and regulators to work together to resolve production problems or identify alternate supply. We are encouraged by recent initiatives by Health Canada to collect information on planned discontinuances from manufacturers.
5. The Canadian Medical Association calls for the establishment of a legislative framework requiring pharmaceutical companies to provide advance notice of production stoppages and any forecast disruptions in the drug supply.
Because of the complexity of the drug supply system, to effectively identify the situations that lead to drug shortages and find Canadian based solutions that can decrease the incidence of shortages or mitigate their impact requires the involvement and cooperation of all players in the process. CMA has consistently asked the government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories, the private sector and health professionals to address this potentially dangerous threat to the lives of Canadian patients.
6. The CMA supports the provinces and territories in their efforts to prevent drug shortages.
We are heartened by actions of Health Canada in 2012 to bring together representatives of industry, federal, provincial and territorial governments and health professional associations in a Multi Stakeholder Steering Committee on Drug Shortages to respond to the need for the mitigation of drug shortages. We trust that processes can be put in place and supported by key players to allow Canada to respond in a coordinated, transparent and accountable fashion to future or actual drug shortages.
Drug Shortages represent an ongoing worry for physicians. The impact on patients, health professionals and the health care system can be significant. Substantial progress has been made since 2011 in terms of gathering and sharing drug shortage information and improving our understanding of the drug supply processes but much still remains to be done. Although complex and challenging, ongoing attention to the issue is required to ensure that Canadians can count on a secure supply of medication into the future.
The CMA will continue to represent the best interests of patients and physicians to ensure that Canada's health care system delivers on patient-centered care.
1 DRUG SHORTAGES FDA's Ability to Respond Should be Strengthened, Statement of Marcie Cross, Director, Health Care, United States Government Accountability Office, Testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, December 15, 2011.
2 FDA is asking the public to send in ideas for combatting drug shortages, FDA Voice, Feb. 13, 2013, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, available at http://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/tag/drug-shortages/ (accessed 2013 April 2).
3 Canadian Drug Shortages Database available at http://www.drugshortages.ca/drugshortages.asp (accessed 2013 April 5).
4 Drug Supply In Canada: A Multi-stakeholder Responsibility, Report of the Standing Committee on Health, 41st Parliament, First session, June 2012.
5 Drug Supply Disruptions, Environmental Scan, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Issue 17, March 2011.
6 Canadian Drug Shortages Database available at http://www.drugshortages.ca/drugshortages.asp (accessed 2013April 5).
7 Drug Supply In Canada: A Multi-stakeholder Responsibility, Report of the Standing Committee on Health, 41st Parliament, First session, June 2012.
8 Prescription Drug Shortages, E Panel Survey, Canadian Medical Association, December 2010.
9 Drug Shortages, Recommendations of the Working Group on Drug Shortages, Ordre des Pharmaciens du Québec, March 2012.
10 Impact of Drug Shortages, Member survey, Canadian Pharmacists Association, October 2012.
11 BACKGROUNDER - DRUG SHORTAGES SURVEY, Canadian Pharmacists Association, Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Canadian Medical Association, January 2013, available at http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Media_Release/2013/Backgrounder-Drug-shortages_en.pdf ( assessed 2013 April 2).
Hockey is one of the most popular sports for Canadian children and youth. While the health benefits of physical activity and sport participation are well recognized, there is increasing concern around the frequency and severity of hockey-related injuries, particularly concussion. Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism associated with youth hockey injuries, including concussion. Policy to delay bodychecking until bantam league play (when participants are 13 to 14 years of age) will reduce the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from non-elite youth ice hockey. The age at which bodychecking is introduced in competitive hockey leagues must be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories, and must be re-evaluated prospectively in light of emerging research.
More than 4.5 million Canadians are involved in ice hockey, as coaches, officials, administrators or direct volunteers, and hockey is the most popular winter sport among Canadian children and youth. Hockey Canada reported over 550,000 registered players under the age of 19 in 2008, and participation rates are increasing, especially among girls and young women. While the health benefits of physical activity and sport participation are well recognized, there is increasing concern around the frequency and severity of hockey-related injuries in youth, particularly concussion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) classifies hockey as a collision sport because of unintentional and intentional body contact, including bodychecking.
The AAP published a policy statement on youth ice hockey in 2000, recommending that bodychecking not be allowed for children younger than 15 years of age. There is passionate debate about the risk factors for injury in youth hockey and the relative merits of early or later introduction of bodychecking. Because bodychecking is not allowed in girls' or women's hockey in Canada, the present statement pertains to play in boys' and men's hockey leagues. It reviews the scientific literature on bodychecking injuries, outlines positions in the current debate and makes recommendations on when bodychecking should be introduced into the game.
DEFINING BODY CONTACT AND BODYCHECKING
Body contact is an individual defensive tactic designed to legally block or impede the progress of an offensive puck carrier. The defensive player moves to restrict action by the puck carrier anywhere on the ice, by skating, angling and positioning. The defensive player cannot hit the offensive player by travelling in an opposite direction to him or by physically extending toward him in an effort to initiate contact. There must be no action where the puck carrier is pushed, hit or shoved into the boards. In contrast, bodychecking is an individual defensive tactic designed to legally separate the puck carrier from the puck. The defensive player physically extends his body toward the puck carrier while moving in an opposite or parallel direction, a deliberate and forceful move not solely determined by the movement of the puck carrier. Bodychecking is taught based on a four-step skill development program outlined by Hockey Canada, with progression through positioning and angling, stick checking, body contact and bodychecking skills. Instruction in bodychecking includes techniques for receiving bodychecks, adhering to rules, and safe play.
Hockey Canada groups children and adolescents by age into six play levels: initiation (5 to 6 years of age), novice (7 to 8 years), atom (9 to 10 years), peewee (11 to 12 years), bantam (13 to 14 years), and midget (15 to 17 years). Historically, from the early 1980s until the 2002/2003 season, bodychecking was introduced at age 12 years in Canadian boys' ice hockey. In 2003, four of 13 provincial/territorial branches allowed checking for players as young as nine years old. Hockey Canada mandated the introduction of bodychecking in peewee leagues (ages 11 to 12) in 2009. Quebec has delayed bodychecking until bantam (age 14 from 1978 to 2002, then age 13 following an age change mandated nationally).
Despite lack of evidence, proponents of bodychecking argue that it is a fundamental skill which, learned early, may prevent future injuries. However, the evidence supports that bodychecking is the most common mechanism of injury. The Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine recommends that bodychecking be introduced only in boys' competitive hockey, and no earlier than the bantam (ages 13 to14) or midget (ages 15 to 17) level. The AAP recommends a ban on bodychecking for male players younger than 15 years of age. The present statement marks the first CPS position on this issue.
BODYCHECKING AND INJURY
Hockey is recognized as a high-risk sport. The speed of play, body contact and bodychecking all contribute to injury risk. The injury rate is also high, with Canadian data suggesting that hockey injuries account for 8% to 11% of all adolescent sport-related injuries. Unfortunately, serious injuries such as concussion, other brain injuries and spinal cord trauma are not uncommon in hockey. The incidence of traumatic brain injury appears to be rising. Ice hockey-related fatality rates are double those reported in American football, and catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury rates are almost four times higher for high school hockey players than for high school and college football players. Bodychecking is the predominant mechanism of injury among youth hockey players at all levels of competition where it is permitted, accounting for 45% to 86% of injuries.- Several published studies, including two recent systematic reviews, reported on risk factors for injury (including bodychecking) in youth hockey. Emery and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 24 studies and a meta-analysis including only studies which examined policy allowing bodychecking as a risk factor for injury. Policy allowing bodychecking was found to be a risk factor for all hockey injuries, with a summary incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.7 to 3.6). Furthermore, policy allowing bodychecking was found to be a risk factor for concussion, with a summary OR of 1.71 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.44). These data confirm that bodychecking increases the risk of all injuries and the risk of concussion specifically. Nine of ten studies examining policy allowing bodychecking provided evidence to support a greater risk in bodychecking leagues. The second systematic review found the RR of injury associated with policy allowing bodychecking ranged from 0.6 to 39.8; all but one of these studies found an increased risk of injuries associated with bodychecking.
Since the publication of these systematic reviews there have been five additional studies. A Canadian prospective cohort study compared injury rates between peewee ice hockey players in a league where bodychecking is permitted at age 11 years (Alberta) versus players in a league where bodychecking is not permitted until age 13 (Quebec). During the 2007/2008 season, a validated injury surveillance system was used to capture all injuries requiring medical attention and/or time loss from hockey (ie, time between injury and return to play) in 2154 players. There was a threefold increased risk of all game-related injuries (IRR =3.26 [95% CI; 2.31 to 4.60]) and of injury resulting in >7 days time lost from sport (IRR=3.30 [95% CI; 1.77 to 6.17]) in 11- to 12- year-old peewee players from Alberta when compared with Quebec. There was also an almost fourfold increased risk of game-related concussion (IRR=3.88 [95% CI; 1.91 to 7.89]) in Alberta peewee players. Further evidence was reported in a five-year cohort study (2002 to 2007) including all age groups, which demonstrated that injury risk increases 3.75 times (IRR=3.75 [95% CI; 1.51 to 9.74]) in leagues that allow bodychecking compared with those that do not.
A second prospective cohort study by Emery et al examined whether the introduction of bodychecking at 11 years of age (Alberta) or 13 years of age (Quebec) affected injury rates in later years (at 13 to 14 years of age). During the 2008/09 season, the same injury surveillance system cited above was used to study 1971 bantam players (13- to 14-year-olds). There was no reduction in game-related injury risk (all injuries) for this age group (IRR=0.85 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.16]), of concussion specifically (IRR=0.84 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.48]), or of concussions resulting in >10 days time lost from sport (IRR=0.6 [95% CI 0.26 to 1.41]) in the Alberta league, compared with Quebec. In fact, the concussion rate found in Alberta peewee players was higher than in bantam players in either province. Injuries to bantam players resulting in >7 days time lost from sport were reduced by 33% (IRR=0.67 [95% CI 0.46 to 0.99]) in the Alberta league, where players had had two years of bodychecking experience. However, these findings must be interpreted in light of the three- to fourfold greater injury and concussion risk among peewee players in Alberta, along with a possibly higher 'survival effect' among peewee players moving on to bantam in Quebec when compared with Alberta, where bodychecking is allowed in peewee league play.
Recent retrospective studies have examined the influence of policy change based on the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) surveillance data. Injury rates among boys presenting to emergency departments in the Kingston, Ontario area both before and after the 2002 rule change to allow bodychecking in younger players, were reported. There was no change between bodychecking injury rates in 1997 to 2002 (with bodychecking introduced at 11 years of age) and 2003 to 2007 (when bodychecking was introduced at nine years of age). Overall rates of injury actually declined over the later period. However, this retrospective study may also be biased by stronger rule enforcement, better coaching certification and temporal declines in emergency department use for this type of injury over that period. In contrast, retrospective research of CHIRPP data from 1994 to 2004 in five Ontario hospitals examined injury risk following a rule change in 1998 that allowed bodychecking in nine- and 10-year-old hockey players. A 2.2 times greater risk of injury in atom players (9 and 10 years of age) after the rule change was reported (OR=2.2 [95% CI 1.7 to 2.84]). Another retrospective study using CHIRPP data (from 1995 to 2002) compared hockey injuries in children 10 to 13 years of age playing in Ontario, where bodychecking was allowed, with data from Quebec, where bodychecking was not allowed. There was a 2.6 times greater risk of bodycheck-related injuries reported for this age group when bodychecking was allowed (OR=2.65 [95% CI 2.21 to 3.18]).
OTHER RISK FACTORS
After policy that permits bodychecking, the most commonly investigated risk factors for injury in the scientific literature are: age, session-type (ie, a practice versus a game), level of play, player position, physical size, and a previous history of injury and/or concussion. Most studies examining age found that injury risk increased with age; others suggest no elevated injury risk in older age groups.- Relative age has been examined to "describe the potential advantages (or disadvantages) that result from age differences between peers within one age group". One study examining relative age among hockey players found no evidence that younger (or older) players within a grouping were at elevated injury risk. Additional research supports this finding at the peewee level, where no increased risk was found in first-year players. In bantam leagues, however, there was a 40% greater risk of injury in first-year players when compared with players in their second year.
Based on session-type, injury risk is reported to be consistently higher in games than in practices, with RR estimates ranging from 2.45 to 6.32. One study also indicated that injury rates were higher in regular season play than during preseason, postseason or tournament games.
In general, studies examining level of play have found that injury risks rise with increasing skill levels across all age groups. However, one study reported that only peewee players in the highest skill division were at the greatest risk of injury, with no significant increase by skill level in other age groups. Larger cohort studies confirmed a consistently greater risk of injury among peewee players who were more highly skilled, but this trend was not observed in the bantam age group.
When examining player position, some researchers found that forwards were at higher risk of injury than defencemen or goalies,  while others reported the relative risk of injury was 2.18 times higher for defencemen than forwards. In all three studies, goalies were shown to be at much lower risk than other players. Additional research shows a consistent protective effect for goalies at both the peewee and bantam levels.
Research on player size has shown conflicting results, with some studies citing increased risk for smaller players in some age groups. Prospective Canadian data show a significantly greater risk of injury in peewee players in the lowest 25th percentile by weight,  though this finding was not reflected in the bantam cohort. However, additional research has found lighter bantam players to be at greater risk, while other studies report a significant weight difference, at all levels, between players who sustained a bodychecking-related injury and those who did not. Other research examining body weight as a risk factor for shoulder injuries found that heavier players were at greater risk for these injuries. One study looked at height as a possible risk factor for injury and found no evidence of effect among bantam players.
By contrast, a history of previous injury or concussion is consistently reported as a significant risk factor for reinjury and further concussion, respectively. One recent Canadian peewee cohort study showed that the risk of injury doubled for players who reported being injured within the past year (IRR=2.07 [95% CI 1.49 to 2.86]), while the risk of concussion tripled for players reporting any previous concussion (2.76 [95% CI 1.1 to 6.91]). The bantam cohort also showed greater risk of reinjury and concussion in players reporting previous injury within the past year (IRR=1.39 [95% CI 1.13 to 1.71]) or any previous concussion (IRR=1.87 [95% CI 1.19 to 2.94]), respectively.
INJURY PREVENTION AND RISK REDUCTION
Injury prevention and risk reduction programs have been implemented but have not been evaluated rigorously. The STOP (Safety Towards Other Players) program (www.safetytowardsotherplayers.com) is supported by the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (www.omha.net), and includes an education component and the "STOP patch", which is sewn on the back of players' uniforms to remind opponents not to hit from behind. A study evaluating another injury prevention program, "Fair Play", which awards points for sportsmanlike play (based on penalty minutes), suggests an approximate 60% reduction in the risk of injury (OR=0.41 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.47]) where the program is in effect, but the results were not statistically significant.
Players, parents, coaches, officials and trainers must be mindful of the potential risks of playing hockey. Hockey Canada has player development, coaching, education and safety promotion programs and resources for coaches, officials, players and parents at www.hockeycanada.ca. Concussion awareness is vital. Athletes and all those involved in their care need to know about the risks, symptoms/signs and how to manage concussive injuries. The CPS statement on concussion evaluation and management is essential reading , with additional information available from the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine (www.casm-acms.org), ThinkFirst Canada (www.thinkfirst.ca) and the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Coaches_Tool_Kit.htm).
Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism of hockey-related injuries, including concussion. It is expected that delaying the introduction of bodychecking until the bantam level and restricting bodychecking to elite leagues for older age groups will reduce the risks of injury and concussion substantially. Delaying bodychecking until bantam will have a clear benefit in reducing the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from recreational youth ice hockey and the age at which it is introduced in competitive hockey leagues should be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories in Canada, and policy changes will need to be evaluated on a regular basis in light of emerging research.
The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends the following:
* Eliminating bodychecking from all levels of organized recreational/non-elite competitive male ice hockey. (Grade II-2A evidence) *
* Delaying the introduction of bodychecking in elite male competitive leagues until players are 13 to 14 years of age (bantam level) or older. (Grade III-C evidence)*
* Implementing Hockey Canada's four-stage skill development program for bodychecking (body positioning, angling, stick checking and body contact) for all leagues.
* Educating coaches and trainers, schools, and policy-makers in sport about the signs and symptoms of common hockey injuries, especially concussion.
* Improving injury surveillance to better identify the risk factors for, and mechanisms of, hockey injuries.
* Policies to reduce injury and promote fair play in hockey, for all age groups and league levels.
Clinicians who see young hockey players in their practice should offer the following advice:
* Girls and young women should continue participating in non-bodychecking leagues.
* Boys should play in recreational/non-elite hockey leagues that do not allow bodychecking.
* Elite male players should play in hockey leagues that introduce bodychecking later, when players are 13 to 14 years of age (bantam level) or older.
* All players should adhere to fair play and a non-violent sport culture.
* Parents and caregivers should learn injury prevention and risk reduction strategies, including concussion prevention, recognition and management.
*The levels of evidence and strength of recommendations are based on the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (See Table 1). 
TABLE 1: [SEE PDF]
Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations
Level of evidence
Evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial.
Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trial without randomization.
Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-controlled analytical studies, preferably from more than one centre or research group.
Evidence obtained from comparisons between times and places, with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments could also be included in this category.
Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees.
There is good evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action.
There is fair evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action.
The existing evidence is conflicting and does not allow a recommendation to be made for or against use of the clinical preventive action; however, other factors may influence decision-making.
There is fair evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action.
There is good evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action.
There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation; however, other factors may influence decision-making.
This statement was reviewed by the Community Paediatrics and Injury Prevention Committees of the Canadian Paediatric Society. Thanks to Drs. Claire MA LeBlanc, Stan Lipnowski, Peter Nieman, Christina G Templeton and Thomas J Warshawski for their input as past members of the CPS Healthy Active Living and Sports Medicine Committee.
HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING AND SPORTS MEDICINE COMMITTEE
Members: Catherine Birken MD; Tracey L Bridger MD (Chair); Mark E Feldman MD (Board Representative); Kristin M Houghton MD; Michelle Jackman MD; John F Philpott MD
Liaison: Laura K Purcell MD, CPS Paediatric Sports and Exercise Medicine Section
Principal authors: Kristin M Houghton MD; Carolyn A Emery PT PhD
1. Hockey Canada, Annual report 2008: www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/55192/la_id/1.htm (Accessed July 4, 2012).
2. Rice SG; American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness. Medical conditions affecting sports participation. Pediatrics 2008;121(4):841-8.
3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness. Safety in youth ice hockey: The effects of body checking. Pediatrics 2000;105(3 Pt 1):657-8.
4. Hockey Canada. Teaching checking: A progressive approach. 2002: www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Teaching%20Checking.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2012).
5. Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine. Position Statement: Violence and injuries in ice hockey. 1988. www.casm-acms.org/forms/statements/HockeyViolEng.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2012).
6. Emery CA, Risk factors for injury in child and adolescent sport: A systematic review of the literature. Clin J Sport Med 2003;13(4):256-68.
7. Caine D, Caine C, Maffulli N. Incidence and distribution of pediatric sport-related injuries. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16(6):500-13.
8. Emery CA, Meeuwisse WH. Injury rates, risk factors, and mechanisms of injury in minor hockey [comment]. Am J Sports Med 2006;34(12):1960-9.
9. Emery CA, Meeuwisse WH, McAllister JR. Survey of sport participation and sport injury in Calgary and area high schools. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16(1):20-6.
10. Emery C, Tyreman H. Sport participation, sport injury, risk factors and sport safety practices in Calgary and area junior high schools. Paediatr Child Health 2009;14(7):439-44.
11. Tator CH, Carson JD, Cushman R. Hockey injuries of the spine in Canada, 1966-1996 [comment]. CMAJ 2000;162(6):787-8.
12. Proctor MR, Cantu RC. Head and neck injuries in young athletes. Clin Sports Med 2000;19(4): 693-715.
13. Kelly KD, Lissel HL, Rowe BH, Vincenten JA, Voaklander DC. Sport and recreation-related head injuries treated in the emergency department. Clin J Sport Med 2001;11(2):77-81.
14. Mueller FO, Cantu RC. Catastrophic injuries and fatalities in high school and college sports, fall 1982-spring 1988. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990;22(6):737-41.
15. Cantu RC, Mueller FO. Fatalities and catastrophic injuries in high school and college sports, 1982-1997: Lessons for improving safety. Phys Sportsmed 1999;27(8):35-48.
16. Brust JD, Leonard BJ, Pheley A, Roberts WO. Children's ice hockey injuries. Am J Dis Child 1992;146(6):741-7.
17. Bernard D, Trudel P. Marcotte G. The incidence, types, and circumstances of injuries to ice hockey players at the bantam level (14 to 15 years old). In: Hoerner E, ed. Safety in Ice Hockey. Philadephia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993:44-55.
18. Benson B, Meeuwisse WH. Ice hockey injuries. In: Maffulli N, Caine DJ, eds. Epidemiology of Pediatric Sports Injuries: Team Sports. Basel: S Karger AG, 2005:86-119.
19. Warsh JM, Constantin SA, Howard A, Macpherson A. A systematic review of the association between body checking and injury in youth ice hockey. Clin J Sport Med 2009;19(2):134-44.
20. Emery CA, Hagel B, Decloe M, Carly M. Risk factors for injury and severe injury in youth ice hockey: A systematic review of the literature. Inj Prev 2010;16(2):113-8.
21. Emery CA, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with body checking among youth ice hockey players. JAMA 2010;303(22):2265-72.
22. Darling, SR, Schaubel DE, Baker JG, Leddy JJ, Bisson LJ, Willer B. Intentional versus unintentional contact as a mechanism of injury in youth ice hockey. Br J Sports Med 2011;45(6):492-7.
23. Emery C, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with bodychecking experience among youth hockey players. CMAJ 2011;183(11):1249-56.
24. Kukaswadia A, Warsh J, Mihalik JP, Pickett W. Effects of changing body-checking rules on rates of injury in minor hockey. Pediatrics 2010;125(4):735-41.
25. Cusimano M, Taback N, McFaull S, Hodgins R, Tsegaye B; Canadian Research Team in Traumatic Brain Injury and Violence. Effect of bodychecking on rate of injuries among minor hockey players. Open Medicine 2011;5(1):e59: www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/246/389 (Accessed July 4, 2012).
26. Macpherson A, Rothman L, Howard A. Body-checking rules and childhood injuries in ice hockey. Pediatrics;117(2):e143-7 [Erratum in Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):2334-6].
27. Stuart MJ, Smith AM, Nieva JJ, Rock MG. Injuries in youth ice hockey: A pilot surveillance strategy. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70(4): p. 350-6.
28. Mölsä, J, Kujala U, Myllynen P, Torstila I, Airaksinen O. Injuries to the upper extremity in ice hockey: Analysis of a series of 760 injuries. Am J Sports Med 2003;31(5):751-7.
29. Björkenheim JM, Syvähuoko I, Rosenberg PH. Injuries in competitive junior ice-hockey. 1437 players followed for one season. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64(4):459-61.
30. Wiggins W. Implication of introducing body checking in ice hockey at different ages. OpenThesis. Lakehead University, 1998: www.openthesis.org/documents/Implication-introducing-body-checking-in-182710.html (Accessed July 4, 2012).
31. Wattie N, Cobley S, Macpherson A, Howard A, Montelpare WJ, Baker J. Injuries in Canadian youth ice hockey: The influence of relative age. Pediatrics 2007;120(1):142-8.
32. Roberts WO, Brust JD, Leonard B. Youth ice hockey tournament injuries: Rates and patterns compared to season play. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31(1):46-51.
33. Williamson IJS. An epidemiological investigation of concussion in youth ice hockey. Simon Fraser University: MSc thesis, 2006.
34. Smith AM, Stuart MJ, Wiese-Bjornstal DM, Gunnon C. Predictors of injury in ice hockey players. A multivariate, multidisciplinary approach. Am J Sports Med 1997;25(4): 500-7.
35. McKay C, Emery CA, Campbell T, Meeuwisse W. The effect of premature return to play on re-injury risk in elite adolescent ice hockey and associated psychosocial predictors [Abstract]. Br J Sport Med 2008;42(6):532-3.
36. Willer B, Kroetsch B, Darling S, Hutson A, Leddy J. Injury rates in house league, select, and representative youth ice hockey. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37(10):1658-63.
37. Finke RC, Goodwin Gerberich S, Madden M, et al. Shoulder injuries in ice hockey. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1988;10(2):54-8.
38. Brunelle JP, Goulet C, Arguin H. Promoting respect for the rules and injury prevention in ice hockey: Evaluation of the fair-play program. J Sci Med Sport 2005;8(3):294-304.
39. Canadian Paediatric Society, Healthy Active Living and Sports Medicine Committee. Identification and management of children with sport related concussion (Principal author Laura K Purcell). Paediatr Child Health 2012;17(1):31 www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/concussion-evaluation-management.
40. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care for specific clinical preventive actions. CMAJ 2003;169(3):207-8.
41. Canadian Task Force. Quality of Published Evidence. www.canadiantaskforce.ca/_archive/index.html (Accessed July 19, 2012).
Disclaimer: The recommendations in this position statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. Internet addresses are current at time of publication.