The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to present this brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill C-462 Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act.
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.
The CMA is pleased that the House of Commons has made Bill C-462 a priority. This bill is an important step toward addressing the unintended consequences that have emerged from the Disability Tax Credit since 2005.
Part 2: Issues to be addressed
In 2005, the Disability Tax Credit was expanded to allow individuals to back-file for up to 10 years. While this was a welcome tax measure for individuals with disabilities, the CMA has been urging the Canada Revenue Agency to address the numerous unintended consequences that have emerged. Central among these has been the emergence of a "cottage industry" of third-party companies engaged in a number of over-reaching tactics. The practices of these companies have included aggressive promotional activities to seek and encourage individuals to file the Disability Tax Credit. The primary driver behind these tactics is profit; some companies are charging fees of up to 40 per cent of an individual's refund when the tax credit is approved.
Further to targeting a vulnerable population, these activities have yielded an increase in the quantity of Disability Tax Credit forms in physician offices and contributed to red tape in the health sector. In some cases, third parties have placed physicians in an adversarial position with their patients. We are pleased that this bill attempts to address the concerns we have raised.
The CMA supports Bill C-462 as a necessary measure to address the issues that have emerged since the changes to the Disability Tax Credit in 2005. However, to avoid additional unintended consequences, the CMA recommends that the Finance Committee address three issues prior to advancing Bill C-462.
First, as currently written, Bill C-462 proposes to apply the same requirements to physicians as to third-party companies if physicians apply a fee for form completion, a typical practice for uninsured physician services. Such fees are subject to guidelines and oversight by provincial and territorial medical regulatory colleges (see Appendix 1: CMA Policy on Third Party Forms: The Physician Role).
The CMA recommends that the Finance Committee:
* Amend the definition of "promoters" under section 2 to exclude "a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment."
* If the committee imports the term "person" from the Income Tax Act, then the applicable section of Bill C-462 should be amended to specify that, for the purposes of the act, "Person does not include a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment."
Second, the CMA is concerned that one of the reasons individuals may be engaging the services of third-party companies is a lack of awareness of the purpose and benefits of the Disability Tax Credit. Additional efforts are required to ensure that the Disability Tax Credit form (Form T2201) be more informative and user-friendly for patients. Form T2201 should explain more clearly to patients the reason behind the tax credit, and explicitly indicate there is no need to use third-party companies to submit the claim to the CRA.
The CMA recommends that the Finance Committee:
* Recommend that the Canada Revenue Agency undertake additional efforts to ensure that the Disability Tax Credit form is more informative, accessible and user-friendly for patients.
Finally, the CMA recommends that a privacy assessment be undertaken before the bill moves forward in the legislative process. It appears that, as written, Bill C-462 would authorize the inter-departmental sharing of personal information. The CMA raises this issue for consideration because protecting the privacy of patient information is a key duty of a physician under the CMA Code of Ethics.
Part 3: Closing
The CMA encourages the Finance Committee to address these issues to ensure that Bill C-462 resolves existing problems with the Disability Tax Credit while not introducing new ones. The CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the Finance Committee's study of this bill and, with the amendments outlined herein, supports its passage.
Summary of Recommendations
The definition of "promoters" under section 2 of Bill C-462 should be amended to exclude "a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment."
If the Committee imports the definition of "persons" from the Income Tax Act, the applicable section of Bill C-462 should be amended to specify that, for the purposes of the act, "Person does not include a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment."
The Canada Revenue Agency should undertake additional efforts to ensure that the Disability Tax Credit form is informative, accessible and user-friendly.
Prior to advancing in the legislative process, Bill C-462 should undergo a privacy assessment.
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.
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.
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance discusses the important role of the federal government in ensuring Canada's health care system is cost-effective, accountable and accessible in order to support the country's economic advantage. As in other leading industrialized countries, the federal government has an important role in the effective allocation of health-related resources and the health outcomes of Canadians.
The purpose of this brief is to provide decision-makers with recommendations on areas within existing federal mandates in which the Government of Canada can contribute to advancing Health Care Transformation and improving the health of Canadians and the health care system - an issue Canadians consistently rank as their top concern. These recommendations focus on federal investment in a seniors care strategy, the social determinants of health and health sector innovation and productivity.
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation # 1
The CMA recommends that the Government of Canada collaborate with provincial, territorial and municipal governments to establish and invest in a pan-Canadian strategy for seniors care.
Recommendation # 2
The CMA recommends that funding for health infrastructure qualify under the next Building Canada Plan to support the construction, renovation and retrofitting of long-term care facilities.
Recommendation # 3
The CMA recommends that the Government of Canada invest $25 million per year over five years toward a pan-Canadian dementia strategy.
Recommendation # 4
The CMA recommends that the Government of Canada establish a Canada-wide injury prevention strategy to identify successful programs and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and resources that will enable them to be disseminated nationwide.
Recommendation # 5
In support of a pan-Canadian palliative care strategy, CMA recommends that the Government of Canada undertake research to identify successful programs and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and resources so that they can be replicated nationwide.
Recommendation # 6
The CMA recommends that the Government of Canada establish health as a required consideration in the Cabinet decision-making process.
Recommendation # 7
The CMA recommends that the federal government, in consultation with the provincial and territorial governments, health care providers, 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.
The CMA recommends that the Government of Canada establish and invest in a comprehensive strategy for improving the health of aboriginal peoples that involves a partnership among governments, non-governmental organizations, and First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities.
The CMA recommends that the federal government rescind changes made to the Interim Federal Health Program until appropriate consultation and program review occur.
As in other leading industrialized countries, the federal government has an important stewardship role in the effective allocation of health-related resources and health outcomes of Canadians; this is central to a productive workforce and a strong economy.
This brief provides tangible, actionable recommendations on how the federal government can contribute to transforming Canada's health care system and improving the health of Canadians. The focus is on three critical areas for federal investment: a senior's care strategy; the social determinants of health and health equity; and health sector innovation and productivity. The recommendations in these areas are aligned with the CMA's Health Care Transformation initiative, the principles of which have been endorsed by 134 organizations, representing millions of Canadians.1
1. Contributing to a National Seniors Care Strategy
Issue: Engagement and investment from the Government of Canada is essential to meet the increasing needs of Canada's aging population.
It is expected that by 2036, a quarter of Canada's population will be over the age of 65. The number of people in the oldest age group - the age group most likely to experience serious health problems - is expected to increase at an even faster rate: Statistics Canada predicts that in 2036 there will be 2.6 times as many people 80 years old or over as there are today. 2
Already, patients age 65 or older account for nearly half of Canada's health care spending (45% in 2009).3 Canada's governments are rightly concerned about how to provide sustainable, high-quality health care to all Canadians as the country's population ages. The Canadian public shares this concern. In an Ipsos Reid public opinion survey done for CMA in July 2013, 83% of respondents said they were concerned about their health care in their retirement years.
The CMA recommends the Government of Canada collaborate with provincial, territorial and municipal governments to establish and invest in a pan-Canadian strategy for seniors care.
As elaborated below, the CMA recommends that this strategy include adequate investment in long-term care, home care, as well as palliative and end-of-life care to ensure access to the continuum of care. In addition, there should be investment in programs to address age-related health risks of particular concern, notably dementia and injuries due to falls. These areas, including recommendations for immediate investment by the Government of Canada are discussed in greater detail below.
i) Ensure continuing care qualifies under the new Building Canada Plan4
Addressing the gap in long-term care residency options is a critical component of an integrated continuum of care strategy that provides for increased home and community supports. Communities across Canada face a common problem of a lack of resources to properly meet the housing and care needs of their seniors population. While the percentage of older Canadians who live in long-term care facilities is declining, as the aging of Canada's population accelerates, the demand for residential care will increase significantly.
The current wait times in the long-term care sector are contributing to the high number of alternate level of care patients (ALC) who occupy acute care beds; a major issue facing Canada's health care system. At more than 3 million ALC days, the high number of ALC patients in hospitals is a problem experienced across the country.5 Based on the difference between the average cost of care in hospital versus long-term care, if ALC patients were moved from hospital to long-term care this would save the health care system about $2.3 billion a year.
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 to reflect the greater shift to community-based services and supportive housing options being advanced at the provincial level. Based on these assumptions, over the five-year period ending in 2018, an estimated 29,693 additional beds will be required, representing a pan-Canadian investment of $7.98 billion.
It is evident that the existing and planned schedule of provincial projects will be unable to meet the estimated demand. Based on a review of provincial budgets, current capital investments already committed at the provincial level represent at least $861 million allocated over the next 10 years, representing approximately 3,200 new beds. The shortfall between our projected gap (29,693) and our calculation of provincial committed projects is 26,493 beds, at a cost of $7.1 billion.
The CMA recommends funding for health infrastructure qualify under the next Building Canada Plan to support the construction, renovation and retrofitting of long-term care facilities.
ii) Invest in 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. Our knowledge of how to prevent dementia is limited. We do not fully understand its causes and there is no known cure. People with dementia may live for years with the condition and will eventually need round-the-clock care. 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.
Given that the prevalence of dementia will unquestionably increase with the aging of Canada's population, the Alzheimer Society of Canada predicts that by 2040 the annual cost to the country will reach $293 billion. 6
The CMA recommends the Government of Canada invest $25 million per year over five years toward a pan-Canadian dementia strategy.
This $25 million investment would be distributed as follows:
- $10 million to support research on key aspects of dementia, including prevention, treatment options, and improving quality of life.
- $10 million in increased support for informal caregivers. This includes both financial support and programs to relieve the stress experienced by caregivers such as education, skill-building and provision of respite care and other support services.
- $5 million toward knowledge transfer, dissemination of best practices and education and training to support:
- an integrated system of care facilitated by effective co-ordination and case management
- a strengthened dementia workforce, which includes development of an adequate supply of specialists and improving diagnosis and treatment capabilities of all frontline health professionals.
iii) Establish an injury prevention strategy for Canada
Falls are the primary cause of injury among older Canadians; they account for 40% of admissions to nursing homes, 85% of injury-related hospitalizations and nearly 90% of all hip fractures. The Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that injuries among seniors cost Canada approximately $2 billion a year in direct health care costs.7 They are also a major contributor to alternate level of care patients in hospitals given the shortages in the home care, rehabilitation or long-term care sector.
Falls can be prevented, and a growing number of regional programs across Canada are identifying and modifying risk factors for falls in their client population specific to seniors.
The CMA recommends the Government of Canada establish a Canada-wide injury prevention strategy to identify successful programs and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and resources that will enable them to be disseminated nationwide.
iv) Support the expansion of palliative care in Canada
Experts believe that a palliative-care approach - when combined with treatment - leads to better outcomes by reducing the length of stay in hospitals and the number of deaths in acute care. In Canada, according to Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), only 16% to 30% of patients have access to hospice palliative and end-of-life services.8 These services tend to be delivered in institutional settings on a tertiary or intensive model; and like falls prevention programs, they tend to be delivered locally.
The CMA strongly supports an approach that integrates palliative care with chronic care in the community, earlier in the patient's condition. In support of a pan-Canadian palliative care strategy, CMA recommends that the Government of Canada undertake research to identify successful programs and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and resources so that they can be replicated nationwide.
2. Social Determinants of Health and Health Equity
Issue: Addressing the social and economic determinants of health is critical to ensuring improved health outcomes for Canadians.
Research suggests that 15% of population health is determined by biology and genetics, 10% by physical environments, 25% by the actions of the health care system, with 50% being determined by our social and economic environment.9 While a strong health care system is vital, changes to our health system alone will not be sufficient to improve health outcomes or reduce the disparities that currently exist in disease burden and health risks.
Addressing the social and economic determinants of health has an important role in ensuring the sustainability of the health care system. It is estimated that one in five dollars spent on health care in Canada can be attributed to socio-economic disparities. These are the avoidable health costs linked to issues such as poverty, poor housing, health illiteracy, and unemployment among others. In 2012 health care dollars, these potentially avoided costs represented $40 billion in public spending. 10
Many of these social and economic determinants fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government such as tax policy. The section below elaborates on how the federal government can contribute to addressing the social determinants of health and reduce health inequity.
i) Ensure healthy public policy
Recognizing that the social and economic determinants of health have an important role in the health of Canadians, the policy decision-making process across departments must include a consideration of health. This can be accomplished by establishing health as a required consideration in the Cabinet decision-making process to ensure that the health promoting aspects of policies and programs are strengthened while potential negative impacts can be avoided or mitigated. In short it will ensure healthy public policy.
Not only could health care costs be reduced, but ensuring healthy public policy has the potential to provide significant benefits for the Canadian economy. Healthier people lose fewer days of work and contribute to overall economic productivity.11
The CMA recommends the Government of Canada establish health as a required consideration in the Cabinet decision-making process.
ii) Address access to prescription pharmaceuticals
Universal access to prescription drugs is widely acknowledged as part of the "unfinished business" of Medicare in Canada. What exists today is a public-private mix of funding for prescription drugs. As of 2011, CIHI has estimated that 44% of prescription drug expenditures were public, 38% were paid for by private insurance and 18% were paid out of pocket.12 At present, Quebec is the only province to have universal prescription drug coverage for its residents, either through private insurance or a public plan, introduced in 1997.
Of serious concern, there is evidence of wide variability in levels of drug coverage across Canada. According to Statistics Canada, almost one in 10 (7.6%) of households spent greater than 3% of after tax income on prescription drugs in 2008. Across provinces, this ranged from 4.6% in Alberta and 4.7% in Ontario to 13.3% in PEI.13 Further, 10% of the Canadian respondents to the Commonwealth Fund's 2010 International Health Policy Survey said they had either not filled a prescription or skipped doses because of cost issues.14 Research conducted by Ipsos Reid in 2012 showed that almost one in five households (18%) does not have supplementary insurance coverage that would cover prescription drugs.15
Statistics Canada's 2011 Survey of Household spending clearly shows the burden on seniors and low-income Canadians. Households headed by a person aged 65 and older spent 50% more, on average, on prescription drugs when compared with all households.16 Those in the lowest income groups are three times less likely to fill needed prescriptions.17 This has consequences not only for their health but for the health care system as well. Individuals who are unable to manage treatable conditions often end up hospitalized at a great cost to the health care system.
The CMA recommends the federal government, in consultation with the provincial and territorial governments, health care providers, 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.
iii) Address health disparities experienced by First Nations, Métis and Inuit
During a cross-country town hall consultation in Winnipeg on Feb. 4, 2013, the CMA heard about the adverse effects of inequalities and disparities and their impact on the health and wellness of First Nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada. As elaborated below, the inequalities and disparities in the social determinants of health can have a significant impact on the health of the population.
First Nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada experience higher rates of chronic disease, addictions, mental illness and childhood abuse. The Health Council of Canada reports that the crude mortality rate for First Nations is higher and life expectancy lower than the Canadian average.18 In 2009, UNICEF reported that the infant mortality rate for First Nations on reserve was seven times higher than the national average.19 First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples suffer much higher rates of infectious and chronic diseases. Tuberculosis rates are six times higher in First Nations populations and 17 times higher in Inuit communities as compared to the rest of Canada.20 Diabetes rates are higher among First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples - 15.5% vs. just over 4.7% for the non-Aboriginal population,21 and First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities face higher rates of heart and circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, and mental health disorders.22
Housing is a key area of concern for First Nations, Métis and Inuit. It is estimated that there will be a backlog of 130,000 housing units in First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities between 2010 and 2031, with 44% of existing units needing significant repairs and 18% requiring complete replacement.23 This inadequate housing can lead to serious health problems. The quality of housing stock directly affects health through exposure to lead, mold and other toxins that are harmful to health. Action is needed to develop an appropriate housing strategy for Canada's First Nations, Métis and Inuit that includes consideration of expiring social housing arrangements on and off reserve.
Access to health care also plays a role in determining health. This can be a challenge for First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Many live in communities with limited access to health care services, sometimes having to travel hundreds of miles to access care.24 Additionally, there are jurisdictional challenges between federal and provincial delivery of health services. First Nations, Métis and Inuit living in Canada's urban centres also face significant barriers to accessing health care. Further, even when care is available it may not be culturally appropriate.
Utilizing the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program can be problematic for some First Nations. It is the CMA's understanding that funding constraints can lead to decreased quality of services, treatment delays or even in some cases denial of services. While the federal government has committed to continuing payments for the NIHB program the CMA is aware of concerns with current funding is inadequate to account for the growing native population, the addition of other beneficiaries, and the higher health care utilization as a result of the poor health status of many of Canada's First Nations.25
The CMA recommends the Government of Canada establish and invest in a comprehensive strategy for improving the health of First Nations, Metis and Inuit that involves a partnership among governments, non-governmental organizations, and Aboriginal communities.
iv) Restore coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program
The CMA, together with other medical, health and social organizations, have recommended that the changes to the Interim Federal Health Program be rescinded until appropriate consultation is undertaken. The purpose of this consultation would be to identify opportunities to achieve the Government of Canada's cost saving objectives while maintaining the scope of health care coverage for the program recipients. To date, this consultation has not occurred.
One of the primary rationales for the program changes was an estimated cost savings of $20 million per annum in health care costs covered by the federal government. As evident by the recent statements of provincial health ministers following the Oct. 3 Federal/ Provincial/ Territorial Health Ministers Meeting, these projected cost savings are not likely to be realized.
The CMA is concerned that the costs of the program have been downloaded on the provincial health systems, the charitable sector, and other public programs and organizations that provide the uninsured with benefits. Further, there has been significant confusion that has resulted in an increased administrative burden on the health sector following continual changes in this program.
The CMA recommends the federal government rescind changes made to the Interim Federal Health Program until appropriate consultation and program review occur.
3. Improving Health Care Productivity and Innovation
The CMA supports federal engagement to advance a health sector innovation and productivity framework, the purpose of which would be to support the introduction and expansion of innovation in health technology and processes of delivery to yield better health outcomes and productivity. As part of this framework, the CMA encourages federal focus on accountability measures and health information technology, as elaborated below.
i) Accountability mechanism to improve productivity and quality care
Despite the importance of the health care sector to Canada's economy and quality of life, it is generally agreed that in health care, Canada is no longer a strong performer relative to similar nations. For instance, OECD Health Data 2012 ranks Canada seventh highest of 34 member states in per capita health care spending, while Canada's health care system continues to rank below most of our comparator countries in terms of performance. 26 According to the latest forecast report by CIHI, public spending on health care was to surpass $200 billion in 2012.
According to the OECD, if the Canadian health sector was to become as efficient as the most efficient countries, we could save 2.5% of GDP in public expenditure by 2017.27 The need to improve system performance will only intensify as demand for health care services increases and the system is pressed to effectively manage the rising number of Canadians with chronic diseases.
While the provinces and territories have initiated steps to collaborate on the sharing of best practices in health care, federal leadership is necessary to address the overall performance of the health care system in Canada. This includes collaborating with the provinces and territories on the identification of pan-Canadian metrics that link health expenditures to nationally comparable health outcomes and system performance.
CIHI does develop and collect data on numerous health indicators and has developed a performance measurement framework with an initial set of indicators coming out in the near future. However, there is currently no pan-Canadian process to set targets and monitor outcomes and system performance, the purpose of which is to demonstrate accountability to Canadians, improve health outcomes and health sector performance.
The CMA recommends the federal government engage the provinces and territories in a collaborative process to identify pan-Canadian metrics and measurements that link health expenditures to nationally comparable health outcomes and system performance.
ii) Maximizing the value of Electronic Medical Records
The digitization of our health care system is central to quality, safety and the continuity of patient care for all Canadians. Canada continues to make progress in the adoption of health information technology (HIT). It is forecast that 70% of physicians will have an electronic medical record (EMR) system in place by 2014. Almost 90% of the most common radiology examinations and reports in Canada's acute care hospitals are now digital, up from approximately 38% only six years ago.
However, there is still a long way to go in order to share information more effectively among caregivers, enable patient access to clinical information, and optimize the use of these systems. Areas where progress has stalled include: specialist EMR needs, applied research, local interoperability, decision support tools, and analytical tools.
Stalled progress in these areas has meant Canadians are not benefiting at the point of care such as allowing comparisons between patients within a practice, comparing across practices, facilitating sentinel disease surveillance and a population health approach to primary care, and allowing patients to get consistent, more understandable information from their providers electronically through portals, emails and other e-routes.
As we look to the future - and in particular the next three years - there's a need to reframe the discussion from building HIT infrastructure to deriving benefits. To this end, investment is required to ensure that the efforts to date are fully utilized and support improved patient outcomes. A committee comprised of CMA and Provincial Territorial Medical Associations representatives considered this issue and developed recommendation for targeted investment in HIT; these are outlined below.
The CMA recommends the Government of Canada allocate $545 million as follows:
* $200 million to support an additional 10,000 physicians not covered by current programs.
* $200 million to support change management for EMR adoption.
* $10 million to support data migration (i.e. clinics have to move to new products).
* $100 million to support local interoperability solutions.
* $5 million to support the Standards Collaborative.
* $20 million to support research into HIT effectiveness.
* $5 million to support solutions for the integration of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
* $5 million for applied research on patient portal.
This additional investment would benefit patients, providers and governments through improved patient care and improved performance of health care systems. In addition, the appropriate use of health information technology will contribute toward a more effective health care system supporting Canada's economic competitiveness.
Working with the provinces and territories and health care providers in delivering better health care to all Canadians through enhancing productivity and innovation is a policy challenge requiring federal leadership and engagement.
The CMA believes the Government of Canada should act upon the recommendations included in this brief and collaborate with stakeholders to ultimately contribute to optimal health outcomes for Canadians, and health services that are delivered in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
1 For the latest update on the Principles to Guide Health Care Transformation, visit: www.cma.ca/cma-media-releases
2 Statistics Canada. Population projections for Canada, provinces and territories 2009 to 2036. June 2010. 91-520-X
3 CIHI. Health Care in Canada, 2011, 1.
4 CMA. The need for health infrastructure. Submission to the Minister of Infrastructure, March 1, 2013. www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Submissions/2013/Health-Infrastructure_en.pdf .
5 CIHI. 2012. Health Care in Canada, 2012: A focus on wait times.
6 Alzheimer Society of Canada. A New Way of Looking at Dementia in Canada. Based on a study conducted by RiskAnalytica. C. 2010
7 PHAC. The Safe Living Guide - A guide to home safety for seniors. 2005. Revised 2011.
8 CIHI. 2013. End-of-life hospital care for cancer patients.
9 Keon, Wilbert J. & Lucie Pépin (2008) Population Health Policy: Issues and Options. Available at: www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/392/soci/rep/rep10apr08-e.pdf
10 Public Health Agency of Canada (2004) Reducing Health Disparities-Roles of the Health Sector: Discussion Paper. Available at: publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/HP5-4-2005E.pdf
11 Munro, Daniel (2008) "Healthy People, Healthy Performance, Healthy Profits: The Case for Business Action on the Socio-Economic Determinants of Health." The Conference Board of Canada. Available at: www.conferenceboard.ca/Libraries/NETWORK_PUBLIC/dec2008_report_healthypeople.sflb
12 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2011. Ottawa.
13 Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 109-5012 - Household spending on prescription drugs as a percentage of after-tax income, Canada and provinces. www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir;jsessionid=4FF8F1A5D604C73873F71D9FDE6141C5. Accessed 12/10/12.
14 Commonwealth Fund. 2010 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey. www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Surveys/2010/IHP%202010%20Toplines.pdf Accessed 12/10/12.
15 Ipsos Reid. Supplementary health benefits research. www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Media_Release/2012/ CMA-Benefits-Research-Survey_en.pdf. Accessed 12/10/12.
16 Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 203-0026. Accessed 06/18/13.
17 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Available at: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf
18 Health Council of Canada, "The Health Status of Canada's First Nations, Métis And Inuit Peoples", 2005, online: http://healthcouncilcanada.ca.c9.previewyoursite.com/docs/papers/2005/BkgrdHealthyCdnsENG.pdf Accessed October 20, 2010.
19 National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health & UNICEF Canada "Leaving no child behind - national spotlight on health gap for Aboriginal children in Canada" 2009, online: www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/s_140.asp Accessed November 20, 2009
20 Health Council, supra note 34.
21 NWAC, 2009, supra note 39.
22 Canada, Health Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Aboriginal Health, (Ottawa: Health Canada), online: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/index-eng.php Accessed November 4, 2009
23 Assembly of First Nations (2013) Taking Action Together on Shared Priorities Towards a Fair and Prosperous Future: AFN Submission to the Council of the Federation. Available at: www.afn.ca/uploads/files/13-07-23_afn_submission_to_cof_2013.pdf
24 Bowen, S. Access to Health Services for Underserved Populations.
25 Assembly of First Nations (2011) Structural Transformation & Critical Investments in First Nations on the Path to Shared Prosperity. Pre-Budget Submission, 2011. Available at: www.afn.ca/uploads/files/2011-pre-budget-submission.pdf
26 OECD Health Data 2012 - www.oecd.org/health/healthgrowthinhealthspendinggrindstoahalt.htm
27 OECD, Economic Survey of Canada 2012. www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/economicsurveyofcanada2012.htm
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to present this brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health for consideration as part of its study on the government's role in addressing prescription drug abuse in Canada.
It is increasingly recognized that while prescription medication has an important role in health care, the misuse and abuse of controlled psychoactive prescription medications, notably opioids such as oxycodone, fentanyl and hydromorphone, is emerging as a significant public health and safety issue. The use of prescription opioids is on the rise, in Canada and internationally. Canada has the second highest per capita consumption of prescription opioids in the world, after the United States. The CMA is particularly concerned about the impact of prescription drug abuse and misuse on vulnerable populations; notably, seniors, youth and First Nations. We note, for example, that in 2011 opioids were reported as the third most common drug (after alcohol and marijuana) used by students in Ontario.
Controlled prescription medications are legal products intended for legitimate therapeutic purposes, such as pain management or palliative and end-of-life care. However, they may also be used for recreational purposes or to feed an addiction. Though many patients are prescribed controlled drugs to treat medical conditions, it is addiction which drives the drugs' illegal acquisition through means such as doctor-shopping, forging prescribers' signatures, or buying from street dealers or the Internet.
Canada's physicians are concerned about the abuse and misuse of prescription medication for a number of reasons. For one, physicians need to assess the condition of patients who request the medication, and consider whether the use is clinically indicated and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. This can be challenging as there is no objective test for assessing pain, and therefore the prescription of opioids rests to a great extent on mutual trust between the physician and the patient. For another, physicians may need to prescribe treatment for patients who become addicted to the medications. Finally, they are vulnerable to patients who forge their signatures or use other illegal means to obtain prescriptions, or who present with fraudulent symptoms, or plead or threaten when denied the drugs they have requested.
Canada's physicians believe that the misuse and abuse of prescription medication is a serious problem and because of its complexity, requires a complex and multifaceted solution. Therefore, the CMA makes the following recommendations to the Committee:
1) A National Strategy to Address the Abuse and Misuse of Prescription Medication
The CMA recommends that the federal government work with provincial/territorial governments and other stakeholders to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy to address the misuse and abuse of prescription medication in Canada.
The CMA has consistently recommended a comprehensive national strategy to address the problems of drug abuse in Canada, whether of illegal or prescription-based substances. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, in its report First Do No Harm: Responding to Canada's Prescription Drug Crisis, has offered nearly 60 recommendations toward the development of a strategy to combat misuse of prescription medications. The CMA believes that such a strategy should include:
a) Prevention: Existing community programs and social marketing campaigns to address prescription drug abuse are generally aimed at young recreational users. For example, since many such users report that they get drugs from their parents' or friends' medicine cabinets, many jurisdictions have implemented prescription "take-back" programs, and education campaigns to promote safe storage and disposal of medications. Prevention strategies aimed at other types of prescription drug abuse, and targeting other populations such as health care providers, are still required.
b) Treatment: Appropriate services for the treatment of addiction to prescription drugs are also a vital part of a national strategy. The CMA recommends that all partners work to improve and promote access to treatment programs - not only for treatment of addiction, such as pharmacological interventions, support and counselling, and withdrawal management, but also to treat and manage pain. In particular, the CMA recommends improving access to culturally appropriate treatment, counselling and withdrawal management programs in rural and remote areas, and for First Nations.
c) Consumer Protection: There are several ways in which consumer protection strategies may form part of a strategy. One is modifications to the drugs themselves. For example, opioid manufacturers have developed formulations of their products intended to minimize their abuse potential, such as "slow-release" formulations and other forms of tamper-proofing to reduce a drug's potential for abuse. CMA supports further investigation into abuse-deterrent technologies.
d) Surveillance and Research: Our knowledge of the extent of the prescription drug abuse problem in Canada, and the effectiveness of strategies proposed to combat it, is limited by a number of factors. These will be more specifically addressed later in this brief.
2) Strategies to Enhance Optimal Prescribing in Canada
The CMA recommends that governments at all levels work with prescribers and the public, industry and other stakeholders to develop and implement a nationwide strategy to support optimal prescribing and medication use in Canada.
In an ideal world, all patients would be prescribed the medications that have the most beneficial effect on their condition while doing the least possible harm. The CMA acknowledges that we have not yet achieved that ideal, but believes that optimal prescribing in Canada is a goal worth achieving. Our 2010 position statement "A Prescription for Optimal Prescribing" (Appendix A) recommends a national strategy to promote best practices in prescribing, and its recommendations can be applied to the specific situation of prescription drug abuse. Key elements of this strategy are:
* Relevant, objective and easily accessible information for prescribers, which can readily be incorporated into every day practice. This can include clinical decision-support tools for use at the point of care.
* Ongoing development and dissemination of clinical guidance in pain management. A Canadian practice guideline for use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain, prepared under the direction of the multi-stakeholder National Opioid Use Guideline Group (NOUGG), was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on June 15, 2010. A number of plans for dissemination of this guideline are under way, under the direction of the Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre at McMaster University. They include an online CME module, co-sponsored by the CMA, which is now being finalized by MDcme.ca, a professional education group based at Memorial University.
* Educational programs for prescribers in pain management and in the management of addictions. Both addiction treatment and pain management should be part of the educational curriculum in medical school and residency training as well as in continuing education. Educational programs could also provide prescribers with advice on how to recognize addiction in a patient, or on how to deal with fraudulent or aggressive patients.
* Ensuring that prescribers have access to expert advice if required. This could be achieved through such means as:
o Academic detailing programs, which use personalized one-on-one techniques to deliver impartial prescribing information to practitioners.
o Communities of practice and clinical support networks that link practitioners with experts in the field. Experts can not only provide clinical information, but can provide mentorship and personal advice on best practices.
3) Monitoring and Surveillance of Prescription Drug Abuse
The CMA recommends that all levels of government work with one another and health professional regulatory agencies to develop a pan-Canadian system of real-time prescription drug abuse monitoring and surveillance.
One of the challenges in dealing with prescription drug abuse is the incompleteness of our knowledge of the extent of the problem, or of the most effective ways to address it. This means that physicians do not have access in real time to the information they need, at the point of care. For example, except in Prince Edward Island, physicians do not have the ability to look up a patient's medical history to determine if he or she has received a prescription from another source.
Prescription monitoring programs exist in most provinces, but they vary in quality, in the nature of the information they require, and in the purpose for which data is collected. Some are administered by regulatory colleges, others by governments. The CMA recommends that national standards be developed for prescription monitoring programs, to ensure that all jurisdictions across Canada are collecting the same information in a standard way. Standardization of surveillance and monitoring systems can have a number of positive effects:
* It can help identify fraudulent attempts to obtain a prescription, such as an attempt to fill prescriptions from a number of different providers.
* It can help deter cross-provincial fraud.
* It can help professional regulatory bodies actively monitor and intervene, as needed, with practitioners suspected of over-prescribing or over-dispensing frequently-misused medications.
* Finally, it will help researchers gather consistent data to improve our knowledge of the problem, identify research priorities, and determine best practices to address crucial issues.
The CMA also recommends that this system be electronic and that it be compatible with electronic medical and pharmacy record systems, and with provincial pharmaceutical databases such as British Columbia's.
Provincial and territorial governments should work with the federal government and with health care providers to improve the standardization and sharing of information where appropriate. Prescription monitoring programs should be evaluated to ascertain their effectiveness in reducing misuse and abuse.
We are pleased that federal, provincial and territorial health ministries have expressed interest in working together on issues related to prescription drug abuse, and we hope that this will result in a coherent national system for monitoring and surveillance, and thus to improved knowledge about the nature of the problem and its most effective solutions.
In conclusion, the Canadian Medical Association reiterates the deep concern of Canada's physicians about prescription drug abuse and misuse in this country. We are committed to enhancing optimal prescribing and to working with governments to develop and implement a strong, coherent plan of action to address this pressing national problem.
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.
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to present this brief to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill C-462 Disability Tax Credit
Promoters Restrictions Act.
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.
The CMA is pleased that the House of Commons has made Bill C-462 a priority. This bill is
an important step toward addressing the unintended consequences that have emerged from
the Disability Tax Credit since 2005.
Part 2: Issues to be addressed
In 2005, the Disability Tax Credit was expanded to allow individuals to back-file for up to 10
years. While this was a welcome tax measure for individuals with disabilities, the CMA has
been urging the Canada Revenue Agency to address the numerous unintended consequences
that have emerged. Central among these has been the emergence of a “cottage industry” of
third-party companies engaged in a number of over-reaching tactics. The practices of these
companies have included aggressive promotional activities to seek and encourage individuals
to file the Disability Tax Credit. The primary driver behind these tactics is profit; some
companies are charging fees of up to 40 per cent of an individual’s refund when the tax
credit is approved.
Further to targeting a vulnerable population, these activities have yielded an increase in the
quantity of Disability Tax Credit forms in physician offices and contributed to red tape in the
health sector. In some cases, third parties have placed physicians in an adversarial position
with their patients. We are pleased that this bill attempts to address the concerns we have
The CMA supports Bill C-462 as a necessary measure to address the issues that have
emerged since the changes to the Disability Tax Credit in 2005. However, to avoid additional
unintended consequences, the CMA recommends that the Finance Committee address three
issues prior to advancing Bill C-462.
First, as currently written, Bill C-462 proposes to apply the same requirements to physicians
as to third-party companies if physicians apply a fee for form completion, a typical practice
for uninsured physician services. Such fees are subject to guidelines and oversight by
provincial and territorial medical regulatory colleges (see Appendix 1: CMA Policy on Third
Party Forms: The Physician Role).
The CMA recommends that the Finance Committee:
Amend the definition of “promoters” under section 2 to exclude “a health care
practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides
health care and treatment.”
If the committee imports the term “person” from the Income Tax Act, then the
applicable section of Bill C-462 should be amended to specify that, for the purposes
of the act, “Person does not include a health care practitioner duly licensed under the
applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment.”
Second, the CMA is concerned that one of the reasons individuals may be engaging the
services of third-party companies is a lack of awareness of the purpose and benefits of the
Disability Tax Credit. Additional efforts are required to ensure that the Disability Tax Credit
form (Form T2201) be more informative and user-friendly for patients. Form T2201 should
explain more clearly to patients the reason behind the tax credit, and explicitly indicate there
is no need to use third-party companies to submit the claim to the CRA.
The CMA recommends that the Finance Committee:
Recommend that the Canada Revenue Agency undertake additional efforts to ensure
that the Disability Tax Credit form is more informative, accessible and user-friendly for
Finally, the CMA recommends that a privacy assessment be undertaken before the bill moves
forward in the legislative process. It appears that, as written, Bill C-462 would authorize the
inter-departmental sharing of personal information. The CMA raises this issue for
consideration because protecting the privacy of patient information is a key duty of a
physician under the CMA Code of Ethics.
Part 3: Closing
The CMA encourages the Finance Committee to address these issues to ensure that Bill C-
462 resolves existing problems with the Disability Tax Credit while not introducing new ones.
The CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the Finance Committee’s study of
this bill and, with the amendments outlined herein, supports its passage.
Summary of Recommendations
The definition of “promoters” under section 2 of Bill C-462 should be amended to exclude “a
health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides
health care and treatment.”
If the Committee imports the definition of “persons” from the Income Tax Act, the applicable
section of Bill C-462 should be amended to specify that, for the purposes of the act, “Person
does not include a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory
authority who provides health care and treatment.”
The Canada Revenue Agency should undertake additional efforts to ensure that the Disability
Tax Credit form is informative, accessible and user-friendly.
Prior to advancing in the legislative process, Bill C-462 should undergo a privacy assessment.
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.