Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


143 records – page 1 of 8.

Streamlining patient flow from primary to specialty care: a critical requirement for improved access to specialty care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11299
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-10-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-10-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
When physicians believe their patients may require the expertise of another physician, effective, timely and informative communication between all physicians is essential to ensure appropriate use of specialty care services. The results of physician surveys indicate a lack of informative referral communication exists in Canada. Significant variation exists in referral request processes*. This is contributing to the poor access to specialty care that many patients are experiencing. Some of this variation is necessary, however, which means that a single, standardized solution to improve the entire referral and consultation process is not feasible. Nonetheless, while communication processes and information requirements for referral requests vary considerably, the communication and information needs in consultant responses is essentially the same for all referring physicians. Unfortunately, provision of this information is often lacking. This problem can be addressed through standard communication protocols because all referring physicians benefit from receiving the same types of information in response to referral requests; for example, acknowledgement of referral receipt or patient consult reports. Furthermore, when referrals are initiated, specific types of requests can benefit from standardization of communication methods and information requirements. Such activities are already underway in Canada in select areas. These successful initiatives, used together as complementary approaches to address the varying needs of referral requests, should be adopted throughout the country. Visit CMA's Referral and Consultation Process Toolbox1 for examples. Recognition, in the form of appropriate compensation, must also be given to the time spent preparing and analyzing referral requests as well as conducting consultations. Support for the use of information technology infrastructure, where available, will also facilitate efforts to streamline referral and consultation processes. It should be noted that, while the language of this policy statement has a focus on primary to specialty care referrals, the concepts and recommendations apply to referrals between all specialties. RECOMMENDATIONS * All stakeholders, especially physicians, but also, where appropriate, office assistants, nurses, other health care providers as well as patients, must be engaged in an early and meaningful way regarding any initiative that has a goal to improve referral or consultation processes. * There is no single best way to access specialist expertise; as a result, a combination of complementary initiatives (e.g., formal consultation systems, standardized referral processes with central intake systems and/or physician directories) should be implemented to reduce variation in the approaches that are used and to facilitate more timely access to specialty care for patients. * While acknowledging the referring physician's ability to interpret certain test results, the referral must be accompanied by appropriate information to allow the consulting specialist to fully assess the request, and the referring physician must be informed of what is "appropriate". * The referring physician (and family physician if different), as well as the patient, should be kept informed, in a timely fashion, of the status of the referral request, using standardized procedures, minimum information requirements and timelines. * Physician and/or physician practices should receive compensation and support in recognition of the time and effort undertaken to communicate appropriate information regarding referral requests as well as to conduct electronic or real-time consultations. Introduction When a physician decides that a patient requires the expertise of another specialist, the most appropriate next step can range from the specialist answering a question to assessing the need for a particular procedure or treatment. No matter how simple or complex the specialist's involvement may be, successful communication between all physicians is critical. Unfortunately, this does not occur as often as it should. In October 2012, a survey of physicians on the topic of referrals found that while over half of both family physicians (52%) and other specialists (69%) agree that referral communication is effective, two-thirds of family physicians noted that some kind of communication problem was a main source of frustration for them; for example not being informed about: referral receipt, the patient's appointment, a treatment plan, or that the specialist does not do the service requested. A similar proportion of specialists noted a lack of basic or supporting information (e.g., reason for referral or lab test results) as a main frustration with referral requests.2 The most appropriate method of communication differs depending on the degree of specialist involvement that is required. There are no standards about which method of communication is the most appropriate or effective, or what information is required, for each situation. Referral request processes† vary significantly; not only across specialties but among specialists within a particular specialty and even within a geographic region. Examples of this variation include: some consulting specialists will accept referrals only if the referring physician has used their specific referral form; others accept referrals using only one particular communication method (e.g., by fax); and others accept referrals on just one day each month. Such variation creates inefficiencies because referring physicians must familiarize themselves with each request process that is required by each consulting specialist. The range and quality of information provided in a referral request also varies considerably; for example, too little information (i.e. no reason for referral provided), insufficient information (i.e. out-of-date or a lack of lab or imaging tests), or to too much information (i.e. non-contributory family history). This lack of standardization is problematic. In this context, standardization means simplification rather than obligation. Standardized processes facilitate communications for referrals by removing ambiguities about which method is most appropriate for each situation. Communication methods and the types of information that are transferred between referring physicians and consulting specialists vary based on numerous factors, ranging from those beyond the control of physicians such as regulations and available technology, to those completely within their control such as their own individual preferences. An effective way to facilitate appropriate and timely access to specialty care that is within the control of the health care profession is to explore the rationale behind these varying communication and information preferences and address these variations by developing, with meaningful participation and approval from physicians and their administrative staff, standard processes for requesting a specialist referral and for communicating back to the referring physician. Some of the provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons have guidelines or standards of practice specifically about referrals and consultations. The most comprehensive of these are the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Nova Scotia's (CPSNS) Guidelines for Physicians Regarding Referral and Consultation3 and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta's (CPSA) Standard for Practice on The Referral Consultation Process.4 In addition, the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Royal College) developed collaboratively a guide to enhancing referrals and consultations between physicians.5 While these documents do not discuss which method of communication should be used for each referral request scenario, they do provide guidance in a number of areas, including: * minimum requirements for information that should be provided with all referral requests * information that should be conveyed to patients (e.g., why they are being referred, information about the specialist appointment, etc) as well as who should be providing this information * processes that should be followed for patients requiring ongoing care from the consulting physician While standardization of the minimum information requirements that should be included in communications between referring and consulting physicians is essential for finding efficiencies with referral processes, these efficiencies will not be fully realized without proper consideration of the information technology infrastructure that is used to convey this information. The way in which the information is provided should not require additional effort for either the sender or the receiver. Electronic referral systems, where all data necessary for an informative referral can be easily obtained by the appropriate physician from the patient's electronic health record, would be the best way to ensure that this occurs. However, until this becomes a reality, a suitable compromise can be found by allowing flexibility in the format in which the information is provided. Communication from Primary Care to Specialty Care When the extent of a specialist's involvement in patient care is simply providing a second opinion or advice about appropriate next steps, standardizing the process for this kind of communication is relatively straightforward. This is because the variation that exists in this situation is primarily due to the availability of the consulting specialist and the methods of communication that each referring physician can use to contact the specialist. Certain regions of the country have established consultation services whereby specialists participating in the program must respond to consult requests within a specified time frame. Examples of effective consultation systems include the telephone advice line known as Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise (RACE)6 in BC or the secure electronic consultation system known as Building Access to Specialist Care through e-Consultation (BASE)7 in the Champlain Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) in Ontario. Such services have proven quite effective at reducing the number of unnecessary referrals8,9; thereby ensuring more appropriate use of specialty care and helping to reduce wait times for this care. Through both of these systems, specialists ensure that they are available to respond to the consult question in a timely manner and each system uses only one form of communication. At the other end of the spectrum of specialist involvement in patient care, when the patient sees the specialist, there is a much greater degree of variation in what is required of the specialist - from one-time interventions such as surgical procedures, to chronic care. The best approach for streamlining the referral process in these more complex situations varies, depending on the type of specialist care that is required. Central Intake With central intake referral systems, the referring physician sends a referral request to one location. This central location can be organized in two ways; central triage or pooled referrals. With central triage, referrals are assigned to specialists based on their level of urgency. With pooled referrals, each referral is allocated to the next available specialist, who then does the triaging. The differences in where the triaging occurs exist due to a number of factors; including the type of care the specialty provides as well as the number of specialists in the geographic region. However, for both types of central intake systems, the referring physician follows a standard process regardless of the specialist who assumes care of the patient. Regardless of the type of central intake method that is used, the option to choose a particular specialist must always be available. However, even with this option in place, a central intake system of any kind is not necessarily the most appropriate solution for all specialties. This is often the case when ongoing patient-specialist relationships are quite common. For example, a woman might prefer that the same obstetrician cares for her during all of her pregnancies, or patients with chronic conditions such as arthritis or diabetes and require continuous care throughout their lifetime. In these situations, coordinating a central intake program where a significant proportion of specialist appointments are repeat visits is difficult. Physician Directory A physician directory might be a more useful referral tool in situations where specialties do not have sufficient numbers of specialists in one geographic region or for those that have a high degree of sub-specialization. Such directories provide, at a minimum, details of the services each specialist provides and does not provide. Those that provide information regarding wait times, especially those with information on the wait for the first specialist visit, are extremely useful for referring physicians as it allows them to select a specialist with the most appropriate wait time for their patient and, where relevant, it also allows the referring physician to develop an appropriate care plan based on the time the patient must wait for specialty care. Despite the fact that the complexities with specialty referrals mean that there is no one solution that is appropriate for all types of specialties, the extreme variation in processes that currently exists is also unnecessary. Standard referral information requirements for specialty groups with similar needs, such as most surgical specialties, have been effectively established in some areas of the country. For example, in Calgary, Alberta, a major initiative known as Medical Access to Service10, has, among other things, successfully developed a standard referral form and process for central intake for multiple specialties. While most of these specialties also request additional information, each specialty has agreed on a standard set of minimum requirements. These standards were developed collaboratively with physicians and could be expanded nationwide, while taking regulatory and technological differences into account. When establishing the requirements for an informative referral, consulting specialists must acknowledge that the referring physician may not have the expertise necessary to appropriately interpret certain test results. In such cases it is the consulting specialists who should order these tests. Communication from Specialty Care to Primary Care What must not be overlooked is that referral communication is bilateral. Informative and timely communication from the consulting specialist to the referring physician is also critical for a successful referral. Such a referral can be defined as one where the patient receives appropriate and timely specialty care where all parties - patient, specialist(s), referring physician and family physician (when the referring physician is not the patient's family physician) - are aware of all of the patient's relevant interactions with the health care system as well as any follow-up care that may be required. To ensure this occurs, after the referral request is initiated, the referring physician (and family physician if different) should be informed, in a timely manner, of the status of the referral at all stages: * referral receipt * request for more information * referral acceptance/rejection (with explanation and suggested alternatives) * patient appointment has been scheduled * patient consult notes (including recommended treatment plan and follow-up) A definition of what is considered "timely" is required. Standards must be established based on what is considered to be an acceptable response time at each stage. The patient must also be promptly informed of the status of the referral request throughout the entire process. Examples of the types of information that should be conveyed include (where appropriate): * how the referral request will be processed; e.g., pooled referral or central triage * expected wait time or when the appointment has been scheduled * whether another specialist has been contacted * whether a repeat visit is required * whether the patient has been contacted about anything that is relevant to them; e.g., referred elsewhere, wait time, appointment(s) scheduled The information and communication that the referring physician requires from the consulting specialist for all referrals is much more homogeneous. In addition, there are no regulatory or technological barriers preventing the provision of this information at the appropriate stages of the referral process. This is one area where communication between physicians is within their control. Therefore, improved communication for responses to referral requests through standardized processes can be much more easily established. Unfortunately this is not the case, causing considerable effort to be undertaken by referring physicians and/or their office staff to track the status of referrals. Considerably less attention has been given to this part of the process; however, some activities described in the CMA's Referral and Consultation Process Toolbox1 do address problems regarding the referral response. Central Intake systems are an example. These often include standard response times for at least the first three stages noted above, as well as information about the specialist who has received the referral request. The previously cited guidelines developed by the CPSNS 3, the standard of practice by the CPSA4 and the guide to enhancing referrals and consultations between physicians developed by the CFPC and the Royal College5 also have recommendations for consulting specialist responses to referral requests (including information requirements and timelines). These resources can be used as a starting point for establishing referral communication standards in both directions and with patients. As an important example, the guidelines for both provincial colleges specifically indicate that the consulting specialist is responsible for arranging appointments with the patient and notifying the referring physician of the date(s). Compensation and Support Another aspect of the referral process that is not given sufficient consideration is the time and effort that is involved in preparing and responding to a referral request. Both preparing an informative referral request and responding to one is time-consuming; very little recognition is given towards this work. In some areas of the country, physicians receive compensation for participating in electronic or telephone consultation programs. This form of recognition has successfully helped avoid unnecessary referrals and should be expanded nation-wide; however, much more should be done to acknowledge this effort, especially when a specialist visit is necessary. The time referring physicians spend gathering the necessary data for a referral request, or the time consulting specialists spend analyzing this data, triaging the referrals accordingly and preparing patient consult notes, is almost never acknowledged as part of a physician compensation package. In most jurisdictions this work is considered to be just a component of a typical patient visit. Since many primary care group practices employ administrative staff who are "referral coordinators"; whose main role is to assist physicians in the data gathering and preparation that is required for an informative referral request, as well as following up on referral requests; the process of referring a patient to specialty care is much more than "just a component of a typical patient visit". Support for widespread implementation of effective information technology infrastructure can facilitate the preparation of appropriate referral requests and responses and can also encourage timely and informative communication between referring physicians and consulting specialists. Conclusion The high degree of variability in both the methods of communication and the information transferred between physicians is a significant barrier to timely access to specialty care for patients. Significant effort by physicians and their office staff is expended unnecessarily in the referral process, not only in initiating or responding to the request, but also in tracking and follow-up. While there is no single solution that will address all referral communication problems, several complementary solutions exist that can reduce this variability and wasted effort, thereby simplifying the process and facilitating appropriate, timely and informative communication between referring physicians and consulting specialists. Examples of such initiatives can be found in the CMA's Referral and Consultation Process Toolbox.1 * For the purposes of this policy statement, this term applies to all situations where another physician is contacted regarding patient care. † For the purposes of this policy statement, this term applies to all situations where another physician is contacted regarding patient care. References 1 Canadian Medical Association. Referral/Consultation Process. Available at: http://www.cma.ca/referrals. Accessed 29 Nov 2013. 2 Canadian Medical Association. Challenges with patient referrals - a survey of family physicians and other specialists; October 2012 (Unpublished). 3 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia. Guidelines for Physicians Regarding Referral and Consultation. Available at: http://www.cpsns.ns.ca/Portals/0/Guidelines-policies/guidelines-referral-consultation.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2013. 4 College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta. The Referral Consultation Process. Available at: http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/Libraries/standards-of-practice/the-referral-consultation-process.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed 16 Sep 2014. 5 College of Family Physicians of Canada, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Guide to enhancing referrals and consultations between physicians. Available at: http://www.cfpc.ca/ProjectAssets/Templates/Resource.aspx?id=3448. Accessed 27 Nov 2013. 6 Rapid Access to Specialist Expertise. Available at: www.raceconnect.ca. Accessed 27 Nov 2013. 7 Liddy C, Rowan MS, Afkham A, Maranger J, Keely E. Building access to specialist care through e-consultation. Open Med. 2013 Jan 8;7(1):e1-8. Available at: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/551/492. Accessed 27 Nov 2013. 8 Wilson M. Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise: An innovative model for shared care. Available at: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/RACE-Overview-March-2014.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2014. 9Afkham A. Champlain BASE project: Building Access to Specialists Through e-Consultation. Available at: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Champlain-BASE-Dec2013-e.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2014. 10 Alberta Health Services, University of Calgary Department of Medicine. Medical Access to Service (MAS). Available at: http://www.departmentofmedicine.com/MAS/ Accessed 15 Nov 2013.
Documents
Less detail

Early childhood development

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11476
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Adult health is pre-determined in many ways in early childhood and even by events occurring before birth. The years between conception and the start of school are the time when crucial developments in physical, social, cognitive, emotional and language domains take place. Disruptions during this period can lead to weakened physiological responses, influence brain architecture, and influence how the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular and other systems are developed.1,2 Experiences in early life can even 'get under the skin', changing the ways that certain genes are expressed.3,4 Negative experiences such as poverty or family or parental violence can have significant impacts on this important period of development. Even for those children who don't encounter these types of barriers, there can be problems in the early years. Evidence suggests that adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin in early life.5 Just as children are susceptible to negative influences in early life, the period of rapid development means that effective interventions can minimize or eliminate these outcomes. Intervening in the early years has been shown to have the potential to impact developmental trajectories and protect children from risk factors that are present in their daily environments.6 At the government and national level there are four main areas of action: Early childhood learning and care; Support for parents; Poverty reduction; and Data collection for early childhood development. The CMA Recommends that: 1. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, implement a national early learning and care program that ensures all children have equal access to high quality child care and early learning. 2. The federal government commit to increasing funding for early childhood development to 1% of GDP to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries. 3. Programs such as early childhood home visiting be made available to all vulnerable families in Canada. 4. Governments support the expansion of community resources for parents which provide parenting programs and family supports. 5. A national strategy to decrease family violence and the maltreatment of children, including appropriate community resources, be developed and implemented in all provinces and territories. 6. The federal government work with provinces and territories to adopt a national strategy to eradicate child poverty in Canada with clear accountability and measurable targets. 7. Provinces and territories implement comprehensive poverty reduction strategies with clear accountability and measurable targets. 8. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a robust and unified reporting system on early childhood to ensure that proper monitoring of trends and interventions can take place. 9. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to continue to implement the early development index in all jurisdictions. In addition, work should be supported on similar tools for 18 months and middle childhood. 10. The federal government support the development of a pan-Canadian platform that can share evidence and best practice, and focus research questions around the early years. While most of what is necessary for early childhood development will be done by governments and stakeholders outside of the health care system, there are opportunities for physicians to influence this important social determinant both through medical education, and clinical practice. The CMA Recommends that: 11. Curriculum on early brain, biological development and early learning be incorporated into all Canadian medical schools. 12. Continuing CME on early brain, biological development and early learning be available to all primary-care providers who are responsible for the health care of children. 13. All provinces and territories implement an enhanced 18 month well-baby visit with appropriate compensation and community supports. 14. Physicians and other primary care providers integrate the enhanced 18 month visit into their regular clinical practice. 15. Comprehensive resources be developed for primary-care providers to identify community supports and services to facilitate referral for parents and children. 16. Efforts be made to ensure timely access to resources and programs for children who have identified developmental needs. 17. Physicians serve as advocates on issues related to early childhood development. They should use their knowledge, expertise and influence to speak out on the need and importance of healthy development in the early years. 18. Physicians continue to include literacy promotion in routine clinical encounters with children of all ages. 19. National Medical Associations work with governments and the non-profit sector to explore the development of a clinically based child literacy program for Canada. Background Adult health is pre-determined in many ways in early childhood and even by events occurring before birth. The years between conception and the start of school are the time when crucial developments in physical, social, cognitive, emotional and language domains take place. The early childhood period is the most important development period in life.7 Disruptions during this period can lead to weakened physiological responses, influence brain architecture, and influence how the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular and other systems are developed.8,9 Experiences in early life can even 'get under the skin', changing the ways that certain genes are expressed.10,11 According to research done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the adverse childhood event (ACE)a study, child maltreatment, neglect, and exposure to violence can significantly impact childhood development. The study involved a retrospective look at the early childhood experiences of 17,000 US adults and the impact of these events on later life and behaviour issues. An increased number of ACEs was linked to increases in risky behaviour in childhood and adolescence12 and to a number of adult health conditions including alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, obesity, heart disease, and some forms of cancer.13,14 The greater the number of adverse experiences in childhood the greater the likelihood of health problems in adulthood.15 A high level of ACEs was linked to language, cognitive and emotional impairment; factors which impact on school success and adult functioning.16 Finally, the study found a correlation between experiencing ACEs, suicide, and being the victim of or perpetrating intimate partner violence.17 Poverty is a significant barrier to healthy child development. Children who grow up in poor families or disadvantaged communities are especially susceptible to the physiological and biological changes associated with disease risk.18 Poverty is associated with a number of risk factors for healthy development including: unsupportive parenting, inadequate nutrition and education, high levels of traumatic and stressful events19, including higher rates of traumatic injuries20, poorer housing, lack of services, and limited access to physical activity.21 Children from low-income families score lower than children from high-income families on various measures of school readiness, cognitive development and school achievement22,23, and this gap increases over time with children of low-income families being less likely to attend post-secondary education and gain meaningful employment.24 Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults25,26 and to pass this disadvantage on to their own children.27,28 Children living in poverty have more problem behaviours such as drug abuse, early pregnancy, and increased criminal behaviour.29 Finally, economic hardship in childhood has been linked to premature mortality and chronic disease in adulthood.30 Early adverse events and poverty are serious impediments to healthy development, however, it is not just disadvantaged children that need attention. The early years are critical for all children regardless of socio-economic status. Evidence suggests that adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin in early life.31 By 2030, 90% of morbidity in high income countries will be related to chronic diseases.32 These diseases are due in large part to risk factors such as smoking, poor nutrition, alcohol and drug abuse, and inadequate physical activity.33 These risk factors can be heavily influenced by the environment in which people live and can be increased by poor early childhood experiences.34,35 Health promotion and disease/injury prevention programs targeted at adults would be more effective if investments were made early in life on the origins of those diseases and conditions.36,37 Areas for Action While there is reason for concern regarding early childhood development, there is positive news as well. Just as children are susceptible to negative influences in early life, the period of rapid development also means that effective interventions can minimize or eliminate these outcomes. Intervening in the early years has been shown to have the potential to impact developmental trajectories and protect children from risk factors that are present in their daily environments.38 Government and National: Early Childhood Learning and Care Research suggests that 90% of a child's brain capacity is developed by age five, before many children have any access to formal education.39 More than one quarter of Canadian children start kindergarten vulnerable in at least one area of development.40 Approximately two thirds of these deficiencies can be considered preventable. Evidence suggests that each 1% of excess vulnerability in school readiness leads to a reduction in GDP of 1% over the course of that child's life.41 Children who aren't ready for kindergarten are half as likely to read by the third grade, a factor that increases the risk of high school drop-out significantly. 42 While it is possible to intervene later to address these learning deficiencies, these interventions are less effective and much more costly.43 High quality early childhood programs including programs to nurture and stimulate children and educate parents are highly correlated with the amelioration of the effects of disadvantage on cognitive, emotional and physical development among children.44,45 A recent analysis of 84 preschool programs in the United States concluded that children participating in effective pre-school programs can acquire about a third of a year of additional learning in math, language and reading skills.46 Since the implementation of the universal childcare program in Quebec, students in that province have moved from below the national average on standardized tests to above the average.47 In addition, effective early childhood learning programs offer a significant return on investment. Research done on US preschool programs found a return on investment of between four and seventeen dollars for every dollar spent on the program. Evidence from the Quebec universal child care program indicates that the program costs are more than covered by the increased tax revenues generated as a result of increased employment among Quebec mothers. For every dollar spent on the Quebec program, $1.05 is received by the provincial government with the federal government receiving $0.44.48 In terms of early childhood learning and care, Canada is lagging far behind - tied for last place among 25 countries in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) early childhood development indicators.b,49 Canada spends the least amount of money on early childhood learning and care of all countries in the OECD (0.25% of GDP)50, or one quarter of the recommended benchmark. Of this money, fully 65% is attributable to Quebec's universal daycare program.51 Canadian families face great pressures in finding affordable and accessible quality early childhood learning and care spots across the country. In Quebec 69% of children 2-4 regularly attend early childhood learning programs; outside of Quebec the number falls to 38.6%. The challenges for low-income families are even more pronounced with almost 65% of poor children 0-5 receiving no out-of home care.52 The federal government and the provinces and territories must work to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries on early childhood learning and care. The CMA Recommends that: 1. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, implement a national early learning and care program that ensures all children have equal access to high quality child care and early learning. 2. The federal government commit to increasing funding for early childhood development to 1% of GDP to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries. Support for Parents A supportive nurturing caregiver is associated with better physical and mental health, fewer behavioural problems, higher educational achievement, more productive employment, and less involvement with the justice system and social services.53 Studies have demonstrated that improved parental-child relationships can minimize the effects of strong, prolonged and frequent stress, referred to as toxic stress54,55, and that the effects of poverty can be minimized with appropriate nurturing and supportive parenting.56 Parental support programs can act as a buffer for children at the same time as strengthening the ability of parents to meet their children's developmental needs.57 Caregivers who struggle with problems such as depression or poverty may be unable to provide adequate attention to their children undermining the attachment relationships that develop in early life. The relatively limited attention that is focused on addressing the deficiencies in time and resources of parents across all socio-economic groups can undermine healthy childhood development.58 One approach that has been shown to improve parental functioning and decrease neglect and child abuse is early childhood home visiting programs, sometimes referred to as Nurse Family partnerships. These programs provide nursing visits to vulnerable young mothers from conception until the children are between two and six depending on the program. The home visits provide prenatal support, educate parents about early childhood development, promote positive parenting, connect parents with resources, and monitor for signs of child-abuse and neglect.59 Results from several randomized controlled trials of these programs in the United States have shown that the program reduces abuse and injury, and improves cognitive and social and emotional outcomes in children. A 15 year follow-up study found lower levels of crime and antisocial behaviour in both the mothers and the children that participated in these programs.60 In Canada Nurse Family Partnerships were first piloted in Hamilton, Ontario. They are now undergoing a broader implementation and review in the Province of British Columbia. These programs should continue to be supported and expanded to all families who would benefit from this proven early childhood intervention. Many Canadian provinces have established community resources for parents. Alberta has recently announced plans to establish parent link centres across the province. These will deliver parenting programs, and be home to community resources and programs.61 Similar programs exist in other provinces such as the early years centres in Ontario62, and family resource centres in Manitoba.63 Early Childhood Development Centres in Atlantic Canada are combining child care, kindergarten and family supports into early childhood centres that are aligned with schools.64 While these programs can go a long way in reducing abuse and neglect, there is still a need for an overarching strategy to reduce neglect and child abuse across the country. As the ACE study in the United States clearly demonstrated, exposure to early adverse events such as family violence or neglect have troubling implications for adult health and behaviours.65 Action must be taken to ensure that avoidable adverse events are eliminated. The CMA Recommends that: 3. Programs such as early childhood home visiting be made available to all vulnerable families in Canada. 4. Governments support the expansion of community resources for parents which provide parenting programs and family supports. 5. A national strategy to decrease family violence and the maltreatment of children, including appropriate community resources, be developed and implemented in all provinces and territories. Poverty reduction In 1989 the Canadian government made a commitment to end child poverty by 2000. As of 2011, more Canadian children and their families lived in poverty than when the original declaration was made.66 Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries with more than one in seven children living in poverty (15.1%).67 Canada is one of the only wealthy nations with a child poverty rate that is actually higher than the overall poverty rate.68 Child poverty is a provincial and territorial responsibility as well. As of 2012, only four provinces had child poverty strategies that met the guidelines put forward by the Canadian Paediatric Society.c,69 Poor children grow up in the context of poor families which means that solutions for child poverty must necessarily minimize the poverty of their parents.70 Efforts to increase the income as well as employment opportunities for parents, in particular single parents, must be part of any poverty reduction strategy.71 Programs, such as affordable child care, that allows parents to be active participants in the work force represent one approach72,73 Quebec's program of early childhood care has increased female workforce participation by 70,000 and reduced the child poverty rate by 50%.74 Addressing poverty could minimize problem areas in child development. According to a 2009 report by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, of 27 factors seen as having an impact on child development, 80% of these showed improvement as family income increased.75 Increasing income has the greatest impact on cognitive outcomes for children the earlier in life the reduction in poverty takes place.76 The federal government and the provinces and territories must work to ensure that poverty does not continue to be a barrier to the healthy development of Canadian children. The CMA Recommends that: 6. The federal government work with provinces and territories to adopt a national strategy to eradicate child poverty in Canada with clear accountability and measurable targets. 7. Provinces and territories implement comprehensive poverty reduction strategies with clear accountability and measurable targets. Data Collection for Early Childhood Development The evidence shows the importance of early childhood development for later success and health. In order to properly design effective interventions to mitigate developmental concerns, there is a need for appropriate data on early childhood health indicators and interventions. Given the variation in outcomes of children among different communities and demographic groups, there is a need for individual level data which is linked to the community level. This will allow providers and governments to develop appropriate interventions. Such an approach is being used by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, the Human Early Learning Partnership in British Columbia, and Health Data Nova Scotia. Researchers at these centres are creating a longitudinal data set by linking administrative data from a range of sources.77 Such data sets should be supported in all provinces and territories. Another tool being used to measure the progress of Canadian children is the Early Development Instrument (EDI). This tool is a 104 item checklist completed by teachers for every child around the middle of the first year of schooling. The checklist measures five core areas of early child development that are known to be good predictors of adult health, education and social outcomes. These include: physical health and well-being; language and cognitive development; social competence; emotional maturity; and communication skills and general knowledge.78,79 This tool has been used at least once in most of the provinces and territories with a commitment from most jurisdictions to continue this monitoring.80 While this is a good start, it gives only a snapshot of development. Ideally a monitoring system plots several points of time in development to identify trajectories of children. Ontario has introduced an enhanced well baby visit at 18 months. This clinical intervention could allow for the capture of development data at an earlier time. There is a need for more comprehensive information at the 18-month and middle childhood phases.81 The CMA Recommends that: 8. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a robust and unified reporting system on early childhood to ensure that proper monitoring of trends and interventions can take place. 9. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to continue to implement the early development index in all jurisdictions. In addition, work should be supported on similar tools for 18 months and middle childhood. 10. The federal government support the development of a pan-Canadian platform that can share evidence and best practice, and focus research questions around the early years. Medical Education: Given the importance of early childhood experiences on adult health there is a need for a greater understanding of the biological basis of adult diseases. The medical community needs to focus more attention on the roots of adult diseases and disabilities and focus prevention efforts on disrupting or minimizing these early links to later poor health outcomes.82 The science of early brain development and biology is rapidly evolving. There is a need to ensure that future and current physicians are up to date on this information and its implications for clinical practice.83 The Association of Faculties of Medicine and the Norlien foundation have partnered to provide funding and support for a series of e-learning tools on early brain and biological development.84 Continuing medical education does exist for some components of early childhood development and more work is underway. The Ontario College of Family Physicians has developed a CME that explores early childhood development for practitioners.85 These initiatives must be supported and expanded to all physicians who provide primary care to children and their families. The CMA Recommends that: 11. Curriculum on early brain, biological development and early learning be incorporated into all Canadian medical schools. 12. Continuing CME on early brain, biological development and early learning be available to all primary-care providers who are responsible for the health care of children. Clinical Practice: While many of the threats to early childhood development lie outside of the hospital or medical clinic, there are a number of ways that physicians can help to address this important determinant of health within their practices. Primary care practitioners are uniquely qualified to address this fundamental population health issue,86 and can provide one important component in a multi-sectoral approach to healthy early childhood development.87 Screening and support for parents The health care system is the primary contact for many child-bearing mothers, and for many families, health-care providers are the only professionals with whom they have regular contact during the early years.88,89 According to data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 97% of Ontario children aged zero to two are seen by a family physician.90 Within a patient-centred medical home, health-care providers can give support and information to parents about issues such as parenting, safety, and nutrition, and can link them to early childhood resourcesd, and other supports such as housing and food security programs. 91,92 Primary-care providers can help patients connect with public health departments who have many healthy baby and healthy child programs.93 Primary-care providers can ensure that screening takes place to identify risk factors to appropriate development.94 This screening should take place as early as the prenatal stage and continue throughout childhood. Screening should include regular assessments of physical milestones such as height, weight and vision and hearing etc. In addition, providers can identify risk factors such as maternal depression, substance abuse, and potential neglect or abuse.95 Given the negative consequences of early violence and neglect on childhood development96, this is a key role for primary-care providers. Screening for social issues such as poverty, poor housing and food insecurity should also be completed.97 A significant time for screening occurs at 18 months. This is the time for the last set of immunizations and in many cases the last time a child will have a regularly scheduled physician visit before the start of school.98 The 18 month well baby visit provides an opportunity to screen for not only medical concerns but child development as well. The enhanced 18 month well baby visite developed in Ontario combines parental observations and clinical judgment to screen for any risks a child might have.99 In Ontario, parental observation is captured through the Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS). The parents complete this standardized tool and report the results to their physicians or other primary-care providers. The NDDS checklist is not meant to be a diagnostic tool but instead helps to highlight any potential areas of concern while also providing information to parents about childhood development. The 'activities for your child' section which accompanies the tool can also help reinforce the importance of development.100 As part of the visit primary-care providers fill out a standardized tool known as the Rourke Baby Record. This tool is an evidence based guide which helps professionals deliver the enhanced visit. This combined with the parental report through the NDDS, allows for a complete picture of the physical as well as the development health of the child at 18 months. Primary-care providers can use the results to discuss parenting and development and link children to specialized services, as necessary, and other community supports and resources. In Ontario early child development and parenting resource system pathways have been developed in many communities to help ensure that primary care providers can be aware of the resources and supports available for their patients.101 As was already noted, almost two thirds of vulnerabilities in readiness for school can be prevented.102 Appropriate identification through screening is a first step in correcting these issues. While the expansion of this approach is currently being reviewed in Nova Scotia, it should be implemented in all provinces and territories with appropriate compensation mechanisms and community based supports. Additionally, consideration should be made to developing screening tools for physicians outside of primary care, ie. emergency departments, who see children who might not have regular primary care physicians. The CMA Recommends that: 13. All provinces and territories implement an enhanced 18 month well-baby visit with appropriate compensation and community supports. 14. Physicians and other primary care providers integrate the enhanced 18 month visit into their regular clinical practice. 15. Comprehensive resources be developed for primary-care providers to identify community supports and services to facilitate referral for parents and children. 16. Efforts be made to ensure timely access to resources and programs for children who have identified developmental needs. 17. Physicians serve as advocates on issues related to early childhood development. They should use their knowledge, expertise and influence to speak out on the need and importance of healthy development in the early years. Literacy By 18 months disparities in language acquisition begin to develop.103 According to US research, by age four, children of families on welfare will hear 30 million less words than children from families with professional parents.104 This can lead to ongoing disparities in childhood learning as evidence suggests that exposure to reading and language from parents is fundamental for success in reading by children.105 Physicians and other primary-care providers can play a role in helping to reduce these disparities. They can encourage reading, speaking, singing and telling stories as part of a daily routine.f Studies have demonstrated that when physicians discuss literacy with parents and provide them with appropriate resources, such as developmentally appropriate children's books, increases in reading frequency and preschool language scores have been found.106 One program which has integrated reading and literacy into clinical practice is the 'Reach out and Read' program in the United States. This program partners with physicians, paediatricians, and nurse practitioners to provide new developmentally appropriate books to children ages 6 months through 5 years, as well as guidance for parents about the importance of reading.107,108 The success of this program has been significant with parents in the program being four to ten times more likely to read frequently with their children, and children scoring much higher on receptive and expressive language scores on standardized tests.109 Given the success of this program for American children, a similar program should be explored in the Canadian context. The CMA Recommends that: 18. Physicians continue to include literacy promotion in routine clinical encounters with children of all ages. 19. National Medical Associations work with governments and the non-profit sector to explore the development of a clinically based child literacy program for Canada. Conclusion The early years represent the most important time of development. The first five years can 'get under the skin' and influence outcomes throughout the life course. Negative experiences such as poverty, violence, poor nutrition, and inadequate parenting can determine behaviours as well as adult health outcomes. Effective early interventions can help to minimize or capitalize on these experiences. Government actions and supports to reduce poverty, child abuse, violence and to enable parents to care for their children are necessary. In addition, appropriate high quality early childhood learning and care programs are required for all Canadians regardless of socio-economic status. Finally, health care providers can play a role in identifying children at risk, supporting their parents to encourage healthy childhood development, and advocating for communities that ensure all Canadian children have the opportunity to grow up happy and healthy. References a The adverse childhood events are: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, mother treated violently, household substance abuse, household mental illness, parental separation or divorce, incarcerated household member. http://www.cdc.gov/ace/prevalence.htm#ACED b The indicators used for the comparison include: Parental leave of one year with 50% of salary; a national plan with priority for disadvantaged children; subsidized and regulated child care services for 25% of children under 3; subsidized and accredited early education services for 80% of 4 year-olds; 80% of all child care staff trained; 50% of staff in accredited early education services tertiary educated with relevant qualification (this is the only indicator that Canada met); minimum staff-to-children ratio of 1:15 in pre-school education; 1.0% of GDP spent on early childhood services; child poverty rate less than 10%; near-universal outreach of essential child health services. UNICEF (2008) The child care transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries. Available at: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc8_eng.pdf c To meet the CPS guidelines a province/territory requires anti-poverty legislation promoting long-term action and government accountability for at least three years, and has a poverty reduction strategy with specific targets. d For a list of some of the resources available for early childhood development across the country please see the Canadian Paediatric Society Resource Page: http://www.cps.ca/en/first-debut/map/community-resources e For more detailed information on the enhanced 18 month well baby visit please see the Canadian Paediatric Society Position statement- Williams R & J Clinton. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa, ON; 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (Accessed 2014 Jan 24). For resources available to Ontario primary-care providers please visit: http://machealth.ca/programs/18-month/default.aspx f For information and resources on early literacy please see the Canadian Paediatric Society at: http://www.cps.ca/issues-questions/literacy 1 Williams R et.al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21) 2 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 3 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 4 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 5 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 6 Hutchison P Chair. Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age. New Zealand House of Representatives. Wellington (NZ); 2013. Available: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 3). 7 World Health Organization. Closing the Health Equity Gap: Policy options and opportunities for action. Geneva, Switzerland; 2013. Available: http://www.paho.org/equity/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=103&Itemid (accessed 2013 Dec 20) 8 Williams R et al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21) 9 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 10 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 11 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 12 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 13 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 14 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 15 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 16 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 17 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 18 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 19 Luby J et al. The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. JAMA Pediatr. Published online October 28, 2013. 20 Oliver LN, Kohen DE. Neighbourhood variation in hospitalization for un intentional injury among children and teenagers. Health Rep 2010;21(4):9-17 21 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 22 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 23 Cooper K & Stewart K. Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London(UK); 2013. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 20). 24 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 25 APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. A Strategic Road-Map: Committed to Bringing the Voice of Pediatricians to the Most Important Problem Facing Children in the US Today. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village (IL); 2013. Available: http://www.academicpeds.org/public_policy/pdf/APA_Task_Force_Strategic_Road_Mapver3.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 9). 26 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 27 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 28 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 29 Dreyer BP. To Create a Better World for Children and Families: The Case for Ending Childhood Poverty. Acad. Pediat. Vol 13 No 2. Mar-Apr 2013. Available: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1876-2859/PIIS1876285913000065.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 10). 30 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 31 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 32 Bygbjerg IC. Double Burden of Noncommunicable and Infectious Diseases in Developing Countries. Science Vol.337 21 September 2012 pp.1499-1501. Available: http://health-equity.pitt.edu/3994/1/Double_Burden_of_Noncommunicable_and_Infectious_Diseases.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 11). 33 World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Non-Communicable diseases 2010. Chapter 1: Burden: mortality, morbidity and risk factors. Geneva, Switzerland; 2010. Available: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_chapter1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 11). 34 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 35 Dreyer BP. To Create a Better World for Children and Families: The Case for Ending Childhood Poverty. Acad. Pediat. Vol 13 No 2. Mar-Apr 2013. Available: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1876-2859/PIIS1876285913000065.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 10). 36 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 37 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 38 Hutchison P Chair. Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age. New Zealand House of Representatives. Wellington (NZ); 2013. Available: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 3). 39 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 40 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 41 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 42 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 43 Heckman JJ. The Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children. Available: http://heckmanequation.org/content/resource/case-investing-disadvantaged-young-children (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 44 Braveman P, Egerter D & Williams DR. The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annu Rev Publ Health. 32:3.1-3.18. 2011. 45 European Union. Commission Recommendation of 20.2.2013: Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Brussels (Belgium); 2013. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 24). 46 Yoshikawa H et al. Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Society for Research in Child Development & Foundation for Child Development. New York (NY); 2013. Available: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 47 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 48 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 49 Mikkonen J, Raphael D. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Toronto (ON); 2010. Available: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf (accessed 2012 Jan 24). 50 Denburg A, Daneman D. The Link between Social Inequality and Child Health Outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly Vol. 14 Oct 2010. 51 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 52 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 53 Shonkoff JP et.al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 54 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 55 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 56 Luby J et al. The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. JAMA Pediatr. Published online October 28, 2013. 57 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 58 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 59 Knoke D. Early childhood home visiting programs. Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being. Toronto(ON); 2009. Available: http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/HomeVisiting73E.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 7). 60 Mercy JA, Saul J. Creating a Healthier Future Through Early Interventions for Children. JAMA June 3, 2009 Vol 301, No.21. 61 Government of Alberta. Alberta improves supports for families. Edmonton(AB); 2014. Available: http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=356434F454042-9B0A-23FD-4AD0402F87D70805 (accessed 2014 Jan 7). 62 Ontario Ministry of Education. Ontario Early Years Centres: Frequently asked questions. Toronto (ON):N.D. Available: http://www.oeyc.edu.gov.on.ca/questions/index.aspx (accessed 2015 Jan 30). 63 Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet. Starting Early, Starting Strong: Manitoba's Early Childhood Development Framework. Government of Manitoba, Winnipeg (MB); 2013. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/cyo/pdfs/sess_ECD_framework.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 64 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 65 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 66 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 67 Conference Board of Canada. Child Poverty. Ottawa (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx (accessed 2013 Jun 20). 68 Canadian Paediatric Society. Are We Doing Enough? A status report on Canadian public policy and child and youth health. 2012 edition. Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/advocacy/StatusReport2012.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 14). 69 Ibid. 70 APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. A Strategic Road-Map: Committed to Bringing the Voice of Pediatricians to the Most Important Problem Facing Children in the US Today. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village (IL); 2013. Available: http://www.academicpeds.org/public_policy/pdf/APA_Task_Force_Strategic_Road_Mapver3.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 9). 71 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 72 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 73 Fauth B, Renton Z & Solomon E. Tackling child poverty and promoting children's well-being: lessons from abroad. National Children's Bureau. London (UK); 2013. Available: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/892335/tackling_child_poverty_1302013_final.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 74 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 75 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 76 Cooper K & Stewart K. Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London(UK); 2013. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 20). 77 Hertzman C, Clinton J, Lynk A. Measuring in support of early childhood development. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/early-childhood-development (accessed 2014 Feb 25). 78 Human Early Learning Partnership. Early Development Instrument. N.D. Available: http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/edi/ (accessed 2014 Oct 8). 79 Adamson P. Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview: Innocenti Report Card 11. UNICEF, Florrence, Italy; 2013. Available: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 80 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://firstwords.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Early-Years-Study-3.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 81 Hertzman C, Clinton J, Lynk A. Measuring in support of early childhood development. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/early-childhood-development (accessed 2014 Feb 25). 82 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 83 Garner AS et al. Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health. Pediatrics 2012;129;e224. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2662.full.pdf+html (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 84 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 85 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 86 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 87 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 88 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 89 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 90 The Minister of Children and Youth announces that every child will receive and enhanced 18-month visit: Family Physicians Play Key Roles in Healthy Child Development. Toronto(ON). Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/cme/enhanced-18-month-well-baby-visit-key-messages-for-family-physicians.pdf?sfvrsn=1 (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 91 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 92 Garg A, Jack B, Zuckerman B. Addressing the Social Determinants of Health Within the Patient-Centred Medical Home. JAMA. May 15, 2013 Vol. 309 No.19. 93 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 94 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 95 Williams R et al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21). 96 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 97 Garg A, Jack B, Zuckerman B. Addressing the Social Determinants of Health Within the Patient-Centred Medical Home. JAMA. May 15, 2013 Vol. 309 No.19. 98 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 99 Canadian Paediatric Society. Are We Doing Enough? A status report on Canadian public policy and child and youth health. 2012 edition. Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/advocacy/StatusReport2012.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 14). 100 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 101 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 102 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 103 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 104 Denburg A, Daneman D. The Link between Social Inequality and Child Health Outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly Vol. 14 Oct 2010. 105 Shaw A. Read, speak, sing: Promoting literacy in the physician's office. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2006. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/read-speak-sing-promoting-literacy (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 106 Ibid. 107 Reach out and Read. Reach Out And Read: The Evidence. Boston (MA); 2013. Available: https://www.reachoutandread.org/FileRepository/Research_Summary.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 108 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 109 Shaw A. Read, speak, sing: Promoting literacy in the physician's office. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2006. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/read-speak-sing-promoting-literacy (accessed 2014 Feb 10).
Documents
Less detail

Appropriateness in health care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11516
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
CMA POLICY Appropriateness in Health Care Summary This paper discusses the concept of appropriateness in health care and advances the following definition: The Canadian Medical Association adopts the following definition for appropriateness in health care: It is the right care, provided by the right providers, to the right patient, in the right place, at the right time, resulting in optimal quality care. Building on that definition it makes the following policy recommendations: * Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop a comprehensive framework by which to assess the appropriateness of health care. * Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop robust educational products on appropriateness in health care and to disseminate evidence-informed strategies for necessary changes in care processes. * Provinces and territories should work with providers to put in place incentives to decrease the provision of marginally useful or unnecessary care. Introduction As health systems struggle with the issue of sustainability and evidence that the quality of care is often sub-optimal, increasing attention is focused on the concept of appropriateness. A World Health Organization study published in 2000 described appropriateness as "a complex, fuzzy issue"1. Yet if the term is to be applied with benefit to health care systems, it demands definitional clarity. This policy document presents the Canadian Medical Association definition of appropriateness which addresses both quality and value. The roots of the definition are anchored in the evolution of Canadian health care over the last two decades. The document then considers the many issues confronting the operationalization of the term. It concludes that appropriateness can play a central role in positive health system transformation. Definition At the Canadian Medical Association General Council in 2013 the following resolution was adopted: The Canadian Medical Association adopts the following definition for appropriateness in health care: It is the right care, provided by the right providers, to the right patient, in the right place, at the right time, resulting in optimal quality care. This definition has five key components: * right care is based on evidence for effectiveness and efficacy in the clinical literature and covers not only use but failure to use; * right provider is based on ensuring the provider's scope of practice adequately meets but does not far exceed the skills and knowledge to deliver the care; * right patient acknowledges that care choices must be matched to individual patient characteristics and preferences and must recognize the potential challenge of reconciling patient and practitioner perceptions; * right venue emphasizes that some settings are better suited in terms of safety and efficiency to delivering a specific type of care than others; * right time indicates care is delivered in a timely manner consistent with agreed upon bench marks. It is essential to appreciate that the "right cost" is a consequence of providing the right care, that it is an outcome rather than an input. In other words, if all five components above are present, high quality care will have been delivered with the appropriate use of resources, that is, at the right cost. Equally, however, it should be cautioned that right cost may not necessarily be the affordable cost. For example, a new drug or imaging technology may offer small but demonstrable advantages over older practices, but at an enormous increase in cost. Some might argue that right care includes the use of the newer drug or technology, while others would contend the excessive opportunity costs must be taken into consideration such that the older practices remain the right care. An Evolving Canadian Perspective from 1996 to 2013 In a pioneering paper from 1996 Lavis and Anderson wrote: ...there are two distinct types of appropriateness: appropriateness of a service and appropriateness of the setting in which care is provided. The differences between the two parallel the differences between two other concepts in health care: effectiveness and cost-containment...An appropriate service is one that is expected to do more good than harm for a patient with a given indication...The appropriateness of the setting in which care is provided is related to cost effectiveness2. This very serviceable definition moved beyond a narrow clinical conception based solely on the therapeutic impact of an intervention on a patient, to broader contextual consideration focused on venue. Thus, for example, the care provided appropriately in a home-care setting might not be at all appropriate if given in a tertiary care hospital. Significantly, the authors added this important observation: "Setting is a proxy measure of the resources used to provide care"2. This sentence is an invitation to expand the original Lavis and Anderson definition to encompass other resources and inputs identified over the ensuing decades. Three elements are especially important. Timeliness became an issue in Canadian health care just as the Lavis and Anderson paper appeared. In 1997 almost two-thirds of polled Canadians felt surgical wait times were excessive, up from just over half of respondents a year earlier3. By 2004 concern with wait times was sufficiently pervasive that when the federal government and the provinces concluded the First Ministers' Agreement, it included obligations to provide timely access to cancer care, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration4. These rapid developments indicate that timeliness was now considered an essential element in determining the appropriateness of care. A second theme that became prominent in health care over the last two decades was the concept of patient-centredness. When the Canadian Medical Association released its widely endorsed Health Care Transformation in Canada in 2010, the first principle for reform was building a culture of patient-centred care. Succinctly put, this meant that "health care services are provided in a manner that works best for patients"5. To begin the process of operationalizing this concept CMA proposed a Charter for Patient-centred Care. Organized across seven domains, it included the importance of: allowing patients to participate fully in decisions about their care; respecting confidentiality of health records; and ensuring care provided is safe and appropriate. This sweeping vision underscores the fact that care which is not matched to the individual patient cannot be considered appropriate care. A third significant development over the last two decades was heightened awareness of the importance of scopes of practice. This awareness arose in part from the emphasis placed on a team approach in newer models of primary care6, but also from the emergence of new professions such as physician assistants, and the expansion of scopes of practice for other professionals such as pharmacists7. As the same health care activity could increasingly be done by a wider range of health professionals, ensuring the best match between competence required and the service provided became an essential element to consider when defining appropriateness. Under-qualified practitioners could not deliver quality care, while overly-qualified providers were a poor use of scarce resources. To summarize, as a recent scoping review suggested, for a complete conceptualization of appropriateness in 2013 it is necessary to add the right time, right patient and right provider to the previously articulated right care and right setting8. Why Appropriateness Matters The most frequent argument used to justify policy attention to appropriateness is health system cost. There is a wealth of evidence that inappropriate care - avoidable hospitalizations, for example, or alternative level of care patients in acute care beds - is wide spread in Canada9; eliminating this waste is critical to system sustainability. In Saskatchewan, for example, Regina and Saskatoon contracted in 2011 with private clinics to provide a list of 34 surgical procedures. Not only were wait times reduced, but costs were 26% lower in the surgical clinics than in hospitals for doing the same procedures10. There is, however, an equally important issue pointing to the importance of ensuring appropriate care: sub-optimal health care quality. In the United States, for example, a study evaluated performance on 439 quality indicators for 30 acute and chronic conditions. Patients received 54.9% of recommended care, ranging from a high of 78.7% for senile cataracts to 10.5% for alcohol dependence11. A more recent Australian study used 522 quality indicators to assess care for 22 common conditions. Patients received clinically appropriate care in 57% of encounters, with a range from 90% for coronary artery disease to 13% for alcohol dependence12. While no comparable comprehensive data exist for Canada, it is unlikely the practices in our system depart significantly from peer nations. Focusing on appropriateness of care, then, is justified by both fiscal and quality concerns. Methodology: the Challenge of Identifying Appropriateness While there is a clear need to address appropriateness - in all its dimensions - the methods by which to assess the appropriateness of care are limited and, to date, have largely focused on the clinical aspect. The most frequently used approach is the Rand/University of California Los Angeles (Rand) method. It provides panels of experts with relevant literature about a particular practice and facilitates iterative discussion and ranking of the possible indications for using the practice. Practices are labeled appropriate, equivocal or inappropriate13. A systematic review in 2012 found that for use on surgical procedures the method had good test-retest reliability, interpanel reliability and construct validity14. However, the method has been criticized for other short-comings: panels in different countries may reach different conclusions when reviewing the same evidence; validity can only be tested against instruments such as clinical practice guidelines that themselves may have a large expert opinion component2; Rand appropriateness ratings apply to an "average" patient, which cannot account for differences across individuals; and, finally, Rand ratings focus on appropriateness when a service is provided but does not encompass underuse, that is, failure to provide a service that would have been appropriate9. The Rand method, while not perfect, is the most rigorous approach to determining clinical appropriateness yet devised. It has recently been suggested that a method based on extensive literature review can identify potentially ineffective or harmful practices; when applied to almost 6000 items in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, 156 were identified that may be inappropriate15. This method also presents challenges. For example, the authors of a study using Cochrane reviews to identify low-value practices note that the low-value label resulted mainly from a lack of randomized evidence for effectiveness16. Assessing the appropriateness of care setting has focused almost exclusively on hospitals. Some diagnoses are known to be manageable in a community setting by primary care or specialty clinics. The rate of admissions for these ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) - which fell from 459 per 100,000 population in 2001-02 to 320 per 100,00 in 2008-09 - is one way of gauging the appropriateness of the hospital as a care venue9. A second measure is the number of hospital patients who do not require either initial or prolonged treatment in an acute care setting. Proprietorial instruments such as the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP)17or the InterQual Intensity of Service, Severity of Illness and Discharge Screen for Acute Care (ISD-AC)18 have been used to assess the appropriateness of hospital care for individual patients. While these instruments have been applied to Canadian hospital data19,20, there is a lack of consensus in the literature as to the reliability and utility of such tools21-23. Benchmarks exist for appropriate wait times for some types of care in Canada through the work of the Wait Time Alliance4. These include: chronic pain, cancer care, cardiac care, digestive health care, emergency rooms, joint replacement, nuclear medicine, radiology, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatric surgery, plastic surgery, psychiatric illness, and sight restoration. The recommendations are based on evidence-informed expert opinion. The other two domains of appropriateness - right patient, right provider - as yet have no objective tools by which to assess appropriateness. Barriers Determining appropriateness demands a complex and time-consuming approach, and its operationalization faces a number of barriers. The availability of some health care services may be subject to political influence which will over-ride appropriateness criteria. For example, recommendations to close smaller hospitals deemed to be redundant or inefficient may not be implemented for political reasons. Patient expectations can challenge evidence-based appropriateness criteria. In a primary care setting, for instance, it may be difficult to persuade a patient with an ankle sprain that an x-ray is unlikely to be helpful. The insistence by the patient is compounded by an awareness of potential legal liability in the event that clinical judgment subsequently proves incorrect. Choosing Wisely Canada recommends physicians and patients become comfortable with evidence-informed conversations about potentially necessary care24. Traditional clinical roles are difficult to revise in order to ensure that care is provided by the most appropriate health professional. This is especially true if existing funding silos are not realigned to reflect the desired change in practice patterns. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even if agreed upon appropriateness criteria are developed, holding practitioners accountable for their application in clinical practice is extremely difficult due to data issues25. Chart audits could be conducted to determine whether appropriateness criteria were met when specific practices were deployed, but this is not feasible on a large scale. Rates of use of some practices could be compared among peers from administrative data; however, variation in practice population might legitimately sustain practice variation. For diagnostic procedures it has been suggested that the percentage of negative results is an indicator of inappropriate use; however, most administrative claim databases would not include positive or negative test result data26. This data deficit must be addressed with health departments and regional health authorities. Important Caveats There are several additional constraints on the use of the concept by health system managers. First, the vast majority of practices have never been subject to the Rand or any other appropriateness assessment. Even for surgical procedures clinical appropriateness criteria exist for only 10 of the top 25 most common inpatient procedures and for 6 of the top 15 ambulatory procedures in the United States. Most studies are more than 5 years old27. Second, while the notion is perhaps appealing to policy makers, it is incorrect to assume that high use of a practice equates with misuse: when high-use areas are compared to low use areas, the proportion of inappropriate use has consistently been shown to be no greater in the high-use regions28,29. Finally, it is uncertain how large a saving can be realized from eliminating problematic clinical care. For example, a US study modeling the implementation of recommendations for primary care found that while a switch to preferentially prescribing generic drugs would save considerable resources, most of the other items on the list of questionable activities "are not major contributors to health care costs"30. What is important to emphasize is that even if dollars are not saved, by reducing inappropriate care better value will be realized for each dollar spent. Policy Recommendations These methodological and other challenges31 notwithstanding, the Canadian Medical Association puts forward the following recommendations for operationalizing the concept of appropriateness and of clinical practice. 1. Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop a comprehensive framework by which to assess the appropriateness of health care. Jurisdictions should develop a framework32 for identifying potentially inappropriate care, including under-use. This involves selecting criteria by which to identify and prioritize candidates for assessment; developing and applying a robust assessment methodology; and creating mechanisms to disseminate and apply the results. Frameworks must also include meaningful consideration of care venue, timeliness, patient preferences and provider scope of practice. International examples exist for some aspects of this exercise and should be adapted to jurisdictional circumstances. Necessarily, a framework will demand the collection of supporting data in a manner consistent with the following 2013 General Council resolution: The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of data on health care delivery and patient outcomes to help the medical profession develop an appropriateness framework and associated accountability standards provided that patient and physician confidentiality is maintained. 2. Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop robust educational products on appropriateness in health care and to disseminate evidence-informed strategies for necessary changes in care processes. Both trainees and practicing physicians should have access to education and guidance on the topic of appropriateness and on practices that are misused, under-used, or over-used. Appropriately designed continuing education has been shown to alter physician practice. Point of care guidance via the electronic medical record offers a further opportunity to alert clinicians to practices that should or should not be done in the course of a patient encounter33. An initiative co-led by the Canadian Medical Association that is designed to educate the profession about the inappropriate over use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is Choosing Wisely Canada. The goal is to enhance quality of care and only secondarily to reduce unnecessary expenditures. It is an initiative consistent with the intent of two resolutions from the 2013 General Council: The Canadian Medical Association will form a collaborative working group to develop specialty-specific lists of clinical tests/interventions and procedures for which benefits have generally not been shown to exceed the risks. The Canadian Medical Association believes that fiscal benefits and cost savings of exercises in accountability and appropriateness in clinical care are a by-product rather than the primary focus of these exercises. 3. Provinces and territories should work with providers to put in place incentives to decrease the provision of marginally useful or unnecessary care. Practitioners should be provided with incentives to eliminate inappropriate care. These incentives may be financial - delisting marginal activities or providing bonuses for achieving utilization targets for appropriate but under-used care. Any notional savings could also be flagged for reinvestment in the health system, for example, to enhance access. Giving physicians the capacity to participate in audit and feedback on their use of marginal practices in comparison to peers generally creates a personal incentive to avoid outlier status. Public reporting by group or institution may also move practice towards the mean30. In any such undertakings to address quality or costs through changes in practice behaviour it is essential that the medical profession play a key role. This critical point was captured in a 2013 General Council resolution: The Canadian Medical Association will advocate for adequate physician input in the selection of evidence used to address costs and quality related to clinical practice variation. Conclusion When appropriateness is defined solely in terms of assessing the clinical benefit of care activities it can provide a plausible rational for "disinvestment in" or "delisting of" individual diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. However, such a narrow conceptualization of appropriateness cannot ensure that high quality care is provided with the optimal use of resources. To be truly useful in promoting quality and value appropriateness must be understood to mean the right care, provided by the right provider, to the right patient, in the right venue, at the right time. Achieving these five components of health care will not be without significant challenges, beginning with definitions and moving on to complex discussions on methods of measurement. Indeed, it may prove an aspirational goal rather than a completely attainable reality. But if every encounter in the health system - a hospitalization, a visit to a primary care provider, an admission to home care - attempted to meet or approximate each of the five criteria for appropriateness, a major step towards optimal care and value will have been achieved across the continuum. Viewed in this way, appropriateness has the capacity to become an extraordinarily useful organizing concept for positive health care transformation in Canada. Approved by CMA Board on December 06, 2014 References 1. World Health Organization. Appropriateness in Health Care Services, Report on a WHO Workshop. Copenhagen: WHO; 2000. 2. Lavis JN, Anderson GM. Appropriateness in health care delivery: definitions, measurement and policy implications. CMAJ. 1996;154(3):321-8. 3. Sanmartin C, Shortt SE, Barer ML, Sheps S, Lewis S, McDonald PW. Waiting for medical services in Canada: lots of heat, but little light. CMAJ. 2000;162(9):1305-10. 4. Wait Time Alliance. Working to Improve Wait Times Across Canada. Toronto: Wait Time Alliance; 2014. Available: http://www.waittimealliance.ca. (accessed April 18, 2013) 5. Canadian Medical Association. Health Care Transformation in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2010. 6. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Policy: Achieving Patient-centred Collaborative Care. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2008. 7. Maxwell-Alleyne A, Farber A. Pharmacists' expanded scope of practice: Professional obligations for physicians and pharmacists working collaboratively. Ont Med Rev. 2013;80(4):17-9. 8. Sanmartin C, Murphy K, Choptain N, et al. Appropriateness of healthcare interventions: concepts and scoping of the published literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(3)342-9. 9. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada 2010. Ottawa: CIHI; 2010. 10. MacKinnon J. Health Care Reform from the Cradle of Medicare. Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute; 2013. 11. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. NEJM. 2003;348(26):2635-45. 12. Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust. 2012;197(2):100-5. 13. Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53-63. 14. Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ko CY, Shekelle PG. The appropriateness method has acceptable reliability and validity for assessing overuse and underuse of surgical procedures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1133-43. 15. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012;197(10):556-60. 16. Garner S, Docherty M, Somner J, et al. Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):6-12. 17. Gertman PM, Restuccia JD. The appropriateness evaluation protocol: a technique for assessing unnecessary days of hospital care. Med Care. 1981;19(8):855-71. 18. Mitus AJ. The birth of InterQual: evidence-based decision support criteria that helped change healthcare. Prof Case Manag. 2008;13(4):228-33. 19. DeCoster C, Roos NP, Carriere KC, Peterson S. Inappropriate hospital use by patients receiving care for medical conditions: targeting utilization review. CMAJ. 1997;157(7):889-96. 20. Flintoft VF, Williams JI, Williams RC, Basinski AS, Blackstien-Hirsch P, Naylor CD. The need for acute, subacute and nonacute care at 105 general hospital sites in Ontario. Joint Policy and Planning Committee Non-Acute Hospitalization Project Working Group. CMAJ . 1998;158(10):1289-96. 21. Kalant N, Berlinguet M, Diodati JG, Dragatakis L, Marcotte F. How valid are utilization review tools in assessing appropriate use of acute care beds? CMAJ. 2000;162(13):1809-13. 22. McDonagh MS, Smith DH, Goddard M. Measuring appropriate use of acute beds. A systematic review of methods and results. Health policy. 2000;53(3):157-84. 23. Vetter N. Inappropriately delayed discharge from hospital: what do we know? BMJ. 2003;326(7395):927-8. 24. Choosing Wisely Canada. Recent News. Ottawa: Choosing Wisely Canada; 2015. Available: www.choosingwiselycanada.org. (accessed Dec 2014) 25. Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519. 26. Baker DW, Qaseem A, Reynolds PP, Gardner LA, Schneider EC. Design and use of performance measures to decrease low-value services and achieve cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(1):55-9. 27. Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ingraham AM, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Appropriateness criteria to assess variations in surgical procedure use in the United States. Arch Surg. 2011;146(12):1433-40. 28. Chassin MR, Kosecoff J, Park RE, et al. Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. JAMA. 1987;258(18):2533-7. 29. Keyhani S, Falk R, Bishop T, Howell E, Korenstein D. The relationship between geographic variations and overuse of healthcare services: a systematic review. Med care. 2012;50(3):257-61. 30. Kale MS, Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. "Top 5" lists top $5 billion. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(20):1856-8. 31. Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23. 32. Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, Karnon J, Merlin TL, Hiller JE. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190(5):269-73. 33. Shortt S GM, Gorbet S. Making medical practice safer: the role of public policy. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2010;22(3):159-68.
Documents
Less detail

Guiding principles for the optimal use of data analytics by physicians at the point of care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11812
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2016-02-27
Topics
Health information and e-health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2016-02-27
Topics
Health information and e-health
Text
Electronic tools are now being used more widely in medicine than ever before. A majority of physicians in Canada have adopted electronic medical records (EMRs)-75% of physicians use EMRs to enter or retrieve clinical patient notes, and 80% use electronic tools to access laboratory/diagnostic test results. The increased use of point-of-care tools and information repositories has resulted in the mass digitization and storage of clinical information, which provides opportunities for the use of big data analytics. Big data analytics may come to be understood as the process of examining clinical data in EMRs cross-referenced with other administrative, demographic and behavioural data sources to reveal determinants of patient health and patterns in clinical practice. Its increased use may provide opportunities to develop and enhance clinical practice tools and to improve health outcomes at both point-of-care and population levels. However, given the nature of EMR use in Canada, these opportunities may be restricted to primary care practice at this time. Physicians play a central role in finding the right balance between leveraging the advantages of big data analytics and protecting patient privacy. Guiding Principles for the Optimal Use of Data Analytics by Physicians at the Point of Care outlines basic considerations for the use of big data analytics services and highlights key considerations when responding to requests for access to EMR data, including the following: * Why will data analytics be used? Will the safety and effectiveness of patient care be enhanced? Will the results be used to inform public health measures? * What are the responsibilities of physicians to respect and protect patient and physician information, provide appropriate information during consent conversations, and review data sharing agreements and consult with EMR vendors to understand how data will be used? As physicians will encounter big data analytics in a number of ways, this document also outlines the characteristics one should be looking for when assessing the safety and effectiveness of big data analytics services: * protection of privacy * clear and detailed data sharing agreement * physician-owned and -led data collaboratives * endorsement by a professional or recognized association, medical society or health care organization * scope of services and functionality/appropriateness of data While this guidance is not a standalone document-it should be used as a supplemental reference to provincial privacy legislation-it is hoped that it can aid physicians to identify suitable big data analytics services and derive benefits from them. Introduction This document outlines basic considerations for the use of big data analytics services at the point of care or for research approved by a research ethics board. This includes considerations when responding to requests for access to data in electronic medical records (EMRs). These guiding principles build on the policies of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on Data Sharing Agreements: Principles for Electronic Medical Records/Electronic Health Records,1 Principles Concerning Physician Information2 and Principles for the Protection of Patients' Personal Health Information,3 the 2011 clinical vignettes Disclosing Personal Health Information to Third Parties4 and Need to Know and Circle of Care,5 and the Canadian Medical Protective Association's The Impact of Big Data on Healthcare and Medical Practice.6 These guiding principles are for information and reference only and should not be construed as legal or financial advice, nor is this document a substitute for legal or other professional advice. Physicians must always comply with all legislation that applies to big data analytics, including privacy legislation. Big data analytics in the clinical context involves the collection, use and potential disclosure of patient and physician information, both of which could be considered sensitive personal information under privacy legislation. Big data analytics has the potential to improve health outcomes, both at the point of care and at a population level. Doctors have a key role to play in finding the right balance between leveraging the advantages of big data (enhanced care, service delivery and resource management) and protecting patient privacy.7 Background A majority of physicians in Canada have adopted EMRs in their practice. The percentage of physicians using EMRs to enter or retrieve clinical patient notes increased from 26% in 2007 to 75% in 2014. Eighty percent of physicians used electronic tools to access laboratory/diagnostic test results in 2014, up from 38% in 2010.8 The increasingly broad collection of information by physicians at the point of care, combined with the growth of information repositories developed by various governmental and intergovernmental bodies, has resulted in the mass digitization and storage of clinical information. Big data is the term for data sets so large and complex that it is difficult to process them using traditional relational database management systems, desktop statistics and visualization software. What is considered "big" depends on the infrastructure and capabilities of the organization managing the data.9 Analytics is the discovery and communication of meaningful patterns in data. Analytics relies on the simultaneous application of statistics, computer programming and operations research. Analytics often favours data visualization to communicate insight, and insights from data are used to guide decision-making.10 For physicians, big data analytics may come to be understood as the process of examining the clinical data in EMRs cross-referenced with other administrative, demographic and behavioural data sources to reveal determinants of patient health and patterns in clinical practice. This information can be used to assist clinical decision-making or for research approved by a research ethics board. There are four types of big data analytics physicians may encounter in the provision of patient care. They are generally performed in the following sequence, in a continuous cycle11,12,13,14: 1. Population health analytics: Health trends are identified in the aggregate within a community, a region or a national population. The data can be derived from biomedical and/or administrative data. 2. Risk-based cost analysis: Populations are segmented into groups according to the level of risk to the patient's health and/or cost to the health system. 3. Care management: Clinicians are enabled to manage patient care according to defined care pathways and clinical protocols informed by population health analytics and risk-based cost analysis. Care management includes the following: o Clinical decision support: Outcomes are predicted and/or alternative treatments are recommended to clinicians and patients at the point of care. o Personalized/precision care: Personalized data sets, such as genomic DNA sequences for at-risk patients, are leveraged to highlight best practice treatments for patients and practitioners. These solutions may offer early detection and diagnosis before a patient develops disease symptoms. o Clinical operations: Workflow management is performed, such as wait-times management, mining historical and unstructured data for patterns to predict events that may affect care. o Continuing education and professional development: Longitudinal performance data are combined across institutions, classes, cohorts or programs with correlating patient outcomes to assess models of education and/or develop new programs. 4. Performance analytics: Metrics for quality and efficiency of patient care are cross-referenced with clinical decision-making and performance data to assess clinical performance. This cycle is also sometimes understood as a component of "meaningful" or "enhanced" use of EMRs. How might physicians encounter big data analytics? Many EMRs run analytics both visibly (e.g., as a function that can be activated at appropriate junctures in the care pathway) and invisibly (e.g., as tools that run seamlessly in the background of an EMR). Physicians may or may not be aware when data are being collected, analyzed, tailored or presented by big data analytics services. However, many jurisdictions are strengthening their laws and standards, and best practices are gradually emerging.15 Physicians may have entered into a data sharing agreement with their EMR vendor when they procured an EMR for their practice. Such agreements may include provisions to share de-identified (i.e., anonymized) and/or aggregate data with the EMR vendor for specified or unspecified purposes. Physicians may also receive requests from third parties to share their EMR data. These requests may come from various sources: * provincial governments * intergovernmental agencies * national and provincial associations, including medical associations * non-profit organizations * independent researchers * EMR vendors, service providers and other private corporations National Physician Survey results indicate that in 2014, 10% of physicians had shared data from their EMRs for the purposes of research, 10% for chronic disease surveillance and 8% for care improvement. Family physicians were more likely than other specialists to share with public health agencies (22% v. 11%) and electronic record vendors (13% v. 2%). Specialists were more likely than family physicians to share with researchers (59% v. 37%), hospital departments (47% v. 20%) and university departments (28% v. 15%). There is significant variability across the provinces with regard to what proportion of physicians are sharing information from their EMRs, which is affected by the presence of research initiatives, research objectives defined by the approval of a research ethics board, the adoption rates of EMRs among physicians in the province and the functionality of those EMRs.16 For example, there are family practitioners across Canada who provide data to the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). The CPCSSN is a multi-disease EMR surveillance and research system that allows family physicians, epidemiologists and researchers to understand and manage chronic care conditions for patients. Health information is collected from EMRs in the offices of participating family physicians, specifically information about Canadians suffering from chronic and mental health conditions and three neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer's and related dementias.17 In another example, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer's Surgical Synoptic Reporting Initiative captures standardized information about surgery at the point of care and transmits the surgical report to other health care personnel. Surgeons can use the captured information, which gives them the ability to assess adherence to the clinical evidence and safety procedures embedded in the reporting templates, to track their own practices and those of their community.18 The concept of synoptic reporting-whereby a physician provides anonymized data about their practice in return for an aggregate report summarizing the practice of others -can be expanded to any area in which an appropriate number of physicians are willing to participate. Guiding principles for the use of big data analytics These guiding principles are designed to give physicians a starting point as they consider the use of big data analytics in their practices: * The objective of using big data analytics must be to enhance the safety and/or effectiveness of patient care or for the purpose of health promotion. * Should a physician use big data analytics, it is the responsibility of the physician to do so in a way that adheres to their legislative, regulatory and/or professional obligations. * Physicians are responsible for the privacy of their individual patients. Physicians may wish to refer to the CMA's policy on Principles for the Protection of Patients' Personal Health Information.19 * Physicians are responsible for respecting and protecting the privacy of other physicians' information. Physicians may wish to refer to the CMA's policy on Principles Concerning Physician Information.20 * When physicians enter into and document a broad consent discussion with their patient, which can include the electronic management of health information, this agreement should convey information to cover the elements common to big data analytics services. * Physicians may also wish to consider the potential for big data analytics to inform public health measures and enhance health system efficiency and take this into account when responding to requests for access to data in an EMR. * Many EMR vendors provide cloud-based storage to their clients, so information entered into an EMR may be available to the EMR vendor in a de-identified and/or aggregate state. Physicians should carefully read their data sharing agreement with their EMR vendor to understand how and why the data that is entered into an EMR is used, and/or they should refer to the CMA's policy on the matter, Data Sharing Agreements: Principles for Electronic Medical Records/Electronic Health Records.21 * Given the dynamic nature of this emerging tool, physicians are encouraged to share information about their experiences with big data analytics and its applications with colleagues. Characteristics of safe and effective big data analytics services 1. Protection of privacy Privacy and security concerns present a challenge in linking big data in EMRs. As data are linked, it becomes increasingly difficult to de-identify individual patients.22 As care is increasingly provided in interconnected, digital environments, physicians are having to take on the role of data stewardship. To that end, physicians may wish to employ conservative risk assessment practices-"should we" as opposed to "can we" when linking data sources-and obtain express patient consent, employing a "permission-based" approach to the collection and stewardship of data. 2. A clear and detailed data sharing agreement Physicians entering into a contract with an EMR vendor or other third party for provision of services should understand how and when they are contributing to the collection of data for the purposes of big data analytics services. There are template data sharing agreements available, which include the basic components of safe and effective data sharing, such as the model provided by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.23 Data sharing agreements may include general use and project-specific use, both of which physicians should assess before entering into the agreement. When EMR access is being provided to a ministry of health and/or regional health authority, the data sharing agreement should distinguish between access to administrative data and access to clinical data. Physicians may wish to refer to the CMA's policy on Data Sharing Agreements: Principles for Electronic Medical Records/Electronic Health Records.24 3. Physician-owned and -led data collaboratives In some provinces there may exist opportunities to share clinical data in physician-owned and -led networks to reflect on and improve patient care. One example is the Physicians Data Collaborative in British Columbia, a not-for-profit organization open to divisions of family practice.25 Collaboratives such as this one are governed by physicians and driven by a desire to protect the privacy and safety of patients while producing meaningful results for physicians in daily practice. Participation in physician-owned data collaboratives may ensure that patient data continue to be managed by physicians, which may lead to an appropriate prioritization of physicians' obligations to balance patient-centred care and patient privacy. 4. Endorsement by a professional or other recognized association or medical society or health care organization When considering use of big data analytics services, it is best to select services created or endorsed by a professional or other recognized association or medical society. Some health care organizations, such as hospitals, may also develop or endorse services for use in their clinical environments. Without such endorsement, physicians are advised to proceed with additional caution. 5. Scope of services and functionality/appropriateness of data Physicians may wish to seek out information from EMR vendors and service providers about how big data analytics services complement the process of diagnosis and about the range of data sources from which these services draw. While big data analytics promises insight into population health and practice trends, if it is not drawing from an appropriate level of cross-referenced sources it may present a skewed picture of both.26 Ultimately, the physician must decide if the sources are appropriately diverse. Physicians should expect EMR vendors and service providers to make clear how and why they draw the information they do in the provision of analytics services. Ideally, analytics services should integrate population health analytics, risk-based cost analysis, care management services (such as point-of-care decision support tools) and performance analytics. Physicians should expect EMR vendors to allocate sufficient health informatics resources to information management, technical infrastructure, data protection and response to breaches in privacy, and data extraction and analysis.27,28 Physicians may also wish to consider the appropriateness of data analytics services in the context of their practices. Not all data will be useful for some medical specialties, such as those treating conditions that are relatively rare in the overall population. The potential for new or enhanced clinical practice tools informed by big data analytics may be restricted to primary care practice at this time.29 Finally, predictive analytics often make treatment recommendations that are designed to improve the health outcomes in a population, and these recommendations may conflict with physicians' ethical obligations to act in the best interests of individual patients and respect patients' autonomous decision-making).30 References 1 Canadian Medical Association. Data sharing agreements: principles for electronic medical records/electronic health records [CMA policy]. Ottawa: The Association; 2009. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD09-01.pdf 2 Canadian Medical Association. Principles concerning physician information [CMA policy]. CMAJ 2002 167(4):393-4. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/PolicyPDF/PD02-09.pdf 3 Canadian Medical Association. Principles for the protection of patients' personal health information [CMA policy]. Ottawa: The Association; 2010. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-03.pdf 4 Canadian Medical Association. Disclosing personal health information to third parties. Ottawa: The Association; 2011. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/CMA_Disclosure_third_parties-e.pdf 5 Canadian Medical Association. Need to know and circle of care. Ottawa: The Association; 2011. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/CMA_Need_to_know_circle_care-e.pdf 6 Canadian Medical Protective Association. The impact of big data on healthcare and medical practice. Ottawa: The Association; no date. Available: https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/documents/10179/301372750/com_14_big_data_design-e.pdf 7 Kayyali B, Knott D, Van Kuiken S. The 'big data' revolution in US health care: accelerating value and innovation. New York: McKinsey & Company; 2013. p. 1. 8 College of Family Physicians of Canada, Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. National physician survey, 2014. National results by FP/GP or other specialist, sex, age and all physicians. Q7. Ottawa: The Colleges and Association; 2014. Available: http://nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014-National-EN-Q7.pdf 9 Anonymous. Data, data everywhere. The Economist 2010 Feb 27. Available: www.economist.com/node/15557443 10 Anonymous. Data, data everywhere. The Economist 2010 Feb 27. Available: www.economist.com/node/15557443 11 Canada Health Infoway. Big data analytics in health. Toronto: Canada Health Infoway; 2013. Available: www.infoway-inforoute.ca/index.php/resources/technical-documents/emerging-technology/doc_download/1419-big-data-analytics-in-health-white-paper-full-report (accessed 2014 May 16). 12 Ellaway RH, Pusic MV, Galbraith RM, Cameron T. 2014 Developing the role of big data and analytics in health professional education. Med Teach 2014;36(3):216-222. 13 Marino DJ. Using business intelligence to reduce the cost of care. Healthc Financ Manage 2014;68(3):42-44, 46. 14 Porter ME, Lee TH. The strategy that will fix health care. Harv Bus Rev 2013;91(10):50-70. 15 Baggaley C. Data protection in a world of big data: Canadian Medical Protective Association information session [presentation]. 2014 Aug 20. Available: https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/documents/10179/301372750/com_2014_carmen_baggaley-e.pdf 16 College of Family Physicians of Canada, Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. National physician survey, 2014. National results by FP/GP or other specialist, sex, age and all physicians. Q10. Ottawa: The Colleges and Association; 2014. Available: http://nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014-National-EN-Q10.pdf 17 Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. Available: http://cpcssn.ca/ (accessed 2014 Nov 15). 18 Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Sustaining action toward a shared vision: 2012-2017 strategic plan. Toronto: The Partnership; no date. Available: www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Sustaining-Action-Toward-a-Shared-Vision_accessible.pdf 19 Canadian Medical Association. Principles for the protection of patients' personal health information [CMA policy]. Ottawa: The Association; 2011. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-03.pdf 20 Canadian Medical Association. Principles for the protection of patients' personal health information [CMA policy]. Ottawa: The Association; 2011. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-03.pdf 21 Canadian Medical Association. Data sharing agreements: principles for electronic medical records/electronic health records [CMA policy]. Ottawa: The Association; 2009. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD09-01.pdf 22 Weber G, Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Finding the missing link for big biomedical data . JAMA 2014;311(24):2479-2480. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.4228. 23 Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. Model data sharing agreement. Toronto: The Commissioner; 1995. Available: www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/model-data-ag.pdf 24 Canadian Medical Association. Data sharing agreements: principles for electronic medical records/electronic health records [CMA policy]. Ottawa: The Association; 2009. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD09-01.pdf 25 Physicians Data Collaborative. Overview. Available: www.divisionsbc.ca/datacollaborative/home 26 Cohen IG, Amarasingham R, Shah A, Xie B, Lo B. The legal and ethical concerns that arise from using complex predictive analytics in health care. Health Aff 2014;33(7):1139-1147. 27 Rhoads J, Ferrara L. Transforming healthcare through better use of data. Electron Healthc 2012;11(1):e27. 28 Canadian Medical Protective Association. The impact of big data and healthcare and medical practice. Ottawa: The Association; no date. Available: https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/documents/10179/301372750/com_14_big_data_design-e.pdf 29 Genta RM, Sonnenberg A. Big data in gastroenterology research. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;11(6):386-390. 30 Cohen IG, Amarasingham R, Shah A, Xie B, Lo B. The legal and ethical concerns that arise from using complex predictive analytics in health care. Health Aff 2014;33(7):1139-1147.
Documents
Less detail

Management of physician fatigue

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11127
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2014-05-24
Topics
Health human resources
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2014-05-24
Topics
Health human resources
Text
Health systems around the world are struggling with how to best meet the health needs of their populations. Health leaders speak with urgency about the need to improve the individual experience of care, improve the health of populations, and maximize return on investments. Physicians concur - they are continually focused on providing better care to their patients. Concurrently, concerns over patient safety have arisen over the last two decades, rooted in studies of adverse events. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) in acute care hospitals has been reported in the United States (US),1,2,3 Australia,4 United Kingdom,5 and Canada.6 Between 5% and 20% of patients admitted to hospital experience one or more AEs; between 36.9% - 51% of these AEs are preventable; and AEs contribute billions of dollars through additional hospital stays as well as other costs to the system, patients and the broader society.7 Leape et al. maintain that more than two-thirds of AEs are preventable.8 These outcomes have prompted decision makers, policy makers and healthcare providers to examine contributing factors, including the increasingly complex health system and its impact on the well-being of providers. Patient safety and physician well-being are the key drivers leading to restrictions on resident and/or physician duty hours aimed at reducing their fatigue. The European Working Time Directive (EWTD) was first established in 1993 to place limits on all workers' hours throughout Europe under the umbrella of health and safety legislation. That directive included physicians but excluded doctors in training. In 2000, a new directive passed to include the "junior doctor" constituency accompanied by a requirement that by 2009 all health systems in the European Union limit resident work to a maximum of 48 hours averaged per week. The intention was to improve the working lives of doctors in training and to increase patient safety. A systematic review on the impact of the EWTD on postgraduate medical training, patient safety, or clinical outcomes found studies to be of poor quality with conflicting results.9 In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in the US adopted a set of duty hour regulations for physicians in training. The ACGME issued revised regulations that went into effect in July 2011, reflecting the recommendations of a 2008 Institute of Medicine report Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, and Safety, calling for elimination of extended duty shifts (more than 16 hours) for first year residents, increasing days off, improving sleep hygiene by reducing night duty and providing more scheduled sleep breaks, and increasing oversight by more senior physicians.10 The Institute of Medicine's report bases its recommendations on the growing body of research linking clinician fatigue and error. In 2013, the National Steering Committee on Resident Duty Hours released Canada's first comprehensive, collaborative and evidence-based report on fatigue and duty hours for Canada's approximately 12,000 residents. The Committee stresses that a comprehensive approach is necessary in order to enhance safety and wellness outcomes. Fatigue risk management is a predominant theme in the recommendations. Fatigue management systems are in place in other sectors/industries that have a low threshold for adverse outcomes including aviation, transportation, and the Department of National Defence. In 2010, the Canadian Nurses Association released a position statement Taking Action on Nurse Fatigue that speaks to system, organizational and individual level responsibilities of registered nurses. There are currently no specific policies in Canada for physicians in practice with respect to fatigue management. Given the heterogeneity of medical practice (i.e. various specialties) and of the practice settings (i.e. rural and remote versus urban, clinic versus hospital, etc.), the solutions emanating from a fatigue management policy may be different - one size will not fit all. Impact of Physician Fatigue Patient Safety Sleep deprivation is the condition of not having enough sleep and can be either chronic or acute. It impairs cognitive and behavioural performance. "Sleep is required for the consolidation of learning and for the optimal performance of cognitive tasks. Studies of sleep deprivation have shown that one night without sleep negatively affects the performance of specific higher cognitive functions of the prefrontal cortex and can cause impairment in attention, memory, judgment, and problem solving."(p. 1841)11 A seminal study by Williamson and Feyer found that after 17-19 hours without sleep, performance on some cognitive and motor performance tests was equivalent or worse than that at a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%.12 Wakefulness for 24 hours is equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.10%.13 A chronic sleep-restricted state can cause fatigue, which is a subjective feeling of tiredness, lack of energy and motivation. A large body of research exists linking sleep deprivation/fatigue, performance and adverse patient outcomes, particularly for medical residents. 14,15,16,17,18,19, 20, 21,22, 23,24 However, literature on the impact on performance varies based on a number of factors. There are significant inter-individual differences in the global response to sleep loss, as well as significant intra-individual variations in the degree to which different domains of neurobehavioral function (e.g., vigilance, subjective sleepiness, and cognitive performance) are affected. Inter-individual differences are not merely a consequence of variations in sleep history. Rather, they involve trait-like differential vulnerability to impairment from sleep loss. 25 Evidence suggests an inconclusive relationship between duty hour reductions (primarily those implemented in the US) and patient safety, suggesting that restrictions on consecutive duty hours have not had the anticipated impact on this crucial outcome as anticipated.26 Several large studies have revealed only neutral or slightly improved patient mortality and other clinical parameters since implementation of the ACGME work hour limits in the US.27,28, 29,30 In complex and ever changing health systems, it is difficult to isolate the impact of restricted duty hours alone. Research on the effects of practicing physician sleep deprivation and extended work shifts on clinical outcomes is limited and inconclusive.31, 32 The issue of physician fatigue is complex, and is affected by much more than duty hours. Other contributing factors affect performance including work patterns, individual response to sleep loss, experience of the worker, the context of which sleep deprivation is necessary, hours of actual sleep, patient volume, patient turnover and patient acuity, environmental factors, personal stressors, workload, etc. Limiting work hours alone is not sufficient to address sleep deprivation among physicians. Reduced or disturbed periods of sleep, more consecutive days or nights of work, shift variability, and the volume of work all increase fatigue and thus can contribute to errors. One of the biggest concerns with a fatigue management strategy is continuity of care, linked to the number of transfers of care (handover) among providers. Transfers of care inevitably increase in an environment of work hour limitations.33, 34 Handovers are considered critical moments in the continuity of patient care and have been identified as a significant source of hospital errors, often related to poor communication. There is a growing body of literature on how to do these well and how to teach this well. This is an important skill for physicians in the context of a fatigue management strategy: "Standardization of the handover process has been linked to a reduction in the number of errors related to information transfers. In addition, effective mechanisms for the transfer of information at transition points have been recognized as patient safety enablers."35 Provider Well-being Provider well-being (physical, mental, occupational) is linked to system performance and patient outcomes. It is affected by fatigue and work patterns including night shift and extended hours. Comprehensive, systematic reviews of the health effects of on-call work in 2004 showed that nighttime work interrupted sleep patterns, aggravated underlying medical conditions, and increased the risk of cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and reproductive dysfunction.36,37.38 Other research suggests an elevated risk of breast cancer,39,40 prostate cancer,41 colorectal cancer,42 asthma43, diabetes,44 and epilepsy45 for shift workers. Disruption of the body's circadian rhythms is thought to be one of the main pathways for adverse health effects from shift work, particularly for work schedules that involve night work. Given that 24-hour work is unavoidable in various industries, including healthcare, researchers have evaluated different shift schedules designed to reduce some of the negative health effects of working at night. Optimal shift schedules are aligned as much as possible with the circadian rhythm, promote adaptation of the circadian rhythm with shift work, reflect workers' needs and preferences, and meet organizational or productivity requirements. The following interventions appear to have the most beneficial effects on the health of shift workers:46 * Schedule changes including changing from backward (counterclockwise) to forward (clockwise) rotation, from eight hour to 12 hour shifts, and flexible working conditions, self-scheduling, and ergonomic shift scheduling principles * Controlled exposure to light and day; * Behavioural approaches such as physical activity, scheduled naps and education about sleep strategies; and * Use of pharmacotherapy (i.e. caffeine and melatonin) to promote sleep, wakefulness, or adaptation Sleep deprivation and on-call shifts consistently point to deterioration of mood resulting in depression, anger, anxiety, hostility, and decreased vigilance.47 ,48, 49 A Canadian study found that shift workers reported significantly higher burnout, emotional exhaustion, job stress and psychosomatic health problems (e.g. headaches, upset stomach, difficulty falling asleep) than workers on a regular day schedule.50 Prolonged duty hours by residents has been found to contribute to marital problems, pregnancy complications, depression, suicide and substance abuse,51 as well as serious conflicts with attending physicians, other residents, and nurses, in addition to increased alcohol use and instances of unethical behaviour.52 Surprisingly however, the abolishment of 24-hour continuous medical call duty for general surgery residents at one facility in Quebec was associated with self-reported poorer quality of life.53 In contrast to other recommendations on the health benefits of 8 hr shifts, the risk of a work safety incident increases markedly after more than eight hours on duty. The risk in the twelfth hour is almost double than in the eighth hour (and more than double the average risk over the first eight hours on duty).54 Extended work duration and nighttime work by interns is associated with an increased risk of reported percutaneous injuries (PIs).55 Fatigue was reported more often as a contributing factor for nighttime compared with daytime injuries. Fatigue was also more commonly reported as a contributing factor to PIs that occurred after extended work than those that occurred after non-extended work.56 Other research found that residents were most exposed to blood-borne pathogens through needle punctures or cuts during overnight duty periods.57 Health care facilities that have physicians working in them have a role in supporting and promoting provider well-being, including providing enablers of extending and continuing resiliency such as nutritious food, on call rooms, appropriate numbers of staff, locums, etc. They also have a role in working jointly and collaboratively with physicians to ensure that on-call schedules do not place work demands on individual physicians that prevent the physicians from providing safe patient care and service coverage. For example, research with emergency physicians suggests that a nap at 3 AM improves performance in physicians and nurses at 7:30 AM compared to a no-nap condition despite the fact that memory temporarily worsened immediately after the nap.58 Individual resilience, intergenerational differences, illness-related issues, as well as family commitments also need to be considered. Physicians should also be encouraged to take the necessary time to rest and recover on their time off. The obligation of physicians to provide after hour coverage and care is unavoidable and should be considered by an individual when they choose a career in medicine, and as a physician in managing their schedule/call. A review of 100 studies from around the world indicates the culture of medicine contributes to doctors ignoring the warning signs of fatigue and stress and in many cases suffering from undiagnosed ailments such as stress and depression, or from burnout.59 The authors suggest the culture of medicine is such that doctors feel they don't need help; they put their patients first. Of the 18% of Canadian doctors who were identified as depressed, only a quarter of them considered getting help and only two per cent actually did. The report suggests that burnout from working long hours and sleep deprivation because of understaffing seems to be the biggest problem worldwide.60 The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) states that physicians should consider their level of fatigue and if they are clinically fit to provide treatment or care.61 Fatigue is not a sign of weakness. All members of the health care team should support their colleagues in recognizing and managing sleep deprivation and fatigue. Physician fatigue has several ethical dimensions. The Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics states that physicians have an ethical responsibility to self-manage their fatigue and well-being. 62 However, physicians must be trained and competent to know their own limits and evaluate their own fatigue level and well-being. The system must then support physicians in this recognition. The doctrine of informed consent is another dimension of physician fatigue. If physician fatigue is an added risk for any aspect of patient care, whether it is surgical or medical, elective or emergent, then some have argued that the doctrine of informed consent suggests that physicians have an obligation to inform patients of that risk.63 ,64 "The medico-legal considerations for physicians centre on the ethical duty to act in the best interests of their patients. This may mean that if a physician feels that his or her on-call schedule endangers or negatively impacts patient care, reasonable steps are taken to ensure patients do not suffer as a result and that the physician is able to continue providing an adequate level of care for patients."65 System Performance Addressing physician fatigue may have workforce implications. Physician workload is multifaceted comprised of clinical, research, education and administrative activities. If physician workload or duty hours are reduced, any one of these activities may be impacted. It has been suggested that implementing fatigue management strategies such as a workload ceiling for physicians may result in a greater need for physicians and thus increase system costs. However, new models of team based care delivery that incorporate technology, reduce redundancy, utilize a team based approach, and optimize the role of physicians offer an opportunity to better manage physician fatigue without necessarily requiring more physicians. Other strategies also need to be explored to improve the on-the-ground efficiency of physicians. Some of the strategies to address practicing physician sleep deprivation/fatigue such as scheduling changes and reduced workload may affect access to care, including wait times. Surgeons or others may have to cancel surgeries or other procedures because of fatigue and hours of work, forcing rescheduling of surgery/procedures and potentially increasing wait times. This is particularly relevant given Canada's large geography and varied distribution of physicians. Therefore, flexibility in strategies to address physician sleep deprivation/fatigue are needed to reflect the variety of practice types and settings in existence across the country, in particular solo practices; rural, remote and isolated sites; community locations; etc. The same holds true for smaller specialties, which has been the experience in the UK with the implementation of the EWTD. Fatigue management is a competency that needs to be taught, modelled, mentored, and evaluated across the medical education continuum, from medical student to practicing physician. Recommendations 1. Educate physicians about the effects of sleep deprivation and fatigue on the practice of medicine and physician health, and how to recognize and manage their effects. 2. Create a national tool-box of self-awareness tools and fatigue management strategies and techniques. 3. Advocate for the integration of fatigue management into the continuum of medical education. 4. Advocate for the creation of system enablers with the flexibility to: * Consider the full workload of physicians (clinical, teaching, administrative, research, etc.); * Optimize scheduling to coordinate on call and other patient care following call; and * Implement organizational/institutional level fatigue risk management plans. 5. Develop and advocate for implementation of standardized handover tools. 6. Enhance and reaffirm a culture within medicine that focuses on patient-centered care. 7. Reaffirm the culture shift within medicine that encompasses physician well-being. 8. Encourage physicians treating physicians to be aware of the aggravating effects of fatigue on their well-being and practice. Conclusion Physicians are interested in how to best meet the needs of the population, in continually improving the care provided to Canadians. To do so requires that they also care for themselves including managing the effects of sleep deprivation and fatigue. It is a complex issue that requires multifaceted solutions. Strategies must address physician fatigue at an individual, organizational/institutional and system level. References 1 Leape, LL, Brennan, TA, Laaird, N, Lawthers, AG, Logalio, AR, Barnes, BA et al. (1991).The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. New England Journal of Medicine 324 (6): 377-384 2 Brennan, TA, Leape, LL, Nan, M, et al. (1991). Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. New England Journal of Medicine 324:370-376. 3 Thomas, E., Studdert, D., Burstin, H., et al. (2000). Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Medical Care 38(3): 261-71. 4 Wilson, RL, Runciman, WB, Gibberd, RW, et al. (1995). The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Medical Journal of Australia 163: 458-471. 5 Vincent, C, Neale, G, & Woloshynowych, M. (2001). Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. British Medical Journal 322: 517-9. 6 Baker, G., Norton, P., Flintoft, V., Balis, R., Brown, A., Cox, J., et al. (2004). The Canadian adverse event study: the incidence of adverse events among hospitalized patients in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(11): 1678-1686. 7 Jeffs, L., Law, M., Baker, G., & Norton, P. (2005). Patient Safety Research in Australia, United Kingdom, United States and Canada: A Summary of Research Priority Areas, Agenda-Setting Processes And Directions for Future Research in the Context of their Patient Safety Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/news/eventProceedings/Documents/2005%20Research%20Retreat%20-%20Patient%20Safety%20Research%20Backgrounder%20Paper.pdf 8 Leape, L., Brennan, T., Laaird, N., Lawthers, A., Logalio, A., Barnes, B. et al. (1991). The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. New England Journal of Medicine 324 (6): 377-384. 9 Moonesinghe, S., Lowery, J., Shahi, N., Millen, A., & Beard, L. (2011). Impact of reduction in working hours for doctors in training on postgraduate medical education and patients' outcomes: systematic review. BMJ 342:d1580. 10 Ulmer, C., Wolman, D., & Johns, M. (eds.) Committee on Optimizing Graduate Medical Trainee (Resident) Hours and Work Schedule to Improve Patient Safety, Institute of Medicine. (2008). Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, and Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 11 Krueger, K. & Halperin, E. (2010). Perspective: Paying Physicians to Be On Call: A Challenge for Academic Medicine. Academic Medicine 85 (12); 1840-1844. 12 Williamson, A. & Feyer, A. (2000). Moderate Sleep Deprivation Produces Impairments in Cognitive and Motor Performance Equivalent to Legally Prescribed Levels of Alcohol Intoxication. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 57: 649-655. 13 Dawson, D. & Reid, K. (1997). Fatigue, Alcohol and Performance Impairment. Nature 388: 235. 14 Arnedt, J., Owens, J., Crouch, M., et al. (2005). Neurobehavioral Performance of Residents After Heavy Night Call vs After Alcohol Ingestion. Journal of American Medical Association 294(9): 1025-33. 15 Howard, S., Gaba, D., Smoth, B., et al. (2003). Simulation Study of Rested Versus Sleep-deprived Anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 98:1345-1355 16 Philbert, I. (2005). Sleep Loss and Performance in Residents and Nonphysicians: A Meta-analytic Examination. Sleep 28: 1392-1402. 17 Lockley, S., Barger, L., Ayas, N., Rothschild, J., Czeisler, C. et al. (2007). Effects of Health Care Provider Work Hours and Sleep Deprivation on Safety and Performance. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 3(11): 7-18. 18 Eastridge, B., Hamilton, E., O'Keefe, G., Rege, R., Valentine, R. et al. (2003). Effect of sleep deprivation on the performance of simulated laproscopic surgical skill. The American Journal of Surgery 186: 169-174 19 Taffinder, N., McManus, I., Hul, Y., Russell, R., & Darzi, A. (1998). Effect of Sleep Deprivation on Surgeon's Dexterity on Laparsoscopy Simulator. The Lancet 352: 1191. 20 Rothschild, J., Keohane, C., Rogers, S., et al. (2009). Risks of Complications by Attending Physicians After Performing Nighttime Procedures. JAMA 302:1565-72. 21 Lockley, S., Cronin, J., Evans, E., Cade, B., Lee, C., et al. (2004). Effect of Reducing Interns' Weekly Work Hours on Sleep and Attentional Failures. N Engl J Med 351: 1829-1837. 22 Landrigan, C., Rothschild, J., Cronin, J., Kaushal, R., Burdick, E., et al. (2004). Effect of Rreducing Interns' Work Hours on Serious Medical Errors in Intensive-care Units. N Engl J Med 351: 1838-1848. 23 Barger, L., Ayas, N., Cade, B., Cronin, J., Rosner, B., et al. (2006). Impact of Extended-Duration Shifts on Medical Errors, Adverse Events, and Attentional Failures. PLoS Med 3(12): 2440-2448. 24 Landrigan, C., Rothschild, J., Cronin, J., et al. (2004). Effect of Reducing Interns' Work Hours on Serious Medical Errors in Intensive Care Units. New England Journal of Medicine 351:1838-48. 25 Van Dongen, H., Baynard, M., Maislin, G., et al. (2004). Systematic interindividual differences in neurobehavioral impairment from sleep loss: evidence of a trait-like differential vulnerability. Sleep 27: 423-433. 26 Philibert,I., Nasca, T., Brigham, T., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Duty-Hour Limits and Patient Care and Resident Outcomes: Can High-Quality Studies Offer Insight into Complex Relationships? Annu. Rev. Med 64: 467-83. 27 Volpp, K., Rosen, A., Rosenbaum, PR., et al. (2007). Mortality Among Hospitalized Medicare Beneficiaries in the First 2 Years Following the ACGME Resident Duty Hour Reform. JAMA 298: 975-983. 28 Volpp, K., Rosen, A., Rosenbaum, P., et al. (2007). Mortality Among Patients in VA Hospitals in the First 2 Years Following ACGME Resident Duty Hour Reform. JAMA 298(9): 984-992. 29 Antiel, R., Reed, D., Van Arendonk, K., Wightman, S., Hall, D., Porterfield, J., et al. (2013). Effects of Duty Hour Restrictions on Core Competencies, Education, Quality of Life, and Burnout Among General Surgery Interns. JAMA Surg 148(5):448-455. 30 Drolet, B., Sangisetty, S., Tracy, T., & Cioffi, W. (2013). Surgical Residents' Perceptions of 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Duty Hour Regulations. JAMA Surg 148(5): 427-433. 31 Chang, L., Mahoney, J., Raty, S., Ortiz, J., Apodaca, S., & De La Garza II, R. (2013). Neurocognitive effects following an overnight call shift on faculty anesthesiologists. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 57: 1051-1057. 32 Sharpe, J., Weinberg, J., Magnotti, L., Nouer, S., Yoo, W., Zarzaur, B. et al. (2013). Outcomes of Operations Performed by Attending Surgeons after Overnight Trauma Shifts. J Am Coll Surg 216:791- 799. 33 Olsen, E., Drage, L., Auger, R. (2009). Sleep Deprivation, Physician Performance, and Patient Safety. Chest 136: 1389-1396. 34 Choma, N., Vasilevskis, E., Sponsler, K., Hathaway, J., & Kripalani, S. Effect of the ACGME 16-Hour Rule on Efficiency and Quality of Care: Duty Hours 2.0. JAMA INTERN MED 173 (9): 819-821. 35 Canadian Medical Protective Association. (2013). CMPA Risk Fact Sheet: Patient Handover. Retrieved January 13, 2014 from https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/documents/10179/300031190/patient_handovers-e.pdf 36 Nicol, A., Botterill, J., (2004). On-call Work and Health: A Review. Environmental Health 3: 1-11. 37 Knutsson, A. & Boggild, H. (2010). Gastrointestinal disorders among shift workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 36(2): 85-95. 38 Vyas, M., Garg, A., Iansavichus, A., Costella, J., Donner, A., Laugsand, L., et al. (2012). Shift work and vascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 345: e4800 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4800 39 Shields, M. (2002). Shift work and health. Health Reports 13(4):11-33. 40 Fritschi, L., Glass, D., Heyworth, J., Aronson, K., Girschik, J., Boyle, T., et al. (2011). Hypotheses for mechanisms linking shiftwork and cancer. Medical Hypotheses 77:430-436. 41 Kubo, T., Ozasa, K., Mikami, K., Wakai, K., Fujino, Y., Watanabe, Y., et al. (2006). Prospective cohort study of the risk of prostate cancer among rotating-shift workers: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 164(6): 549-555. 42 Schernhammer, E., Laden, F., Speizer, F., Willett, W., Hunter, D., Kawachi, I., et al. (2003). Night-shift work and risk of colorectal cancer in the Nurses' Health Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95(11):825-828. 43 Shields, M. (2002). Shift work and health. Health Reports 13(4):11-33. 44 Ibid 45 Ibid 46 Occupational Cancer Research Centre and the Institute for Work & Health. Can the health effects of shift work be mitigated? A summary of select interventions. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://www.occupationalcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Summary_intervention-research_FINAL.pdf 47 Eastridge, B., Hamilton, E., O'Keefe, G., Rege, R., Valentine, R. et al. (2003). Effect of Sleep Deprivation on the Performance of Simulated Laproscopic Surgical Skill. The American Journal of Surgery 186: 169-174. 48 Krueger, K. & Halperin, E. (2010). Perspective: Paying Physicians to Be On Call: A Challenge for Academic Medicine. Academic Medicine 85(12); 1840-1844. 49 Haines, V., Marchand, A., Rousseau, V., & Demers, A. (2008).The mediating role of work-to-family conflict in the relationship between shiftwork and depression. Work & Stress 22(4):341-356. 50 Jamal, M. (2004). Burnout, stress and health of employees on non-standard work schedules: a study of Canadian workers. Stress and Health 20:113-119. 51 Woodrow, S., Segouin, C., Armbruster, J., Hamstra, S., & Hodges, B. (2006). Duty Hours Reforms in the United States, France and Canada: Is It Time to Refocus our Attention on Education? Academic Medicine 81(12): 1045-1051. 52 Baldwin, D., Daugherty, S., Tsai, R., et al. (2003). A National Survey of Residents' Self-reported Work Hours: Thinking Beyond Specialty. Academic Medicine 78:1154-1163. 53 Hamadani, F., Deckelbaum, D., Sauve, D., Khwaja, K., Razek, T., & Fata, P. (2013). Abolishment of24-HourContinuousMedical Call Duty in Quebec: A Quality of Life Survey of General Surgical Residents Following Implementation of the New Work-Hour Restrictions. J Surg 70: 296-303. 54 Folkard, S. & Tucker, P. (2003). Shift work, safety and productivity. Occupational Medicine 53: 95-101. 55 Ayas, N., Barger, L., Cade, B., et al. (2006). Extended Work Duration and the Risk of Self-reported Percutaneous Injuries in Interns. JAMA 296(9): 1055-62. 56 Ayas, N., Barger, L., Cade, B., et al. (2006). Extended Work Duration and the Risk of Self-reported Percutaneous Injuries in Interns. JAMA 296(9): 1055-62. 57 Parks, D., Yetman, R., McNeese, M., Burau, K., & Smolensky, M. (2000). Day-night pattern in accidental exposures to blood-borne pathogens among medical students and residents. Chronobiology International 17(1): 61-70. 58 Smith-Coggins, R., Howard, S., Mac D., Wang, C., Kwan, S., Rosekind, M., Sowb, Y., Balise, R., Levis, J., Gaba, D. (2006). Improving alertness and performance in emergency department physicians and nurses: the use of planned naps. Ann Emerg Med, 48(5): 596-604. 59 Wallace, J., Lemaire, J., & Ghali, W. (2009). Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. The Lancet 374 (9702): 1714-1721. 60 Wallace, J., Lemaire, J., & Ghali, W. (2009). Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. The Lancet 374 (9702): 1714-1721. 61 Canadian Medical Protective Association. The new realities of medical care. Originally published September 2012. Retrieved January 12, 2014 from https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/duties-and-responsibilities/-/asset_publisher/bFaUiyQG069N/content/the-new-realities-of-medical-care 62 Canadian Medical Association. (2011). Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics. Ottawa: Author. 63 Mercurio. M. & Peterec, S. (2009). Attending Physician Work Hours: Ethical Considerations and the Last Doctor Standing. Pediatrics 124:758-762. 64 Czeisler, C., Pellegrini, C., & Sade, R. (2013). Should Sleep-Deprived Surgeons Be Prohibited From Operating Without Patients' Consent? Ann Thorac Surg 95:757-766. 65 Canadian Medical Protective Association. The new realities of medical care. Originally published September 2012. Retrieved January 12, 2014 from https://oplfrpd5.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/duties-and-responsibilities/-/asset_publisher/bFaUiyQG069N/content/the-new-realities-of-medical-care
Documents
Less detail

Medical assistance fund

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11699
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2014-08-20
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC14-85
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the federal government establish a medical assistance fund to enable people residing in Canada who have no medical coverage to receive critical emergency medical care
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2014-08-20
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC14-85
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the federal government establish a medical assistance fund to enable people residing in Canada who have no medical coverage to receive critical emergency medical care
Text
The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the federal government establish a medical assistance fund to enable people residing in Canada who have no medical coverage to receive critical emergency medical care
Less detail

Supporting the enactment of Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13693
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2016-05-02
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2016-05-02
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
In this submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the CMA’s feedback is focused on three of the legislative objectives of Bill C-14, given their relevance to the CMA’s Principles-based Recommendations for a Canadian Approach to Assisted Dying. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease/injury prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. i) Robust Safeguards First, the CMA supports the legislative objective of ensuring a system of robust safeguards to the provision of medical assistance in dying. The safeguards proposed by Bill C-14 include: patient eligibility criteria, process requirements to request medical assistance in dying, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada’s physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and over 60 national medical organizations. ii) Consistent, Pan-Canadian Framework Second, the CMA supports the legislative objective that a consistent framework for medical assistance in dying in Canada is desirable. In addition to robust safeguards, key measures proposed by Bill C-14 support the promulgation of a consistent framework across jurisdictions include legislating definitions for “medical assistance in dying” and “grievous and irremediable condition.” The CMA’s Principles-based Recommendations reflect on the subjective nature of what constitutes “enduring and intolerable suffering” and a “grievous and irremediable condition” as well as the physician’s role in making an eligibility determination. iii) End-of-Life Care Coordination System Thirdly, the CMA supports the objective to develop additional measures to support the provision of a full range of options for end-of-life care and to respect the personal convictions of health care providers. The fulfilment of these commitments with federal non-legislative measures will be integral to supporting the achievement of access to care, respecting the personal convictions of health care providers, and developing a consistent, pan-Canadian framework. The CMA encourages the federal government to rapidly advance its commitment to engage the provinces and territories in developing a pan-Canadian end-of-life care coordinating system. It will be essential for this system to be in place for June 6, 2016. At least one jurisdiction has made a system available to support connecting patients with willing providers. Until a pan-Canadian system is available, there will be a disparity of support for patients and practitioners across jurisdictions. iv) Respect Personal Convictions Finally, it is the CMA’s position that Bill C-14, to the extent constitutionally possible, must respect the personal convictions of health care providers. In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that any regulatory or legislative response must seek to reconcile the Charter rights of patients wanting to access assisted dying and physicians who choose not to participate in medical assistance in dying on grounds of conscientious objection. The CMA’s Principles-based Recommendations achieves an appropriate balance between physicians’ freedom of conscience and the assurance of effective and timely patient access to a medical service. From the CMA’s significant consultation with our membership, it is clear that physicians who are comfortable providing referrals strongly believe it is necessary to ensure the system protects the conscience rights of physicians who are not. While the federal government has achieved this balance with Bill C-14, there is the potential for other regulatory bodies to implement approaches that may result in a patchwork system. The CMA’s position is that the federal government effectively mitigate this outcome by rapidly advancing the establishment of the pan-Canadian end-of-life care coordinating system. CMA Supports Cautious Approach for “Carter Plus” The CMA must emphasize the need for caution and careful study in consideration of “Carter Plus”, which includes: eligibility of mature minors, eligibility with respect to sole mental health conditions, and advance care directives. The CMA supports the federal government’s approach not to legislate these issues, rather to study them in greater detail. Word count: 750
Documents
Less detail

National advance care planning toolkit website

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11190
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-03-01
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
BD14-05-162
The Canadian Medical Association recommends the use of a national advance care planning toolkit website with references to provincial and territorial resources to assist physicians in conversations about advanced care planning with their patients.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-03-01
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
BD14-05-162
The Canadian Medical Association recommends the use of a national advance care planning toolkit website with references to provincial and territorial resources to assist physicians in conversations about advanced care planning with their patients.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association recommends the use of a national advance care planning toolkit website with references to provincial and territorial resources to assist physicians in conversations about advanced care planning with their patients.
Less detail

Advanced care directive functionality

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11191
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-03-01
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
BD14-05-163
The Canadian Medical Association advocates for the inclusion of advanced care directive functionality as an electronic medical record vendor conformance and usability requirement.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-03-01
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
BD14-05-163
The Canadian Medical Association advocates for the inclusion of advanced care directive functionality as an electronic medical record vendor conformance and usability requirement.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association advocates for the inclusion of advanced care directive functionality as an electronic medical record vendor conformance and usability requirement.
Less detail

Advance care plans

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11215
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-08-20
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
GC14-19
The Canadian Medical Association supports the integration of advance care plans within patient records.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-08-20
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
GC14-19
The Canadian Medical Association supports the integration of advance care plans within patient records.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports the integration of advance care plans within patient records.
Less detail

CMA supports all physicians in CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11220
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-08-20
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
GC14-24
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) supports the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying as defined in CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2014-08-20
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
GC14-24
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) supports the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying as defined in CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) supports the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying as defined in CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Less detail

Summary of federal legislation/regulations

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11922
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2016-08-24
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Resolution
GC16-46
The Canadian Medical Association will create an up-to-date summary of federal legislation/regulations that impacts physician practice.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2016-08-24
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Resolution
GC16-46
The Canadian Medical Association will create an up-to-date summary of federal legislation/regulations that impacts physician practice.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will create an up-to-date summary of federal legislation/regulations that impacts physician practice.
Less detail

Medical assistance in dying education

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11941
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2016-08-24
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
GC16-48
The Canadian Medical Association supports the inclusion of education and the development of Canadian accreditation elements related to medical assistance in dying for all medical students and resident physicians.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2016-08-24
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Resolution
GC16-48
The Canadian Medical Association supports the inclusion of education and the development of Canadian accreditation elements related to medical assistance in dying for all medical students and resident physicians.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association supports the inclusion of education and the development of Canadian accreditation elements related to medical assistance in dying for all medical students and resident physicians.
Less detail

The physician appointment and reappointment process 2016

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13564
Date
2016-12-03
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2016-12-03
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
Beginning in the 1990s most jurisdictions established regional health authorities (RHAs) with consolidated medical staff structures and there has been a trend toward requiring all physicians practising in a region to hold an appointment with the RHA in order to access health resources such as diagnostic imaging and laboratory services, irrespective of whether they hold hospital privileges or not. Subsequent to the consolidation of medical staff governance there have been several developments over the past decade that have implications for where and how physicians can practise, and for their ability to advocate freely on behalf of their patients. These include: * the establishment of formal physician resource plans that link the appointment process to the ability to participate in the provincial/territorial medical insurance plan; * a greater focus on clinical governance that includes detailed attention on scope of practice and privileges; * a growing concern about the ability of physicians to advocate on behalf of their patients and the communities they serve; and * an increase in the number of physicians entering into employment or contractual arrangements. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) puts forward the following recommendations for governments, regulatory authorities, RHAs and medical staff structures within RHAs and hospitals. Recommendations Where physician appointments are to be approved in relation to Physician Resource Plans, the CMA recommends that such plans must: * take into consideration both population need and projected physician supply; * include transparency in the provision of information about available practice opportunities and on the criteria and processes through which applications for appointments are approved; * be based on a documented methodology with results in the public domain; and * be based on a medium-term projection range, using the most current and reliable data available, and be regularly reviewed and updated. The CMA recommends that the application of standardized credential templates must take into consideration the quality of care being provided by the physician and local circumstances such as the complement of medical and hospital resources available locally and the timeliness of proximity to secondary and tertiary care. The CMA strongly supports the implementation of policy to safeguard physicians from fear of reprisal and retaliation when speaking out as advocates for their patients and communities, and the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve. The CMA supports provincial/territorial amendments to public health legislation to protect the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve without political interference or risk of adverse employment consequences. The CMA believes that medical staff bylaws should expressly extend to physicians under contract entitlement to the procedural protections set out in the hospital or health authority bylaws. The CMA recommends that the processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources respect the following principles: 1. All processes should be fair, equitable, documented and transparent and should protect confidentiality. 2. Criteria for reappointment should be clearly specified in medical staff bylaws and should be no more onerous than necessary to verify the ongoing provision of quality care by the medical staff. 3. A regular evaluation of appointed physicians should be conducted by the appropriate clinical chief. 4. The quality of a physician's care is the most important criterion to be considered at the time of appointment, reappointment and the granting of privileges. 5. The information required for the granting of appointments, reappointments or privileges or for the allocation of medical resources must be accurate, valid and appropriate. 6. The processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources should recognize and accommodate the changes in practice patterns that may occur over the medical career cycle. 7. Physicians with established community practices have a significant investment in their practice and the community; this investment should be considered at the time of reappointment or change in privileges. 8. A recommendation, without just cause, to withdraw an appointment, to restrict privileges or to significantly reduce resources available to a physician must include appropriate compensation based on individual circumstances. 9. The reporting of legal actions or disciplinary actions as part of the reappointment or reappointment process should be restricted to those matters in which a final determination has been rendered and in which there has been an adverse finding to the physician. Objective This policy outlines the principles that should be considered for the granting of physician appointments, reappointments, privileges and access to resources at the health care facility, district or RHA level. Key definitions Appointment: The process by which a physician joins the medical staff of a health region or health facility in order to access resources to care for patients. Credentialing: An approach to obtaining, verifying and assessing the qualifications of a health professional against consistent criteria for the purposes of licensing and/or granting privileges.1 Privileges: Permission from an authorized body to a health care provider to conduct a specific scope and content of patient care. Privileges are granted based upon an evaluation of the provider's training, experience and competence related to the service, and are specific to a defined practice setting.1 Clinical peer review: The process by which physician peers assess each other's performance. A peer is a physician with relevant clinical experience in similar health care environments who also has the competence to contribute to the review of other physicians' performance.2 Background Historically the formal appointment process applied to physicians wishing to practise in hospitals. Beginning in the 1990s most jurisdictions established RHAs with consolidated medical staff structures and there has been a trend toward requiring all physicians practising in a region to hold an appointment with the RHA in order to access health resources such as diagnostic imaging and laboratory services, irrespective of whether they hold hospital privileges or not. Since the CMA first adopted principles for the physician appointment and reappointment process in 1997 there have been several developments that are reviewed below: * the establishment of formal physician resource plans that link the appointment process to the ability to participate in the provincial/territorial medical insurance plan; * a greater focus on clinical governance that includes detailed attention on scope of practice and privileges; * a growing concern about the ability of physicians to advocate on behalf of their patients and the communities they serve; and * an increase in the number of physicians entering into employment or contractual arrangements. Physician Resource Plans (PRPs): New Brunswick was the first province to require physicians to have privileges with an RHA in order to obtain a billing number.3 More recently jurisdictions such as Nova Scotia (N.S.) have introduced medium to longer range PRPs that are to be used when approving new appointments. In 2012 N.S. released a PRP for 2012-2021, which has since been updated to 2013-2022.4 Under the terms of the Nova Scotia Health Authority Medical Staff Bylaws, the RHA CEO or their designate will assess applications for new appointments in relation to need and availability of resources. The assessment is to be completed within 60 days and there is no right of review or appeal of the CEO's decision.5 Manitoba's medical staff bylaws make a similar provision.6 While Ontario has not regionalized to the same extent as other jurisdictions, legislation has been introduced that proposes to make the 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) responsible for primary care planning and performance management.7 Moreover the Bill will amend the Health Insurance Act to authorize the health minister to delegate non-fee-for-service physician compensation to the LHIN. Recommendation Where physician appointments are to be approved in relation to PRPs, the CMA recommends that such plans must: * take into consideration both population need and projected physician supply; * include transparency in the provision of information about available practice opportunities and on the criteria and processes through which applications for appointments are approved; * be based on a documented methodology with results in the public domain; and * be based on a medium-term projection range, using the most current and reliable data available, and be regularly reviewed and updated. Other physician resource planning considerations are set out in the CMA's comprehensive policy on PRPs.8 Clinical governance: Since the late 1990s there has been a great deal of attention paid to the concept of clinical governance, which may be defined as the structures, processes and culture needed to ensure that health care organizations and all individuals within them can assure the quality of the care they provide and are continuously seeking to improve it. During the past decade several provinces have carried out inquiries related to problems with pathology and radiology. In British Columbia (B.C.) the Chair of the BC Patient Safety & Quality Council conducted a review of the medical imaging credentialing and quality assurance that reported in 2011. In his final report, Dr. Douglas Cochrane set out 35 recommendations that called for much more rigorous and uniform oversight of medical practice in B.C.9 The recommendations included a call for: * the creation of a single medical staff administration to serve all health authorities and affiliated organizations; * the development of standardized processes for medical staff appointment, and credentialing and privileging, including common definitions; and * the development of performance assessment and review process for all physicians.9 The Cochrane report has resulted in the British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative (BC MQI). BC MQI is implementing an online Provincial Practitioner Credentialing and Privileging System (CACTUS Software) that will be used by all of B.C.'s RHAs to manage these processes for physicians, midwives, dentists and nurse practitioners.10 BC MQI has developed 62 privileging dictionaries for medical directors and department heads to use with their colleagues during initial and renewal privileging processes. The dictionaries recommend the required current experience to perform a certain activity in the form of numbers where applicable and also recommend the requirements for renewal of privileges and the requirements for return to practice. These recommendations are meant to take into account the individual's own experience and the context of the local site in which they work. They are meant to begin a conversation as needed with the department head, colleagues and others. The Society of Rural Physicians of Canada (SRPC) has raised concerns about the potential impact of volume-based credentialing on rural medical practice. For example, the dictionary for Family Practice with Enhanced Surgical Skills recommends that for operative delivery, a volume of at least five caesarean section deliveries be performed per year averaged over 24 months.11The SRPC has put forward recommendations that emphasize the need for appropriate peer review and consideration of geographic diversity and the range of medical practice, and that credential revalidation should be based on the actual quality of care provided by the physician, the continuing medical education completed by the physician and should also consider the impact of changes in delivery on the health outcomes in the community.12 It seems likely that other jurisdictions will be watching the CACTUS program with interest. Recommendation The CMA recommends that the application of standardized credential templates must take into consideration the quality of care being provided by the physician and local circumstances such as the complement of medical and hospital resources available locally and the timeliness of proximity to secondary and tertiary care. Advocacy: Advocacy has been identified as one of seven core roles of every physician by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada13 and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.14 This role entails physicians using their expertise and influence in the interests of their individual patients and the communities and populations they serve. Over the past decade there have been several instances where physicians have either expressed concern about their ability to advocate or have had disciplinary action taken against them, likely as a result of their advocacy activities. As a result of an inquiry carried out by the Health Quality Council of Alberta, the Alberta Medical Association, Alberta Health Services and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta have adopted a joint policy statement that sets out guidelines for physician advocacy.15 Eastern Health in Newfoundland and Labrador has a privacy/confidentiality oath or affirmation for physicians that acknowledges that they may have professional standards for disclosure and advocacy regarding patient safety, but stipulates the expectation that such concerns be first addressed through Eastern Health as an initial step.16 The CMA's policy on the evolving professional relationship between physicians and the health care system sets out nine factors for physicians to consider before undertaking advocacy.17 As predominantly employees of some level of government, and with a responsibility to sound an alert on population health risks, public health physicians are at greater risk of being disciplined for advocacy. There have been two high profile cases of public health physicians who have been dismissed for advocacy-related activities since 2000. Thus far only B.C. has enacted public health legislation to protect medical officers of health from political interference and adverse employment consequences. B.C.'s Public Health Act stipulates that the provincial health officer (PHO) has a duty to advise on provincial public health issues, which includes public reporting where the PHO believes it will best serve the public interest. Similarly sub-provincial medical health officers must advise on local public health issues and publicly report on them after consultation with the PHO. B.C.'s legislation also provides health officers with immunity from legal proceedings for actions done in good faith in the performance of their duties and for reports they are required to make. In addition the legislation protects health officers from "adverse actions", defined as an action that would either affect or threaten "the personal, financial or other interests of a person, or a relative, dependent, friend or business or other close association of that person" as a result of performing their duties in good faith.18 Recommendations The CMA strongly supports the implementation of policy to safeguard physicians from fear of reprisal and retaliation when speaking out as advocates for their patients and communities, and the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve. The CMA supports provincial/territorial amendments to public health legislation to protect the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve without political interference or risk of adverse employment consequences. Growing employment/contractual relationships: The move to RHAs, consolidation in the hospital sector and changing delivery models have had significant implications for the relationships between physicians and hospitals. The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) has identified several areas of concern, including patient advocacy, reporting of physicians, responding to adverse events, collection and use of physician information, practice arrangements and liability provision.19 One issue that the CMPA has highlighted in particular is the increasing trend in some jurisdictions for physicians to be engaged on a contracted employee basis rather than as independent contractors appointed with privileges.20 This is seen among facility-based physicians such as hospitalists, clinical and surgical assistants and laboratory physicians. The CMPA has cautioned that physicians engaged on a contractual basis may not have the same procedural rights on termination of contracts as those engaged under the privileging model and it has issued guidance on issues to consider with individual contracts, including CMPA assistance, indemnification clauses, liability provisions, confidentiality, termination of contract, dispute resolution and governing law.21 Recommendation The CMA believes that medical staff bylaws should expressly extend to physicians under contract entitlement to the procedural protections set out in the hospital or health authority bylaws. Principles Physicians must take a leadership role and be active participants in the development of appointment, reappointment and related processes; medical communities must therefore be aware of the basic principles that should be reflected in these processes. Once a physician has obtained a licence to practice, the process of appointment approval is the next step in obtaining permission to practise medicine in a health care facility, district or region. The next step is the granting of privileges. This bestows the right to perform specific medical acts within the health care facility, district or region. The final step is the provision of the necessary resources so that the physician is able to provide appropriate medical services for patient care. A medical committee with a clear structure and mandate to deal with appointments, reappointments and privileges must be maintained in all health care facilities, districts and regions so that physician input may be given during the appointment, reappointment and related processes. Clinical peer review must be foundational to these processes. Time, training and resources must be sufficient to support consistent peer review processes. The principles proposed below apply to all of the following processes: the appointment and reappointment processes, the granting of privileges and the allocation of health care facility, district or regional resources. Principles for the processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources 1. All processes should be fair, equitable, documented and transparent and should protect confidentiality. They should be completed in a timely manner and follow the rules of natural justice. At a minimum, the rules of natural justice give the physician the right to notice and the right to be heard before, and provided with reasons by, an impartial adjudicator. Given the nature of the physician's interests in the appointment, reappointment and other related processes, the following principles should also be included: * the right to be heard, either in person and (or) by representation; * the right to full disclosure of the information being considered by the committee that makes recommendations on appointments, reappointments and privileges; * the right to present evidence; * the right to a hearing free from bias, either real or perceived; * the right to a record of the proceedings; * a decision within a reasonable period; * the right to receive written reasons for the decision; and * the right to an appeal process by an independent and impartial body other than the board of the health care facility, district or region. It is important that all processes, including any review processes, follow the principles of natural justice. These processes should be part of the medical staff bylaws that guide the operation of the health care facility, district or region and should be known to all appointed physicians. 2. Criteria for reappointment should be clearly specified in medical staff bylaws and should be no more onerous than necessary to verify the ongoing provision of quality care by the medical staff. Medical staff appointments are typically for a one-year term. Criteria for reappointment vary across Canada, ranging from the provision of evidence of renewed licensure and liability coverage with a discretionary in-depth performance evaluation to the foregoing plus a mandated in-depth performance evaluation and reporting on continuing professional development activity. 3. A regular evaluation of appointed physicians should be conducted by the appropriate clinical chief. It should consist of a fair, documented process with explicit, agreed-upon criteria for the review of the physician's qualifications and credentials and the quality of care provided. If there is demonstrated inappropriate behaviour or a quality-of-care issue, a program for remediation should be established with regular follow-up over a period deemed appropriate by the physician's peers. As in other jobs, the objective of regular performance evaluations for a physician is to improve the physician's performance and the focus should be on opportunities for learning and improvement. The appraisal should entail a standardized peer evaluation process, in addition to self-assessment. The self-assessment process should include the recognition of satisfactory existing skills and the identification of new skills to be learned. In some situations remediation may be justified, for example when there is a need to upgrade skills, when interpersonal and communication skills are unacceptable, and when there is alcohol or drug abuse. Physician evaluations conducted by RHAs should take into account requirements already asked of the physician by their certifying and/or licensing body or other speciality organization in order to avoid duplication of effort. Looking ahead, with the increasing focus on team-based collaborative care, performance of team function and its impact on overall performance to meet health service requirements and quality of care is expected to become increasingly relevant. Conflict resolution mechanisms, scopes of practice and shared roles and responsibilities will need to be considered in order to assess individual and team performance. 4. The quality of a physician's care is the most important criterion to be considered at the time of appointment, reappointment and the granting of privileges. Quality care may be defined as the provision of service that satisfies the needs of the patient and meets the standards set out by recognized bodies of the profession, such as licensing bodies, national clinical societies and others. The essential components of quality include competence, accessibility, acceptability, effectiveness, appropriateness, efficiency, affordability and safety. The cost of a physician's care should not be the primary criterion considered during appointment, reappointment and related processes. Practice patterns, resulting in differences in cost of care, will differ for numerous reasons, including severity of illness, patient mix and patient choices. If there is a local, regional or district physician resource plan, then the need for a particular physician skill base as identified in the plan is an important criterion for appointment or reappointment to institutions within the plan. Physicians must be involved in the development of such a plan, and the plan must be supported by physicians at the local, district or regional level. If a practice and remuneration plan is introduced for a facility, hospital or academic health sciences centre, then participation in such a plan should not be a criterion for reappointment. 5. The information required for the granting of appointments, reappointments or privileges or for the allocation of medical resources must be accurate, valid and appropriate. The information required for these purposes should generally be limited to that which is reasonably necessary to determine the physician's ability to provide safe care. Physician's privacy should only be violated if it is determined that a medical condition or other disability poses an unacceptable risk to patients. The physician's credentials, skills, expertise and quality of care, as judged by peer assessment, should be considered during the appointment or reappointment process. Utilization data and associated indicators are being used more frequently as criteria for appointment and reappointment. Therefore, physicians must be involved in the development of such indicators, and there must be agreement by all parties on the type and quality of data or indicators to be used. In addition, before appointment or reappointment, physicians must be made aware of the data or indicators that will be used to evaluate them and the criteria by which these indicators will be applied. 6. The processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources should recognize and accommodate the changes in practice patterns that may occur over the medical career cycle. These processes should be flexible and reasonable concerning other issues such as on-call responsibilities or time needed to fulfil research and teaching commitments. It is important to recognize that a physician's practice pattern may change during his or her medical career. These changes may reflect the desire to no longer take call, the narrowing of the physician's practice to achieve a higher level of expertise in a specific area or the desire to pursue academic interests or responsibilities. Pregnancy, parental leave and the wish to practice part-time must also be considered. The quality of a physician's personal life and other special needs should be viewed as important and should be considered by those making decisions in these areas. 7. Physicians with established community practices have a significant investment in their practice and the community; this investment should be considered at the time of reappointment or change in privileges. An established physician may face financial loss if he or she is not reappointed or if there is a recommendation to substantially change his or her privileges. This possibility should be considered at the time of reappointment or change in privileges. 8. A recommendation, without just cause, to withdraw an appointment, to restrict privileges or to significantly reduce resources available to a physician must include appropriate compensation based on individual circumstances. Appropriate compensation includes financial restitution, retraining, relocation assistance and counselling assistance as required. Sufficient notice and other elements of due process should also be components of this recommendation. Generally, physicians are not employees of a health care facility, district or regional authority. Nonetheless, there are often extensive restrictions on physician mobility and limited opportunities to practice both inside and outside a province or territory. Age may also be a factor in the ability to find placement elsewhere, particularly if the physician is nearing retirement age. For these reasons, an interruption or cessation of a physician's career caused by withdrawal of an appointment, restriction of privileges or reduction in the resources available to the physician justifies appropriate compensation and due notice; this is in keeping with good human resource practices. Appropriate notice should be provided to physicians so that there is minimal impact on patient care. What constitutes timely and appropriate notice may in some cases be several months and will differ depending on the impact of the decision. Examples of decisions that could have a significant impact on physicians include: * temporary or permanent closure of operating rooms or other facilities; * strategic redirection of the hospital that may adversely affect a particular medical service or department, such as regionalization of laboratory testing or provincial centralization of a specialized service; and * implementation of a retirement policy. 9. The reporting of legal actions or disciplinary actions as part of the reappointment or reappointment process should be restricted to those matters in which a final determination has been rendered and in which there has been an adverse finding to the physician. References 1 Accreditation Canada. Qmentum Standards. Governance. Ottawa: Accreditation Canada; 2016. 2 Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Review by peers: a guide for professional, clinical and administrative processes. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; July 2010. Available: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/37358-Review-by-Peers.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 3 New Brunswick Department of Health. Registration requirements. Fredericton: New Brunswick Department of Health; 2016. Available: http://www.gnb.ca/0394/prw/RegistrationRequirements-e.asp (accessed 2016 May 02). 4 Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness. Shaping our Physician Workforce. Updates. Halifax: Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness; 2016. Available: http://novascotia.ca/dhw/shapingPhysicianWorkforce/updates.asp (accessed 2016 May 02). 5 Province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Health Authority Medical Staff Bylaws. Halifax: Province of Nova Scotia; April 2015. Available: https://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/hamedstaff.htm (accessed 2016 May 02). 6 Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. WRHA Board By-Law No.3 Medical Staff. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Regional Health Authority; March 2014. Available: http://www.wrha.mb.ca/extranet/medicalstaff/files/MedByLaw.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 7 Bill 41. An Act to amend various Acts in the interests of patient-centred care. 2nd Sess, 41st Leg, Ontario; 2016. Available: http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/41_Parliament/Session2/b041.pdf (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 8 Canadian Medical Association. Physician resource planning. Updated 2015. Ottawa: The Association; 2015. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD15-07.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 9 Cochrane DD. Investigation into medical imaging, credentialing and quality assurance. Phase 2 report. Vancouver: BC Patient Safety & Quality Council; Aug 2011. Available: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2011/cochrane-phase2-report.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 10 British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative. Briefing note: BC MQI - Provincial Practitioner Credentialing and Privileging System (CACTUS Software) Implementation. Vancouver: British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative; January 2016. Available: http://bcmqi.ca/wp-content/uploads/Briefing-Note_ProvincialPractitionerCPSystemImplementation.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 11 British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative. Family Practice with Enhanced Surgical Skills Clinical Privileges. Vancouver: British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative; March 2015. Available: http://www.srpc.ca/ess2016/summit/FamilyPracticeEnhancedSurgicalSkills.pdf (accessed 2016 Nov 06). 12 Soles H, Larsen Soles T. SRPC position statement on minimum-volume credentialing. Can J Rural Med. 2016;21(4):107-11. 13 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS 2015. Physician competency framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015. Available: http://canmeds.royalcollege.ca/uploads/en/framework/CanMEDS%202015%20Framework_EN_Reduced.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 14 College of Family Physicians of Canada. CanMEDS-Family Medicine. Working Group on Curriculum Review. Mississauga: College of Family Physicians of Canada; October 2009. Available: http://www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Education/CanMeds%20FM%20Eng.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 15 Alberta Medical Association, Alberta Health Services, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Advocacy Policy Statement. Edmonton: Alberta Medical Association; 2015. Available: https://www.albertadoctors.org/Advocacy/Policy_Statement.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 16 Eastern Health. Privacy and confidentiality. ADM-030. St. John's, NL: Eastern Health; 2015. Available: http://www.easternhealth.ca/OurServices.aspx?d=2&id=743&p=740 (accessed 2016 Jun 23). 17 Canadian Medical Association. The evolving professional relationship between Canadian physicians and our evolving health care system: where do we stand? Ottawa: The Association; 2012. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/policy-research/CMA_Policy_The_evolving_professional_relationship_between_Canadian_physicians_and_our_health_care_system_PD12-04-e.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 18 Public Health Act. SBC 2008, Chapter 28. Available: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/08028_01 (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 19 Canadian Medical Protective Association. Changing physician-hospital relationships: Managing the medico-legal implications of change. Ottawa: The Association; 2011. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/changing-physician-hospital-relationships (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 20 Canadian Medical Protective Association. The changing practice of medicine: employment contracts and medical liability. Ottawa: The Association; 2012. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/the-changing-practice-of-medicine-employment-contracts-and-medical-liability (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 21 Canadian Medical Protective Association. Medical-legal issues to consider with individual contracts. Ottawa: The Association; 2016. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/medico-legal-issues-to-consider-with-individual-contracts (accessed 2016 Nov 07).
Documents
Less detail

Federal tax proposal risks negative consequences for health care delivery

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11960
Date
2016-11-18
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2016-11-18
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The CMA is the national voice of Canadian physicians. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA’s mission is helping physicians care for patients. In fulfillment of this mission, the CMA’s role is focused on national, pan-Canadian health advocacy and policy priorities. As detailed in this brief, the CMA is gravely concerned that by capturing group medical structures in the application of Section 44 of Bill C-29, the federal government will inadvertently negatively affect medical research, medical training and education as well as access to care. To ensure that the unintended consequences of this federal tax policy change do not occur, the CMA is strongly recommending that the federal government exempt group medical and health care delivery from the proposed changes to s.125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction in Section 44 of Bill C-29. Relevance of the Canadian Controlled Private Corporation Framework to Medical Practice Canada’s physicians are highly skilled professionals, providing an important public service and making a significant contribution to our country’s knowledge economy. Due to the design of Canada’s health care system, a large majority of physicians – more than 90% – are self-employed professionals and effectively small business owners. As self-employed small business owners, physicians typically do not have access to pensions or health benefits, although they are responsible for these benefits for their employees. Access to the Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) framework and the Small Business Deduction (SBD) are integral to managing a medical practice in Canada. It is imperative to recognize that physicians cannot pass on any increased costs, such as changes to CCPC framework and access to the SBD, onto patients, as other businesses would do with clients. In light of the unique business perspectives of medical practice, the CMA strongly welcomed the Finance Committee’s recommendation to maintain the existing small business framework and the subsequent federal recognition in the 2016 budget of the value that health care professionals deliver to communities across Canada as small business operators. Contrary to this recognition, the 2016 budget also introduced a proposal to alter eligibility to the small business deduction that will impact physicians incorporated in group medical structures. What’s at risk: Contribution of group medical structures to health care delivery The CMA estimates that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 physicians will be affected by this federal taxation proposal. If implemented, this federal taxation measure will negatively affect group medical structures in communities across Canada. By capturing group medical structures, this proposal also introduces an inequity amongst incorporated physicians, and incentivizes solo practice, which counters provincial and territorial health delivery priorities. Group medical structures are prevalent within academic health science centres and amongst certain specialties, notably oncology, anaesthesiology, radiology, and cardiology. Specialist care has become increasingly sub-specialized. For many specialties, it is now standard practice for this care to be provided by teams composed of numerous specialists, sub-specialists and allied health care providers. Team-based care is essential for educating and training medical students and residents in teaching hospitals, and for conducting medical research. Put simply, group medical structures have not been formed for taxation or commercial purposes. Rather, group medical structures were formed to deliver provincial and territorial health priorities, primarily in the academic health setting, such as teaching, medical research as well as optimizing the delivery of patient care. Over many years, and even decades, provincial and territorial governments have been supporting and encouraging the delivery of care through team-based models. To be clear, group medical structures were formed to meet health sector priorities; they were not formed for business purposes. It is equally important to recognize that group medical structures differ in purpose and function from similar corporate or partnership structures seen in other professions. Unlike most other professionals, physicians do not form these structures for the purpose of enhancing their ability to earn profit. It is critical that the federal government acknowledge that altering eligibility to the small business deduction will have more significant taxation implication than simply the 4.5% difference in the small business versus general rate at the federal level. It would be disingenuous to argue that removing full access to the small business deduction for incorporated physicians in group medical structures will be a minor taxation increase. As demonstrated below in Table 1, the effect of this federal taxation change will vary by province. Table 1: Taxation impacts by province, if the federal taxation proposal is implemented In Nova Scotia, for example, approximately 60% of specialist physicians practice in group medical structures. If the federal government applies this taxation proposal to group medical structures, these physicians will face an immediate 17.5% increase in taxation. In doing so, the federal government will establish a strong incentive for these physicians to move away from team-based practice to solo practice. If this comes to pass, the federal government may be responsible for triggering a reorganization of medical practice in Nova Scotia. Finance Canada Grossly Underestimating the Net Impact The CMA is aware that Finance Canada has developed theoretical scenarios that demonstrate a minimal impact to incorporated physicians within group medical structures. Working closely with our subsidiary, MD Financial Management, the CMA submitted real financial scenarios from real financial information provided to the CMA from incorporated physicians in group medical structures. These real examples demonstrate that there will be a significant impact to incorporated physicians in group medical structures, if this federal tax proposal will apply to them. The theoretical scenarios developed by Finance Canada conclude the net financial impact to an incorporated physician in a group medical structure would be in the magnitude of hundreds of dollars. In stark contrast to the theoretical scenarios developed by Finance Canada, the CMA submitted financial scenarios of two incorporated physicians in group medical structures. The financial calculations undertaken by the CMA is based on the real financial information of these two physicians. The examples revealed yearly net reduction of funds of $32,510 and $18,065 for each of these physicians respectively. Projecting forward, for the first physician, this would represent a negative impact of $402,330 based on a 20-year timeframe and 4.8% rate of return1. Extending the same assumptions to all incorporated members of that physician’s group medical structure, the long-term impact for the group would be $39.4 million.2 1 Source: MD Financial Management 2 Please note that these projections have not been adjusted for the inherent tax liability on the growth. 3 Source: MD Financial Management 4 Please note that these projections have not been adjusted for the inherent tax liability on the growth. For the second physician, projecting forward, this would represent a negative impact of $223,565, based on a 20-year timeframe and 4.8% rate of return3. Extending the same assumptions to all incorporated members of that physician’s group medical structure, the long-term impact for the group would be $13.4 million.4 Unprecedented Level of Concern Expressed by Physicians Following the publication of the 2016 federal budget, the CMA received a significant volume of correspondence from its membership expressing deep concern with the proposal to alter access to the small business deduction for group medical structures. The level of correspondence from our membership is quite simply unprecedented in our almost 150 year history. As part of the CMA’s due diligence as the national professional organization representing physicians, we informed our membership of Finance Canada’s consultation process on the draft legislative measures. In response, the CMA was copied on submissions by over 1,300 physicians to Finance Canada’s pre-legislative consultation. In follow up, the CMA surveyed these physicians to better understand the impacts of the budget proposal. Here’s what we heard: . Most respondents (61%) indicated that their group structure would dissolve; . Most respondents (54%) said they would stop practicing in their group structure and that other partners would leave (76%); . A large majority (78%) indicated that the tax proposal would lead to reduced investments in medical research by their group; . Almost 70% indicated that the tax proposal would limit their ability to provide medical training spots; and, . Another 70% indicated that the tax proposal will mean reduced specialty care by their group. The full summary of the survey is provided as an appendix to this brief. To further illustrate the risks of this proposal to health care, below are excerpts from some of the communiques received by the CMA from its membership: . “Our Partnership was formed in the 1970s…The mission of the Partnership is to achieve excellence in patient care, education and research activities….there would be a serious adverse effect on retention and recruitment if members do not have access to the full small business deduction…The changes will likely result in pressure to dissolve the partnership and revert to the era of departments services by independent contractors with competing individual financial interests.” Submitted to the CMA April 15, 2016 from a member of the Anesthesia Associates of the Ottawa Hospital General Campus . “The University of Ottawa Heart Institute is an academic health care institution dedicated to patient care, research and medical education…To support what we call our “academic mission,” cardiologists at the institute have formed an academic partnership…If these [taxation] changes go forward they will crippled the ability of groups such as ours to continue to function and will have a dramatic negative impact on medical education, innovative health care research, and the provision of high-quality patient care to our sickest patients.” Submitted to the CMA April 19, 2016 from a member of the Associates in Cardiology . “We are a general partnership consisting of 93 partners all of whom are academic anesthesiologists with appointments to the Faculty of the University of Toronto and with clinical appointments at the University Health Network, Sinai Health System or Women’s College Hospital…In contrast to traditional business partnerships, we glean no business advantage whatsoever from being in a partnership…the proposed legislation in Budget 2016 seems unfair in that it will add another financial hardship to our partners – in our view, this is a regressive tax on research, teaching and innovation.” Submitted to the CMA April 14, 2016 from members of the UHN-MSH Anesthesia Associates Recommendation The CMA recommends that the federal government exempt group medical and health care delivery from the proposed changes to s.125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction, as proposed in Section 44 of Bill C-29, Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2. Below is a proposed legislative amendment to ensure group medical structures are exempted from Section 44 of Bill C-29, Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2: Section 125 of the Act is amended by adding the following after proposed subsection 125(9): 125(10) Interpretation of designated member – [group medical partnership] – For purposes of this section, in determining whether a Canadian-controlled private corporation controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician is a designated member of a particular partnership in a taxation year, the term "particular partnership" shall not include any partnership that is a group medical partnership. 125(11) Interpretation of specified corporate income – [group medical corporation] – For purposes of this section, in determining the specified corporate income for a taxation year of a corporation controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician, the term "private corporation" shall not include a group medical corporation. Subsection 125(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: "group medical partnership" means a partnership that: (a) is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician; and (b) earns all or substantially all of its income for the year from an active business of providing services or property to, or in relation to, a medical practice; "group medical corporation" means a corporation that: (a) is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician; and (b) earns all or substantially all of its income for the year from an active business of providing services or property to, or in relation to, a medical practice. "medical practice" means any practice and authorized acts of a physician as defined in provincial or territorial legislation or regulations and any activities in relation to, or incidental to, such practice and authorized acts; "physician" means a health care practitioner duly licensed with a provincial or territorial medical regulatory authority and actively engaged in practice; Incorporation Survey, October 2016 *Totals may exceed 100% as respondents were allowed to select more than one response 65% 13% 6% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% ON AB BC NS MB NL QC SK NB YT % Distribution by Province of Practice 65% 28% 22% 15% 9% 8% 8% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% Academic health sciences centre Private office / clinic University Community hospital Emergency department (in community hospital or AHSC) Community clinic/Community health centre Non-AHSC teaching hospital Research unit Free-standing lab/diagnostic clinic Free-standing walk-in clinic Nursing home/ Long term care facility / Seniors' residence Administrative office / Corporate office Other % Distribution by Work Setting 20 12 9 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 4 Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa) University Health Network (Toronto) Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto) Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary) St. Joseph's Health Centre (Hamilton) Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) London Health Sciences Centre (London) South Calgary Health Campus (Calgary) St. Micheal's Hospital (Toronto) Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa) Royal Alexandra Hospital (Edmonton) Most frequently mentioned hospitals where respondents work in group medical structures Synopsis 61 54 76 78 67 68 30 36 19 16 23 24 9 10 5 6 10 8 Group medical structure will dissolve Stop practice in your group medical structure Partnering members leave the group medical structure Reduced investments in medical research Reduced medical training spots Reduced provision of specialized care Physicians perceptions about the likelihood of the following outcomes Likely or very likely Unsure Unlikely or very unlikely The federal government is advancing a tax proposal that will alter access to the small business deduction. If implemented, this proposal will affect incorporated physicians practicing in partnership group medical structures. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is actively advocating for the federal government to exempt group medical structures from the application of this tax proposal. 94% 2% 4% Importance of Exempting Group Medical Structures from the Tax Proposal Important or very important Unsure Unimportant or very unimportant To support the effectiveness of its advocacy efforts, the CMA conducted an online survey seeking input from members who had voiced their concerns about this issue directly with the Department of Finance and who had copied the CMA on their submissions. Sample: physician type, province, and work setting The survey was sent to 1089 CMA members, of which 174 responded (15.9% response rate). All sample respondents were incorporated and practiced in a group medical structure; 26% were family physicians (N=45) and 74% were specialists (N=129). Most respondents indicated practicing primarily in Ontario (65%) and Alberta (13%). With respect to practice settings, the majority reported working in an academic health sciences centre (65%), followed by a private office/clinic (28%), university (22%), community hospital (15%), emergency department (9%), community clinic/community health centre (8%), non-AHSC teaching hospital (8%), research unit (6%), and free-standing lab/diagnostic clinic (6%). In total, respondents worked in 79 hospitals spread around 36 cities. Likelihood of outcomes resulting from the federal tax proposal When asked about the possible consequences of the proposed changes, the largest share of respondents (78%) felt a reduction in investments in medical research was likely or very likely. Almost as many (76%) also felt that partnering members would likely leave the group medical structure. . Most respondents (61%) indicated that their group medical structure would be likely or very likely to dissolve if the federal tax proposal to change access to the small business deduction was implemented. Less than one-third (30%) felt unsure while only a few (9%) reported it as unlikely or very unlikely. . More than half of respondents (54%) indicated that they would be likely or very likely to stop practicing in their group medical structure if the tax proposal was implemented. More than one-third (36%) were unsure while only a few (10%) reported it as unlikely or very unlikely. . More than three-quarters of respondents (76%) indicated that other partnering members would be likely or very likely to leave their group medical structure if the tax proposal was implemented. About 20% remained unsure while only 5% reported it as unlikely or very unlikely. . Almost 8 in 10 respondents (78%) indicated that implementing the tax proposal would be likely or very likely to reduce investments in medical research for their group medical structure. 16% remained unsure while 6% reported it as unlikely or very unlikely. . Approximately two-thirds of respondents (67%) indicated that implementing the tax proposal would be likely or very likely to reduce the ability of the group medical structure to provide medical training spots. About a quarter (23%) remained unsure and 1 in 10 reported it as unlikely or very unlikely. . Almost 7 in 10 respondents (68%) indicated that implementing the tax proposal would be likely or very likely to reduce provision of specialized care by their group medical structure. Almost a quarter (24%) remained unsure while 8% reported it as unlikely or very unlikely. Importance of exempting group medical structures from the tax proposal More than 9 in 10 respondents (94%) felt that it is important or very important for the federal government to exempt group medical structures from the tax proposal to avoid negatively affecting health care delivery in their province. The remaining respondents were unsure (2%) or considered it unimportant or very unimportant (4%). Other Impacts – Write-in Question Before submitting the survey, respondents were given the chance to provide additional comments about other potential impacts that the proposed changes might produce. Most responses touched upon a few and inter-related themes, including: 1. Impact on education and research will be detrimental and will eventually affect patient care: o “Without the group medical structure, we cannot adequately support teaching education and research activities. Physicians in academic health sciences centres will be forced to use their time to see patients, in order to bill fee-for-service to make a living. Very little time will be left over to spend doing the research that is critical to advancing medical science, to supporting our university, and our nation’s prominent place in the world of medicine” o “Support is given to the academic health sciences centres by the provincial government in order to facilitate research and education. The federal government's changes will penalize physicians who already dedicate much of their time to providing the stepping stones to advance medicine forward. These physicians generally make less income than physicians working in private practice. They are willing to take this monetary hit because they love what they do. However we all need to support our families and put food on the table. With the government's changes, this may not be possible in the current system, and these group medical structures will need to be dissolved and the physicians working will have much less time to dedicate to research and education.” o “Less education, research activity to focus on fee-for-service procedures to compensate for higher taxes.” o Our ability to provide teaching for medical education and research, which are currently not remunerated, would be curtailed. There would be no incentive but rather a significant disincentive to provide these activities because we would be financially penalized compared to physicians in the same specialty that are not in group medical structures.” o “As the main teaching practice structure, we will lose full time faculty who provide the backbone to the program. They currently earn much below the average for Family Physicians in the province and our ability to support education and research will be compromised.” 2. Discourages practice in academic centres: o “Working in an academic center as a general pediatrician means that we already make substantially less money than our community colleagues. There is very little incentive to remain in academic practice if we not only earn less, but are then not entitled to the same tax savings. I would leave academic practice and I suspect many of my colleagues would as well. I think we could see the end of the current group medical structure, as it would no longer support a financially viable model for academic practice.” o “Creates a further divide between working in an academic centre and in the community. It will continue to be more advantageous to work in a smaller community - more money, less cost of living, less administrative and academic hassles, less research funding. Why bother working at an academic centre with such disadvantages.” o “This policy seems to target academic physicians in groups disproportionately. These physicians currently support research and education by reallocating our own funds generated from clinical care. It is puzzling as to why the Federal Government is waging this war on the academic physician workforce.” 3. Physician retention and recruitment will be challenging: o “I will retire sooner than otherwise.” o “At the present time it is very difficult to recruit family doctors who are interested in teaching, research and administration of academic family medicine. This tax change will make it increasingly more difficult to recruit such individuals.” o “I'm concerned that the proposed changes erase any benefits from a corporation structure and leave me with a loss. Work is so stressful and demanding that if I find myself in a disadvantaged situation financially as well, this would be another factor encouraging me either to retire or move outside of Canada. If I'm going to be faced with losses and more stress, why not instead focus on my quality of life instead?” o “It would severely restrict our ability to recruit research and specialty physicians. We would not be able to compete with community centres and would see a dramatic decline in our ability to provide for teaching and research activities now funded through the group structure.” o “I am a dual citizen and would seriously entertain moving to the USA.” o “It will basically force me to go to a free standing walk in clinic.” o “It would be less likely to recruit the best quality of medical staff to academic practice as there will be a significant financial disincentive, especially compared to what that same individual could earn on their own in a community practice. This is on top of the fact that academic practitioners tend to earn less to start with.” 4. Discourages team-based collaborative care: o “The bill sets up an unfair system where it is more attractive to be a solo MD rather than to collaborate and be part of a team.” o “This creates an every person for themselves philosophy.” o “The provision of our group services is required to ensure best patient care. It is wrong to penalize this model of comprehensive care.” 5. Practice will close and services will be limited in certain areas: o “Any reduction in research, administration, academic activity, and members would affect patient care at our facility and therefore be a threat to patient safety. e.g., if multiple physicians leave, then we won't have enough physicians to cover the emergency department appropriately, wait times will increase, and serious patient safety concerns will arise.” o “Reduces productivity of the doctors concerned and hence quality of service provided. Access will also be affected!” o This would be unattractive for some, and they may leave (or others may not join.) If partners leave, the overhead will go up and we would likely close. Because our overhead is already borderline unacceptable. Shared between fewer docs would make it economically impossible. And this could easily happen if docs leave. o “Reduced physician coverage if members opt out of group medical structure, which would have an impact on greater access and the quality of care.” o “Our ability to have a large interdisciplinary team to assist in serving our patients could not continue to exist. Our ability to continue to provide 24/7 on-call and after hours clinics would decrease due to a change in the structure leading to less practitioners.”
Documents
Less detail

Regulation of Self-Care Products in Canada

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13802
Date
2016-10-31
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-10-31
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health care and patient safety
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Health Canada consultations on the regulation of self-care products in Canada. The CMA is encouraged that Health Canada is proposing a framework for the regulation of self-care products that is reliant on scientific proof to support health claims. The CMA has over 83,000 physician-members. Its mission is helping physicians care for patients and its vision is to be the leader in engaging and serving physicians, and the national voice for the highest standards for health and health care. The CMA’s comments on the regulation of self-care products, particularly natural health products and non-prescription drugs is based on the CMA Policy on Complementary and Alternative Medicine attached as Appendix 1. Our position is based on the fundamental premise that decisions about health care interventions used in Canada should be based on sound scientific evidence as to their safety, efficacy and effectiveness - the same standard by which physicians and all other elements of the health care system should be assessed. Canadians deserve the highest standard of treatment available, and physicians, other health practitioners, manufacturers, regulators and researchers should all work toward this end.1 CMA supports a regulatory approach to self-care products such as natural health products that is based on risk assessment and the development of standards. 2 1 Canadian Medical Association. CMA Policy Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Update 2015). Ottawa: The Association: 2015. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD15-09.pdf F:\E-sig\JB_Signature.jpg 2 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 1998. 3Canadian Medical Association. CMA Policy Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Update 2015). Ottawa: The Association: 2015. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD15-09.pdf 4 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC08-86 - Natural health products. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2008. 5 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC10-100 - Foods fortified with “natural health” ingredients. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2010. 6 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR2014-09 - Bill C-17 An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Ottawa: The Association; 2014. Risk Based Approach As noted above CMA has recommended a regulatory approach that is based on risk assessment. We are troubled that the consultation document does not provide enough information on Health Canada’s risk assessment process. We are concerned that the proposal for a risk based approach could place many natural health and homeopathic products in a lower risk category based on whether or not the product makes a health claim which would require no Health Canada review or licensing of these products. As noted in the consultation document all health products have some level of risk and Health Canada’s role is to ensure that the benefits of a product outweigh any know risks. CMA does not believe that a determination of risk can be made based on historical use of a product or on the basis of a philosophical system not supported by science. The CMA has a long standing position that the same regulatory standards should apply to both natural health products and pharmaceutical health products. These standards should be applied to natural health products regardless of whether a health claim is made for the product. This framework must facilitate the entry of products onto the market that are known to be safe and effective, and impede the entry of products that are not known to be safe and effective until they are better understood. 3 CMA would recommend that the initial risk assessment of a self-care product should be evidence informed and based on the same standards of proof and efficacy as those for conventional medicines and pharmaceuticals. As such, we are concerned that homeopathic and natural health products are given as examples of lower risk products that would not require Health Canada review or licensing. Health Claims The consultation document redefines a health claim to only those that pertain to diagnosis, treatment, prevention, cure or mitigation of disease or serious health condition. These claims will need to be supported by scientific evidence and only these health claims will be allowed and reviewed by Health Canada. The CMA has recommended that safety and efficacy claims for natural health products, and claims for the therapeutic value of these products should be prohibited when the supportive evidence does not meet the evidentiary standard required of medications currently regulated by Health Canada. 4 Claims of medical benefit should only be permitted when compelling scientific evidence of their safety and efficacy exists.5 Therefore the CMA supports the proposal that two products making similar claims would have to provide the same level of scientific evidence and are held to the same standard. CMA would not be in support of the proposal that products can still make claims “based on traditional systems of medicine or alternate modalities” with only “adequate supporting information” to be maintained by the company without review or licensing by Health Canada. CMA would also recommend that even those products that do not make health claims are held to the same standard as those established for pharmaceutical products. Since our position is that all self-care products from lower risk to higher risk should be reviewed for safety and quality, all products should undergo review by Health Canada. Information It is certainly problematic that, as noted in the consultation document, fewer than 2 in 5 Canadians surveyed rated themselves knowledgeable about the effectiveness of self-care products. Canadians have the right to reliable, accurate information on self-care products to help ensure that choices they make are informed. It is very important that Canadians understand the level of scrutiny a product has undergone by Health Canada. CMA can support the proposal for an authorization number on those products that have been reviewed and approved by Health Canada. Equally, a disclaimer on the product label that indicates that the product has not been reviewed or approved by Health Canada for effectiveness is very important. We must guard against an assumption by the public that if Health Canada did not need to review a product there is no risk associated with the product. The Information provided on self-care products should be user friendly and easy to access and include a list of ingredients, instructions for use, indications that the product has been proven to treat, contraindications, side effects and interactions with other medications. In an era when product claims can be spread vie social media and the internet and cannot be easily monitored it is important to ensure consistent oversight of product marketing. Health claims can only be promoted if they have been established with sound scientific evidence. This restriction should apply not only to advertising, but also to all statements made in product or company Web sites and communications to distributors and the public. Advertisements should be pre-cleared to ensure that they contain no deceptive messages. Additional Powers In its submission on Bill C -17 An Act to amend the Food and drugs Act – Protecting Canadians from Unsafe drugs the CMA recommended that the ministerial authorities and measures to address patient safety risks should extend to natural health products.6 We would therefore suggest that Health Canada explore the need for additional powers and tools to require a company to change labels, or order a recall of an unsafe product and institute new penalties to address patient safety issues. Canada's physicians are prepared to work with governments, health professionals and the public in strengthening Canada's regulatory framework for self-care products to ensure that the health related products Canadians receive are safe and effective. Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC Vice-President, Medical Professionalism Canadian Medical Association CMA POLICY COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (Update 2015) This statement discusses the Canadian Medical Association’s (CMA) position on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). CAM, widely used in Canada, is increasingly being subject to regulation. The CMA’s position is based on the fundamental premise that decisions about health care interventions used in Canada should be based on sound scientific evidence as to their safety, efficacy and effectiveness - the same standard by which physicians and all other elements of the health care system should be assessed. Patients deserve the highest standard of treatment available, and physicians, other health practitioners, manufacturers, regulators and researchers should all work toward this end. All elements of the health care system should “consider first the well-being of the patient.”1 The ethical principle of non-maleficence obliges physicians to reduce their patient’s risks of harm. Physicians must constantly strive to balance the potential benefits of an intervention against its potential side effects, harms or burdens. To help physicians meet this obligation, patients should inform their physician if the patient uses CAM. 1 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. 2 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC00-196 - Clinical care to incorporate evidence-based technological advances. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2000. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 3 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 4 Canadian Medical Association. CMA statement on emerging therapies [media release]. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2010. Available: www.facturation.net/advocacy/emerging-therapies. CAM in Canada CAM has been defined as “a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine.”i This definition comprises a great many different, otherwise unrelated products, therapies and devices, with varying origins and levels of supporting scientific evidence. For the purpose of this i Working definition used by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. analysis, the CMA divides CAM into four general categories: . Diagnostic Tests: Provided by CAM practitioners. Unknown are the toxicity levels or the source of test material, e.g., purity. Clinical sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value should be evidence-based. . Products: Herbal and other remedies are widely available over-the-counter at pharmacies and health food stores. In Canada these are regulated at the federal level under the term Natural Health Products. . Interventions: Treatments such as spinal manipulation and electromagnetic field therapy may be offered by a variety of providers, regulated or otherwise. . Practitioners: There are a large variety of practitioners whose fields include chiropractic, naturopathy, traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine, and many others. Many are unregulated or regulated only in some provinces/territories of Canada. Many Canadians have used, or are currently using, at least one CAM modality. A variety of reasons has been cited for CAM use, including: tradition; curiosity; distrust of mainstream medicine; and belief in the “holistic” concept of health which CAM practitioners and users believe they provide. For most Canadians the use is complementary (in addition to conventional medicine) rather than alternative (as a replacement). Many patients do not tell their physicians that they are using CAM. Toward Evidence-Informed Health Care Use of CAM carries risks, of which its users may be unaware. Indiscriminate use and undiscriminating acceptance of CAM could lead to misinformation, false expectations, and diversion from more appropriate care, as well as adverse health effects, some of them serious. The CMA recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments respond to the health care needs of Canadians by ensuring the provision of clinical care that continually incorporates evidence-informed technological advances in information, prevention, and diagnostic and therapeutic services.2 Physicians take seriously their duty to advocate for quality health care and help their patients choose the most beneficial interventions. Physicians strongly support the right of patients to make informed decisions about their medical care. However, the CMA’s Code of Ethics requires physicians to recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that they consider to be beneficial to the patient or to others.3 Until CAM interventions are supported by scientifically-valid evidence, physicians should not recommend them. Unless proven beneficial, CAM services should not be publicly funded. To help ensure that Canadians receive the highest-quality health care, the CMA recommends that CAM be subject to rigorous research on its effects, that it be strictly regulated, and that health professionals and the public have access to reliable, accurate, evidence-informed information on CAM products and therapies. Specific recommendations are provided below: a) Research: Building an Evidence Base To date, much of the public’s information on CAM has been anecdotal, or founded on exaggerated claims of benefit based on few or low-quality studies. The CMA is committed to the principle that, before any new treatment is adopted and applied by the medical profession, it must first be rigorously tested and recognized as evidence-informed.4 Increasingly, good-quality, well-controlled studies are being conducted on CAM products and therapies. The CMA supports this development. Research into promising therapies is always welcome and should be encouraged, provided that it is subject to the same standards for proof and efficacy as those for conventional medical and pharmaceutical treatments. The knowledge thus obtained should be widely disseminated to health professionals and the public. b) An Appropriate Regulatory Framework Regulatory frameworks governing CAM, like those governing any health intervention, should enshrine the concept that therapies should have a proven benefit before being represented to Canadians as effective health treatments. i) Natural Health Products. Natural health products are regulated at the federal level through the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada. The CMA believes that the principle of fairness must be applied to the regulatory process so that natural health products are treated fairly in comparison with other health products.5 The same regulatory standards should apply to both natural health products and pharmaceutical health products. These standards should be applied to natural health products regardless of whether a health claim is made for the product. This framework must facilitate the entry of products onto the market that are known to be safe and effective, and impede the entry of products that are not known to be safe and effective until they are better understood. It should also ensure high manufacturing standards to assure consumers of the products’ safety, quality and purity. The CMA also recommends that a series of standards be developed for each natural health product. These standards should include: 5 Canadian Medical Association. CMA statement on emerging therapies [media release]. Available: www.facturation.net/advocacy/emerging-therapies. 6 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 1998. 7 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC08-86 - Natural health products. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2008. 8 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC10-100 - Foods fortified with “natural health” ingredients. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2010. Available: 9 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. Paragraph 7. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 10 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. Paragraph 11. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 11 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa: The Association; 1998. 12 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa: The Association; 1998. * manufacturing processes that ensure the purity, safety and quality of the product; * labelling standards that include standards for consumer advice, cautions and claims, and explanations for the safe use of the product to the consumer.6 The CMA recommends that safety and efficacy claims for natural health products be evaluated by an arm’s length scientific panel, and claims for the therapeutic value of natural health products should be prohibited when the supportive evidence does not meet the evidentiary standard required of medications regulated by Health Canada.7 Claims of medical benefit should only be permitted when compelling scientific evidence of their safety and efficacy exists.8 The Canadian Medical Association advocates that foods fortified with “natural health” ingredients should be regulated as food products and not as natural health products The CMA recommends that the regulatory system for natural health products be applied to post-marketing surveillance as well as pre-marketing regulatory review. Health Canada’s MedEffect adverse reaction reporting system now collects safety reports on Natural Health Products. Consumers, health professionals and manufacturers are encouraged to report adverse reactions to Health Canada. ii) CAM Practitioners. Regulation of CAM practitioners is at different stages. The CMA believes that this regulation should: ensure that the services CAM practitioners offer are truly efficacious; establish quality control mechanisms and appropriate standards of practice; and work to develop an evidence-informed body of competence that develops with evolving knowledge. Just as the CMA believes that natural health products should be treated fairly in comparison with other health products, it recommends that CAM practitioners be held to the same standards as other health professionals. All CAM practitioners should develop Codes of Ethics that insure practitioners consider first the best interests of their patients. Among other things, associations representing CAM practitioners should develop and adhere to conflict of interest guidelines that require their members to: . Resist any influence or interference that could undermine their professional integrity;9 . Recognize and disclose conflicts of interest that arise in the course of their professional duties and activities, and resolve them in the best interests of patients;10 . Refrain, for the most part, from dispensing the products they prescribe. Engaging in both prescribing and dispensing , whether for financial benefit or not, constitutes a conflict of interest where the provider's own interests conflict with their duty to act in the best interests of the patient. c) Information and Promotion Canadians have the right to reliable, accurate information on CAM products and therapies to help ensure that the treatment choices they make are informed. The CMA recommends that governments, manufacturers, health care providers and other stakeholders work together to ensure that Canadians have access to this information. The CMA believes that all natural health products should be labeled so as to include a qualitative list of all ingredients. 11 Information on CAM should be user-friendly and easy to access, and should include: . Instructions for use; . Indications that the product or therapy has been convincingly proven to treat; . Contraindications, side effects and interactions with other medications; . Should advise the consumer to inform their health care provider during any encounter that they are using this product.12 This information should be provided in such a way as to minimize the impact of vested commercial interests on its content. In general, brand-specific advertising is a less than optimal way of providing information about any health product or therapy. In view of our limited knowledge of their effectiveness and the risks they may contain risks, the advertising of health claims for natural health products should be severely restricted. The CMA recommends that health claims be promoted only if they have been established with sound scientific evidence. This restriction should apply not only to advertising, but also to all statements made in product or company Web sites and communications to distributors and the public. Advertisements should be pre-cleared to ensure that they contain no deceptive messages. Sanctions against deceptive advertising must be rigidly enforced, with Health Canada devoting adequate resources to monitor and correct misleading claims. The CMA recommends that product labels include approved health claims, cautions and contraindications, instructions for the safe use of the product, and a recommendation that patients tell physicians that they are using the products. If no health claims are approved for a particular natural health product, the label should include a prominent notice that there is no evidence the product contributes to health or alleviates disease. The Role of Health Professionals Whether or not physicians and other health professionals support the use of CAM, it is important that they have access to reliable information on CAM products and therapies, so that they can discuss them with their patients. Patients should be encouraged to report use of all health products, including natural health products, to health care providers during consultations. The CMA encourages Canadians to become educated about their own health and health care, and to appraise all health information critically. The CMA will continue to advocate for evidence-informed assessment of all methods of health care in Canada, and for the provision of accurate, timely and reliable health information to Canadian health care providers and patients.
Documents
Less detail

Front-of-package labelling consultation

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13800
Date
2016-10-31
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-10-31
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
The CMA believes that governments have a responsibility to provide guidance on healthy eating that can be easily incorporated into daily lives, and that the federal government has a continuous obligation to promulgate policies, standards, regulations and legislations that support healthy food and beverage choices. In this regard, CMA policy has encouraged governments to continue to work to reduce the salt, sugar, saturated fat, trans fat and calorie content of processed foods and prepared meals; provide user-friendly consumer information including complete nutritional content and accurate advertising claims; and increase the amount of information provided on product labels.1 We commend Health Canada on recent work on updating the nutrition facts table and the current revision of the Canada Food Guide and are very pleased to provide a response to the consumer questionnaire on the Health Canada proposal for front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labelling. FOP nutrition labelling approach and possible symbols Do you support Health Canada's proposal to use a symbol to identify foods that are high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. In 2011, appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, the CMA supported a standard "at a glance" approach to FOP food labelling that can reduce confusion and help consumers make informed dietary choices.2 There is a growing body of evidence linking the consumption of diets high in saturated fats, sugars or sodium to cardiovascular and chronic disease (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, cancer, and heart disease and stroke) - leading preventable risk factors and causes of death and disability within Canada and worldwide. Therefore, the CMA does support the proposal to use a symbol for "high in" FOP labelling of foods high in sugar, sodium or saturated fats. FOP labelling on packaged foods may help Canadians make healthier food choices. It will draw attention to those ingredients to be avoided in higher levels and can reinforce public health messaging on healthy eating. An added benefit may be an incentive to the food industry to reformulate processed foods with lower amounts of those nutrients highlighted in FOP labelling. Which symbol would help you recognize foods high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. Of the proposed symbols, we believe that those that resemble a stop sign would send a strong and recognizable signal of a food to avoid. The triangle yield sign shape is too similar to the shape often used to indicate a hazard such as poison. We would recommend holding focus groups with Canadians to better understand how the proposed symbols will be understood by consumers. Foods that do not have nutrition labelling Do you think these foods should be exempt from FOP symbols even if they're high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. The CMA can support the exemption of FOP labelling for products in very small packages but we would like to see a provision to include information on "high in" sugar, salt or saturated fats on foods such as sausages, bakery products, prepared dishes from the deli produced and prepackaged by grocery stores/retailers as they are categories of foods often high in these nutrients. A "high in" sticker could be added to the retailer's packaging to be consistent with other packaged foods. Nutrient levels for a "high in" FOP label Do you think the proposed nutrient levels make sense to identify foods that are high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. The CMA supports the proposed nutrient levels to identify foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fats. The CMA believes that it is important that there is consistency across all nutritional and healthy eating information and advice for Canadians. Ensuring that the "high in" threshold and the 15% "a lot" daily value (DV) message are consistent delivers a clear message of concern. While we understand the rationale behind increasing the nutrient threshold for prepackaged meals to 30% of the DV, we suggest that the threshold for "high in" sugar of 30 grams or more total sugars per serving of stated size may be too high and should be reconsidered. It should also be noted that the different thresholds on prepackaged foods and prepackaged meals may cause confusion for consumers and should be introduced with some consumer education. Updating nutrient content claims and other nutrition-related statements Do you support not allowing a "no added sugars" claim on foods high in sugars? Please explain. Allowing a food that qualifies for a "high in" sugar FOP symbol to also display a "no added sugars" claim would be very confusing to consumers. The product label information would appear as quite contradictory; therefore the CMA does support not allowing "no added sugar" claims on these foods. The CMA would suggest that a food that is high in two or more of sugar, sodium or saturated fats not be allowed to display any content claims to avoid any consumer confusion. Labelling of foods that have sweeteners Do you support that these sweeteners be declared in the list of ingredients only, rather than in the list of ingredients and the front of the package? Please explain. We do not support the elimination of the labelling requirement for artificial sweeteners on the principle display panel. For products that have high intensity sweeteners added and which bear claims such as "unsweetened" or "no sugar added," a declaration of "artificially sweetened" should be clearly visible on the FOP. The specific sweetener does not need to be identified so long as it is declared in the list of ingredients. As long as quantity is displayed on the nutrition facts table it doesn't need to be on the principal display. For many Canadians, their diet can have a negative rather than positive impact on their overall health. There is a particular concern for children and youth who are growing up in increasingly obesogenic environments that reinforce practices that work against a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle. Determined action is required for children and youth to learn and acquire healthy behaviours that they will maintain throughout their life. The CMA supports the government's Healthy Living Strategy and their efforts to create a healthier food environment. The addition of FOP nutrition labelling is an important tool to make the healthy choice the easy choice. Sincerely, Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC Vice-president, Medical Professionalism 1 Healthy Behaviours: Promoting Physical Activity and Healthy Eating, Canadian Medical Association Policy, 2014, accessed at http://policybase.cma.ca. 2 Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Nutrition Labelling, Canadian Medical Association, March 3, 2011 accessed at http://policybase.cma.ca --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Documents
Less detail

Statement to the House of Commons Committee on Health addressing the opioid crisis in Canada

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13936
Date
2016-10-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2016-10-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health care and patient safety
Text
Thank you Mr. Chair. I am Dr. Jeff Blackmer, the Vice-President of Medical Professionalism for the Canadian Medical Association. On behalf of the CMA, let me first commend the committee for initiating an emergency study on this public health crisis in Canada. As the national organization representing over 83,000 Canadian physicians, the CMA has an instrumental role in collaborating with other health stakeholders, governments and patient organizations in addressing the opioid crisis in Canada. On behalf of Canada’s doctors, the CMA is deeply concerned with the escalating public health crisis related to problematic opioid and fentanyl use. Physicians are on the front lines in many respects. Doctors are responsible for supporting patients with the management of acute and chronic pain. Policy makers must recognize that prescription opioids are an essential tool in the alleviation of pain and suffering, particularly in palliative and cancer care. The CMA has long been concerned with the harms associated with opioid use. In fact, we appeared before this committee as part of its 2013 study on the government’s role in addressing prescription drug abuse. At that time, we made a number of recommendations on the government’s role – some of which I will reiterate today. Since then, the CMA has taken numerous actions to contribute to Canada’s response to the opioid crisis. These actions have included advancing the physician perspective in all active government consultations. In addition to the 2013 study by the health committee, we have also participated in the 2014 ministerial roundtable and recent regulatory consultations led by Health Canada — specifically, on tamper resistant technology for drugs and delisting of naloxone for the prevention of overdose deaths in the community. 3 Our other actions have included: · Undertaking physician polling to better understand physician experiences with prescribing opioids; · Developing and disseminating new policy on addressing the harms associated with opioids; · Supporting the development of continuing medical education resources and tools for physicians; · Supporting the national prescription drug drop off days; and, · Hosting a physician education session as part of our annual meeting in 2015. Further, I’m pleased to report that the CMA has recently joined the Executive Council of the First Do No Harm strategy, coordinated by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. In addition, we have joined 7 leading stakeholders as part of a consortium formed this year to collaborate on addressing the issue from a medical standpoint. I will now turn to the CMA’s recommendations for the committee’s consideration. These are grouped in four major theme areas. 1) Harm Reduction The first of them is harm reduction. Addiction should be recognized and treated as a serious, chronic and relapsing medical condition for which there are effective treatments. Despite the fact that there is broad recognition that we are in a public health crisis, the focus of the federal National Anti-Drug Strategy is heavily skewed towards a criminal justice approach rather than a public health approach. In its current form, this strategy does not significantly address the determinants of drug use, treat addictions, or reduce the harms associated with drug use. The CMA strongly recommends that the federal government review the National Anti-Drug Strategy to reinstate harm reduction as a core pillar. Supervised consumption sites are an important part of a harm reduction program that must be considered in an overall strategy to address harms from opioids. The availability of supervised consumption sites is still highly limited in Canada. The CMA maintains its concerns that the new criteria established by the Respect for Communities Act are overly burdensome and deter the establishment of new sites. 4 As such, the CMA continues to recommend that the act be repealed or at the least, significantly amended. 2) Expanding Pain Management and Addiction Treatment The second theme area I will raise is the need to expand treatment options and services. Treatment options and services for both addiction as well as pain management are woefully under-resourced in Canada. This includes substitution treatments such as buprenorphine-naloxone as well as services that help patients taper off opioids or counsel them with cognitive behavioural therapy. Availability and access of these critical resources varies by jurisdiction and region. The federal government should prioritize the expansion of these services. The CMA recommends that the federal government deliver additional funding on an emergency basis to significantly expand the availability and access to addiction treatment and pain management services. 3) Investing in Prescriber and Patient Education The third theme I will raise for the committee’s consideration is the need for greater investment in both prescriber as well as patient education resources. For prescribers, this includes continuing education modules as well as training curricula. We need to ensure the availability of unbiased and evidenced-based educational programs in opioid prescribing, pain management and in the management of addictions. Further, support for the development of educational tools and resources based on the new clinical guidelines to be released in early 2017 will have an important role. Finally, patient and public education on the harms associated with opioid usage is critical. As such, the CMA recommends that the federal government deliver new funding to support the availability and provision of education and training resources for prescribers, patients and the public. 4) Establishing a Real-time Prescription Monitoring Program Finally, to support optimal prescribing, it is critical that prescribers be provided with access to a real-time prescription monitoring program. 5 Such a program would allow physicians to review a patient’s prescription history from multiple health services prior to prescribing. Real-time prescription monitoring is currently only available in two jurisdictions in Canada. Before closing, I must emphasize that the negative impacts associated with prescription opioids represent a complex issue that will require a multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder response. A key challenge for public policy makers and prescribers is to mitigate the harms associated with prescription opioid use, without negatively affecting patient access to the appropriate treatment for their clinical conditions. To quote a past CMA president: “the unfortunate reality is that there is no silver bullet solution and no one group or government can address this issue alone”. The CMA is committed to being part of the solution. Thank you.
Documents
Less detail

Avoiding negative consequences to health care delivery from federal taxation policy

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11957
Date
2016-08-31
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-08-31
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) provides this submission in response to Finance Canada’s consultation on Legislative Proposals Relating to Income Tax, Sales Tax and Excise Duties (Draft Tax Legislative Proposals). The CMA is the national voice of Canadian physicians. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA’s mission is helping physicians care for patients. In fulfillment of this mission, the CMA’s role is focused on national, pan-Canadian health advocacy and policy priorities. As detailed in this brief, the CMA is gravely concerned that by capturing group medical structures in the application of Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals, the federal government will inadvertently negatively affect medical research, medical training and education as well as access to care. To ensure that the unintended consequences of this federal tax policy change do not occur, the CMA is strongly recommending that the federal government exempt group medical and health care delivery from the proposed changes to s.125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction in Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals. Relevance of the Canadian Controlled Private Corporation Framework to Medical Practice Canada’s physicians are highly skilled professionals, providing an important public service and making a significant contribution to our country’s knowledge economy. Due to the design of Canada’s health care system, a large majority of physicians – more than 90% – are self-employed professionals and effectively small business owners. As self-employed small business owners, physicians typically do not have access to pensions or health benefits, although they are responsible for these benefits for their employees. Access to the Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) framework and the Small Business Deduction (SBD) are integral to managing a medical practice in Canada. It is imperative to recognize that physicians cannot pass on any increased costs, such as changes to CCPC framework and access to the SBD, onto patients, as other businesses would do with clients. In light of the unique business perspectives of medical practice, the CMA strongly welcomed the federal recognition in the 2016 budget of the value that health care professionals deliver to communities across Canada as small business operators. Contrary to this recognition, the 2016 budget also introduced a proposal to alter eligibility to the small business deduction that will impact physicians incorporated in group medical structures. What’s at risk: Contribution of group medical structures to health care delivery The CMA estimates that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 physicians will be affected by this federal taxation proposal. If implemented, this federal taxation measure will negatively affect group medical structures in communities across Canada. By capturing group medical structures, this proposal also introduces an inequity amongst incorporated physicians, and incentivizes solo practice, which counters provincial and territorial health delivery priorities. Group medical structures are prevalent within academic health science centres and amongst certain specialties, notably oncology, anaesthesiology, radiology, and cardiology. Specialist care has become increasingly sub-specialized. For many specialties, it is now standard practice for this care to be provided by teams composed of numerous specialists, sub-specialists and allied health care providers. Team-based care is essential for educating and training medical students and residents in teaching hospitals, and for conducting medical research. Put simply, group medical structures have not been formed for taxation or commercial purposes. Rather, group medical structures were formed to deliver provincial and territorial health priorities, primarily in the academic health setting, such as teaching, medical research as well as optimizing the delivery of patient care. Over many years, and even decades, provincial and territorial governments have been supporting and encouraging the delivery of care through team-based models. To be clear, group medical structures were formed to meet health sector priorities; they were not formed for business purposes. It is equally important to recognize that group medical structures differ in purpose and function from similar corporate or partnership structures seen in other professions. Unlike most other professionals, physicians do not form these structures for the purpose of enhancing their ability to earn profit. It is critical for Finance Canada to acknowledge that altering eligibility to the small business deduction will have more significant taxation implication than simply the 4.5% difference in the small business versus general rate at the federal level. It would be disingenuous for Finance Canada to attempt to argue that removing full access to the small business deduction for incorporated physicians in group medical structures will be a minor taxation increase. As taxation policy experts, Finance Canada is aware that this change will impact provincial/territorial taxation, as demonstrated below in Table 1. Table 1: Taxation impacts by province/territory, if the federal taxation proposal is implemented In Nova Scotia, for example, approximately 60% of specialist physicians practice in group medical structures. If the federal government applies this taxation proposal to group medical structures, these physicians will face an immediate 17.5% increase in taxation. In doing so, the federal government will establish a strong incentive for these physicians to move away from team-based practice to solo practice. If this comes to pass, the federal government may be responsible for triggering a reorganization of medical practice in Nova Scotia. Excerpts from physician communiques The CMA has received as well as been copied on a significant volume of correspondence from across our membership conveying deep concern with the federal taxation proposal. To provide an illustration of the risks of this proposal to health care, below are excerpts from some of these communiques:
“Our Partnership was formed in the 1970s…The mission of the Partnership is to achieve excellence in patient care, education and research activities….there would be a serious adverse effect on retention and recruitment if members do not have access to the full small business deduction…The changes will likely result in pressure to dissolve the partnership and revert to the era of departments services by independent contractors with competing individual financial interests.” Submitted to the CMA April 15, 2016 from a member of the Anesthesia Associates of the Ottawa Hospital General Campus
“The University of Ottawa Heart Institute is an academic health care institution dedicated to patient care, research and medical education…To support what we call our “academic mission,” cardiologists at the institute have formed an academic partnership…If these [taxation] changes go forward they will crippled the ability of groups such as ours to continue to function and will have a dramatic negative impact on medical education, innovative health care research, and the provision of high-quality patient care to our sickest patients.” Submitted to the CMA April 19, 2016 from a member of the Associates in Cardiology
“We are a general partnership consisting of 93 partners all of whom are academic anesthesiologists with appointments to the Faculty of the University of Toronto and with clinical appointments at the University Health Network, Sinai Health System or Women’s College Hospital…In contrast to traditional business partnerships, we glean no business advantage whatsoever from being in a partnership…the proposed legislation in Budget 2016 seems unfair in that it will add another financial hardship to our partners – in our view, this is a regressive tax on research, teaching and innovation.” Submitted to the CMA April 14, 2016 from members of the UHN-MSH Anesthesia Associates Recommendation The CMA recommends that the federal government exempt group medical and health care delivery from the proposed changes to s.125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction, as proposed in Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals. Below is a proposed legislative amendment to ensure group medical structures are exempted from Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals: Section 125 of the Act is amended by adding the following after proposed subsection 125(9): 125(10) Interpretation of designated member – [group medical partnership] – For purposes of this section, in determining whether a Canadian-controlled private corporation controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician is a designated member of a particular partnership in a taxation year, the term "particular partnership" shall not include any partnership that is a group medical partnership. 125(11) Interpretation of specified corporate income – [group medical corporation] – For purposes of this section, in determining the specified corporate income for a taxation year of a corporation controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician, the term "private corporation" shall not include a group medical corporation. Subsection 125(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: "group medical partnership" means a partnership that: (a) is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician; and (b) earns all or substantially all of its income for the year from an active business of providing services or property to, or in relation to, a medical practice; "group medical corporation" means a corporation that: (a) is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician; and (b) earns all or substantially all of its income for the year from an active business of providing services or property to, or in relation to, a medical practice. "medical practice" means any practice and authorized acts of a physician as defined in provincial or territorial legislation or regulations and any activities in relation to, or incidental to, such practice and authorized acts; "physician" means a health care practitioner duly licensed with a provincial or territorial medical regulatory authority and actively engaged in practice;
Documents
Less detail

Legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11954
Date
2016-08-29
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-08-29
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to make this submission in response to the consultation led by the federal Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, which has the objective of providing advice to the government on the design of a new framework for marijuana for non-medical, or recreational, purposes. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease/injury prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. The CMA has over 83,000 physician-members. Its mission is helping physicians care for patients and its vision is to be the leader in engaging and serving physicians, and the national voice for the highest standards for health and health care. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada’s physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and over 60 national medical organizations. The Government of Canada has made a commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to marijuana in response to the high rates of marijuana use among Canadians, particularly youtha 1 2, despite its current illegal status. The existing approach to drugs has resulted in high rates of criminal records for non-violent drug offences each yearb 3, affecting disadvantaged groups disproportionately. Organized crime is supported by these high levels of use. This situation has resulted in considerable harm to society. a Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal substance in Canada. 43% of Canadians claim to have used marijuana at some point in their life, despite almost a century of prohibition. Canadian youth has the highest rate of marijuana use among 29 developed countries. Almost a quarter of the population aged 15 to 24 years reported past-year use. b According to a Stats Canada report, there were 73 thousand marijuana-related criminal offences (67% of all police-reported drug offences) in 2013. 1 Rotermann M, Langlois, K. Prevalence and correlates of marijuana use in Canada, 2012. Health Reports. 2015 Apr;26(4):10-5. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015004/article/14158-eng.pdf (accessed August 12, 2016). 2 UNICEF Office of Research. Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research; 2013. Available: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf (accessed August 12, 2016). 3 Cotter A, Greenland J, Karam M. Drug-Related Offences in Canada, 2013. Juristat. 2015 Jun 25;1-38. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14201-eng.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 11). 4 Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Ministry of Health. Toward the legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. Discussion paper. Ottawa: Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat; 2016. Available: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf (accessed July 25, 2016). 5 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health risks and harms associated with the use of marijuana. CMA Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Brief-Marijuana-Health_Committee_May27-2014-FINAL.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 12). Public opinion in Canada and internationally has risen steadily in support of the removal of criminal sanctions for simple marijuana possession, as well as for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. The federal Task Force has developed a discussion paper, Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana4, which includes the following objectives for the new regime for legal access to marijuana:
Protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth;
Keep profits out of the hands of criminals, particularly organized crime;
Reduce the burdens on police and the justice system associated with simple possession of marijuana offences;
Prevent Canadians from entering the criminal justice system and receiving criminal records for simple marijuana possession offences;
Protect public health and safety by strengthening, where appropriate, laws and enforcement measures that deter and punish more serious marijuana offences, particularly selling and distributing to children and youth, selling outside of the regulatory framework, and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana;
Ensure Canadians are well-informed through sustained and appropriate public health campaigns, and, for youth in particular, ensure that risks are understood;
Establish and enforce a system of strict production, distribution and sales, taking a public health approach, with regulation of quality and safety (e.g., child-proof packaging, warning labels), restriction of access, and application of taxes, with programmatic support for addiction treatment, mental health support and education programs;
Continue to provide access to quality-controlled marijuana for medical purposes consistent with federal policy and Court decisions; and
Conduct ongoing data collection, including gathering baseline data, to monitor the impact of the new framework. Context The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in its smoked form.5 6 Children and youth are especially at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development. 6 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). A public health perspective on cannabis and other illegal drugs. CMA Submission to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2002. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/BriefPDF/BR2002-08.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 7 Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 5;370(23):2219–2227. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/pdf/nihms762992.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 8 Wilkinson ST, Yarnell S, Radhakrishnan R, Ball SA, D'Souza DC. Marijuana Legalization: Impact on Physicians and Public Health. Annu Rev Med. 2016 Jan 14;67:453-466. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-050214-013454. (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 9 World Health Organization (WHO). Management of substance abuse: Cannabis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/ (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 10 Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. The Lancet, 2009 Oct 23;374(9698):1383-91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61037-0. (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 11 Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health, 2012. The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2013 Sep 18. Component of Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X. p. 1-2. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130918/dq130918a-eng.htm (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 12 Shenfeld A. Growing Their Own Revenue: The Fiscal Impacts of Cannabis Legalization. Economic Insights. Toronto: CIBC World Markets Inc.; 2016 Jan 28. p. 7-8. Available: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/eijan16.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 11). 13 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Cannabis Regulation: Lessons Learned In Colorado and Washington State. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 14 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Marijuana for Non-Therapeutic Purposes: Policy Considerations. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2014. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Non-Therapeutic-Marijuana-Policy-Brief-2014-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 15 Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014. Denver (CO): Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 2015. Available: http://www2.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/he1282m332015internet/he1282m332015internet01.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 16 Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy. Pathways Report: Policy Options for Regulating Marijuana in California. Denver (CO): Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy; 2015. Available: https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BRCPathwaysReport.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 17 Walsh J, Ramsey G. Uruguay’s Drug Policy: Major Innovations, Major Challenges. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution, Washington Office on Latin America; 2015. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Walsh-Uruguay-final.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 18 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2014. Available: http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/documents/camhcannabispolicyframework.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 10). Our understanding of the health effects of marijuana continues to evolve. c 7 8 9 Marijuana use is linked to several adverse health outcomes, including addiction, cardiovascular and pulmonary effects (e.g., chronic bronchitis), mental illness, and other problems, including cognitive impairment and reduced educational attainment. There seems to be an increased risk of chronic psychosis disorders, including schizophrenia, in persons with a predisposition to such disorders. The use of high potency products, higher frequency of use and early initiation are predictors of worse health outcomes. c Unlike pharmaceuticals, marijuana is a complex combination of more than 100 different chemicals. The main psychoactive component is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), but other components, such as cannabidiol (CBD), also act on the central nervous system and may modify the effects of THC. The concentration of these compounds can vary substantially, making it difficult to characterize the specific positive or negative health effects of marijuana, especially in uncontrolled and epidemiological studies. As well, the average content of THC in marijuana has increased substantially in the last 30 years. For these and other reasons, research and attribution of harm and benefit are challenging. d Similar estimates for other substances are 15% for alcohol, 23% for heroin and 32% for nicotine. e Abuse is characterized by a pattern of recurrent use where at least one of the following occurs: failure to fulfill major roles at work, school or home, use in physically hazardous situations, recurrent alcohol or drug related problems, and continued use despite social or interpersonal problems caused or intensified by alcohol or drugs. f Dependence is when at least three of the following occur in the same 12 month period: increased tolerance, withdrawal, increased consumption, unsuccessful efforts to quit, a lot of time lost recovering or using, reduced activity, and continued use despite persistent physical or psychological problems caused or intensified by alcohol or drugs. The lifetime risk of dependence to marijuana is estimated at about 9%d, increasing to almost 17% in those who initiate use in adolescence.10 In 2012, about 1.3% of people aged 15 and over met the criteria for marijuana abusee or dependencef – double that of any other drugs – due to the high prevalence of marijuana use. 11 Another area of great concern is that of impairment and the operation of vehicles, as well as the performing of work in an unsafe manner. There is an increased risk of motor vehicle collisions up to 6 hours after use, depending on method of use, dose and tolerance. As well, experience in the U.S. and even in Canada has shown that there can be an increased risk of unintentional overdoses in children due to marijuana edibles. The CMA’s overarching recommendation to the federal government is that the government must take a broad public health policy approach to address the legalization and regulation of marijuana for non-medical use. A public health approach would place an increased focus on: preventing drug abuse and dependence; the availability of assessment, counselling and treatment services for those who wish to stop using; and harm reduction to increase the safety for those who are using. This approach seeks to ensure that the harms associated with enforcement are not out of proportion to the direct harms caused by substance abuse. Individuals with drug dependency should be diverted, whenever possible, from the criminal justice system to treatment and rehabilitation. Monitoring, surveillance and research of marijuana use are essential to better understand the short and long term harms as well as to develop policy options to address prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. There are huge economic pressures at play that need to be considered in a new regime and it is essential that public health objectives be central to the process of legalization and regulation. A recent report12 estimates that it could create a $10 billion a year industry in Canada, including production and distribution. As well, legalizing marijuana will bring in considerable tax revenue, and governments could collect as much as 50% or more of that if the rate of taxation is high, as in the ‘sin’ tax on the sale of alcohol and tobacco. As well, legalization could also lead to substantial savings in enforcement and incarceration. Given these pressures by private corporations, governments and other lobby groups, it is essential that the federal and provincial/territorial governments be held accountable to public health objectives of decreasing harms of marijuana use, particularly in children and youth. The CMA’s submission does not address the question of whether marijuana should be legal; the current federal government has already made it clear that this is their intent. Instead, this submission focuses on specific recommendations from physicians as they apply to the regulatory framework, with the objective of protecting individual and public health. It is based on input from CMA’s members, discussions with key stakeholders and experts from specialty societies, a review of reports on the experience in jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana for non-medical use, such as Colorado, Washington and Uruguay13 14 15 16 17, as well as expert literature18 19. 19 George T, Vaccarino F. (eds.). Substance abuse in Canada: The effects of cannabis use during adolescence. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Effects-of-Cannabis-Use-during-Adolescence-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (accessed 2016 Aug 10). 21 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA). Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado. The Impact. 2014 Aug;2:1-166. Available: http://www.rmhidta.org/html/august%202014%20legalization%20of%20mj%20in%20colorado%20the%20impact.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 22 Monte AA, Zane RD, Heard KJ. The implications of marijuana legalization in Colorado. JAMA. 2015;313(3):241-42. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404298/pdf/nihms679104.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 23 Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014. Denver (CO): Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 2015. Available: http://www2.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/he1282m332015internet/he1282m332015internet01.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 24 Cunningham JA, Blomqvist J, Koski-Jannes A, Raitasalo K. Societal Images of Cannabis use: Comparing Three Countries. Harm Reduct J. 2012 Jun 18;9:21. Available: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-9 -21.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 25 Porath-Waller A, Brown J, Frigon A, Clark H. What Canadian youth think about cannabis: Technical report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2013. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-What-Canadian-Youth-Think-about-Cannabis-2013-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 26 Health Canada. Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A national survey of Canadians' use of alcohol and other drugs: Public opinion, attitudes and knowledge. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2006. Available: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/349980/publication.html (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 27 Fischer B, Jeffries V, Hall W, Room R, Goldner E, Rehm J. Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): A Narrative Review of Evidence and Recommendations. Can J Public Health. 2011 Sep-Oct;102(5):324-27. Available: http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/view/2758 (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 28 Health Canada. Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS). Ottawa: Health Canada; 2013. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2012/summary-sommaire-eng.php (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 29 Young MM, Student Drug Use Surveys Working Group (SDUS). Cross-Canada report on student alcohol and drug use: Technical report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2011. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/2011_CCSA_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 30 Young, M.M. et al. (2011) Cross-Canada report on student alcohol and drug use: Technical report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/2011_CCSA_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). The Task Force’s discussion paper presents the potential elements of a new system, which were grouped into five themes: 1) minimizing harms of use; 2) establishing a safe and responsible production system; 3) designing an appropriate distribution system; 4) enforcing public safety and protection; and 5) accessing marijuana for medical purposes. Each theme includes questions on specific concerns for which the Task Force is seeking input. Presented below are the CMA’s recommendations to the federal government for each section of the discussion paper. A summary of all recommendations is listed at the end of the brief. RECOMMENDATION: The CMA recommends that the federal government take a broad public health policy approach in legalizing marijuana for non-medical purposes, and that it be held accountable to these public health objectives. 1. MINIMIZING HARMS OF USE 1.1. Do you believe that these measures are appropriate to achieve the overarching objectives to minimize harms, and in particular to protect children and youth? Are there other actions which the government should consider enacting alongside these measures? Legalization and strict regulation of marijuana for recreational use seeks to reduce health and social harms, particularly in higher risk groups; however, with the increased access, there could be an inverse effect, with the potential that harms could be intensified. There is also the considerable risk that the degree of “normalization” of use that already exists could increase. Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths and an increase in the use of health care due to intoxication, burns and cyclic vomiting syndrome, as well as overdoses in children due to marijuana in edibles.20 21 22 Many of the regulatory interventions used in reducing tobacco normalization and rates, as well as controlling the harms of alcohol at a population level, are proposed in the Task Force’s discussion paper as part of a framework for marijuana legalization and regulation. These include: 1) Minimum age for legal purchase with the objective of protecting children and youth, particularly since the risks of marijuana use are higher in ages where the brain is still in development. 2) Advertising and marketing restrictions to minimize the profile and attractiveness of products, seeking to prevent or at least reduce the “normalization” of use in society, particularly among children and youth. 3) Taxation and pricing to discourage use and provide the government with revenues to offset related costs (such as substance abuse services, law enforcement and regulatory oversight). 4) Restrictions on marijuana products, particularly with regards to the THC component, given higher concentration products have added risks and unknown long term impacts, with most impact on children and youth. Restrictions would include maximum THC limits and prohibition of high-potency products. 5) Restrictions on types of marijuana products, particularly edibles, to prevent accidental or unintentional ingestion, particularly by children. Limits would be placed on dosing and potency. 6) Limitations on quantities for personal possession, with the objective of helping to reduce demand and to minimize opportunities for resale of legally purchased marijuana on the illicit market (particularly to children and youth). 7) Limitation on where marijuana can be sold in order to minimize harms. Despite the merit of each of the proposed measures, collectively these may not adequately protect children and youth. A pathway to better implementation would require: . Taking the time to adequately prepare for the implementation, including developing the capacity to meet demand, administer the system, enforce regulations and deal with adverse effects. A phased-in approach or pilots in certain jurisdictions should be considered before going nationwide. . Learning from the lessons gained in jurisdictions that have made changes in drug policy, including the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington, Uruguay, the Netherlands and Portugal. . Learning from successes and failures in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol, with respect to the objectives of reducing or eliminating use for all Canadians (tobacco) and promoting responsible use among adults, while prohibiting use in youth (alcohol). . Developing the capacity to carry out a rigorous national-level evaluation of the impact of legalization of marijuana on the health and safety of Canadians. Data collection and analysis cannot be conducted if national surveillance systems do not exist. Important data to be monitored include marijuana-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations, rates of drug-impaired driving, recreational injuries, unintentional poisonings, product contamination, overconsumption and food-borne illness from edible products.23 . Support for a research agenda to better understand harms of marijuana, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children and youth, pregnant women, people with mental illness and chronic diseases. Research should also support policy interventions, including those to address second hand smoke, harm reduction measures, treatments and effective education strategies. The CMA is supportive of the regulatory interventions proposed by the government to reduce the harms, regarding: Marketing and advertising: The CMA recommends that the marketing and advertising of marijuana be prohibited, as is currently the case for tobacco and cigarettes. Measures such as plain packaging, prohibition of appealing flavours and shapes, adequate content and potency labelling, as well as health warnings, should be incorporated to discourage experimentation. A package insert should outline health risks and supporting references, the need for securing the product in the home, preventing access by youth and children, and recommendations not to drive or work with hazardous chemicals or equipment. The insert should include information detailing the health and social consequences, including legal penalties for providing marijuana to those under a designated minimum age for purchasing. Taxation and pricing: Taxation and pricing levers should be used to discourage use, with revenues clearly earmarked for covering the health and social costs of legalization. In Colorado, for example, revenue is used in substance abuse programs, regulation of marijuana and for public school construction. However, as with tobacco, final pricing must be such as to discourage the illegal production and trafficking of marijuana. Most of future tax revenues should be redistributed to the provinces and territories. This is because they will feel the impact of legalization directly as they have jurisdiction over health care, education, social and other services, as well as responsibility for enforcement. Restrictions on the potency of marijuana products: Experience in jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized has shown that restrictions on the potency of products (i.e., THC limits) are necessary, given the higher risks of harm associated with higher potencies. Prohibition of high potency products is important. However, there is a risk that the prohibition could lead to an illicit market of more potent marijuana preparations. Restrictions on types of marijuana products: It is essential that restrictions be placed on the dosing of products, particularly of edibles, given the incidence of accidental overdoses of children. Content in a package should not be sufficient to cause an overdose. Because of these incidents, child proof packaging should also be required. Limitations on quantities for personal possession: Placing maximum limits on quantities that can be purchased would help to reduce the opportunities for illegal distribution and sale, especially to those below the established minimum age limit. The proposed measures related to minimum age for legal purchase and limitation on where marijuana can be sold are discussed in Sections 1.2 and 3, respectively, below. In addition to the regulatory interventions proposed in the “Minimizing Harms of Use” section of the discussion paper, others are equally fundamental, including: A clear process for identifying, testing and charging individuals who are driving under the influence of marijuana should be in place prior to legalization (see further discussion under Section 4). Public education: The use of public education tools to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana use is necessary. Awareness of Canadians of the harms of marijuana is generally low.24 25 26 Youth tend to emphasize the drug’s ability to help them focus, relax, sleep, reduce violent behaviour and improve creativity. There are also many dangerous myths, such as that marijuana can counter the harmful effects of smoking tobacco by preventing cancer or that marijuana makes people better drivers. There is also a perception amongst some that marijuana is not an addictive substance because it is “natural”. However, traditional public campaigns and educational programs for youth have been shown to be minimally effective. There is a need for more effective programs, including those that incorporate skills-based training that teaches youth how to handle situations that involve drugs and/or alcohol. Harm reduction measures, such as those outlined in the Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canadag 27 should be discussed, particularly with teens, in an effort to minimize harm, even if they choose to continue to use. g These include delaying use until early adulthood; avoiding frequent use; preferring smokeless delivery systems; using less potent products; not driving after use; and abstaining from use when at higher risk of cannabis-related problems (people with a personal or family history of psychosis, cardiovascular problems and pregnant women). It is important that these education programs be designed by governments and health professionals, and not marijuana producers or distributers. However, costs of such programs could come from the profits of such industries. Expanded access and immediate availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services is another very important measure to minimize harm. These services are currently difficult to access in the community and have long wait times; in many parts of Canada they are simply unavailable. A plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine and access to treatment should be in place prior to legalization. Enforcement of regulations: Licensed producers and retail outlets should be held accountable in their compliance with policies, guidance and good practices to prevent contaminants that may cause additional health issues if consumed, particularly by minors (See also Section 3). 1.2. What are your views on the minimum age for purchasing and possessing marijuana? Should the minimum age be consistent across Canada, or is it acceptable that there be variation amongst provinces and territories? In order to achieve the first objective of legalization, i.e., to protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth, a minimum age for its purchase and possession must be adopted. This has been an important measure in tobacco and alcohol regulations. Existing evidence on marijuana points to the importance of protecting the brain during its development. Since that development is only finalized by about 25 years of age, this would be an ideal minimum age based on currently accepted scientific evidence, although knowledge on brain development is still evolving. However, marijuana use among youth (ages 15 to 24) is still double that of the general population, at 20%, even though there has been a slight decrease in use in recent years.28 A 2011 report on student alcohol and drug use in Canada showed that of those youth who had used marijuana in the past 3 months, 25% had used it daily. The average age of initiation was 16.1 years. In some provinces, about 50% of students in grade 12 have reported using marijuana in the past year.29 A minimum age lower than 25 years should be considered in order to deter youth from seeking marijuana from organized crime groups, where they are exposed to other more dangerous drugs, sometimes even laced into marijuana. In jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized, the minimum age has been set at the same minimum age for purchase of alcohol, i.e., 21 years. In Canada, the age limits for acquiring alcohol and tobacco are either 18 or 19 years of age, depending on the province or territory. In a survey carried out with a sample of the CMA membership, 25.4% recommended age 21, 20.3% age 25, 19.7% age 18, and 14.2% age 19. The CMA recommends that the minimum age should be set at 21, and that quantities and the potency of marijuana be more restricted to those under age 25 to discourage use and sharing with underage friends. The CMA recommends that the minimum age be established at the national level, and federally regulated, to avoid differences at the provincial/territorial level. This would reduce problems with enforcement in areas near provincial/territorial borders. SECTION 1 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the federal government incorporate the following measures to support improved implementation of the legalization of marijuana: a) Ensure sufficient time to adequately prepare for the implementation of the legalized regime, including a phased-in approach and piloting legalization in smaller regions prior to national roll-out; b) Assess international experience with legalization and incorporate lessons-learned from other jurisdictions into Canada’s approach; c) Assess the domestic experience in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol against meeting the national objectives for each substance and incorporate lessons-learned from those experiences; and, d) Develop capacity for national surveillance to ensure rigorous national-level monitoring and evaluation. e) Support for a research agenda. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit the marketing and advertising of marijuana and that packaging requirements include plain packaging, potency labelling and health warnings. The CMA further recommends that the federal government prohibit flavouring and shapes. The CMA recommends that the federal government employ taxation and pricing levers to discourage consumption and that the revenues of this taxation be allocated to the provinces and territories and clearly allocated for health and social services. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish potency restrictions to reduce the harms associated with higher potencies. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish dosing restrictions on marijuana products, notably edibles. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish maximum limits on quantities of marijuana that can be purchased. The CMA recommends that the federal government employ effective public education tools, including skills-based training, to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana usage. The CMA recommends that the federal government expand access and availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services simultaneously to the legalization of marijuana. As part of this initiative, the CMA recommends that the federal government implement a plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine. The CMA recommends that the federal government set the minimum age of purchase and consumption at 21 and that quantities and potency be restricted for those under the age of 25. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish the minimum age at the national level to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions. 2. ESTABLISHING A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM 2.1. What are your views on the most appropriate production model? Which production model would best meet consumer demand while ensuring that public health and safety objectives are achievable? What level and type of regulation is needed for producers? There will be no perfect production model, with each one having its risks and benefits. The CMA would support a tightly regulated competitive model. A set number of licenses should be granted to producers, who are part of a competitive system, and there should be a reasonable cost associated to offset regulatory expenses. Producers would have to comply with policies and guidelines set by Health Canada, and be subject to inspections. It is fundamental that commercialization is rigorously controlled through taxation, regulation, monitoring and advertising controls. 2.2. To what extent, if any, should home cultivation be allowed in a legalized system? What, if any, government oversight should be put in place? The CMA does not recommend home cultivation in a legalized system for non-medical purposes, as it presents many challenges to municipal, enforcement and public health authorities, particularly given the potentially high number of homes that could seek to cultivate marijuana. There are many health and safety hazards in cultivation, such as high humidity and temperatures, risk of fire, as well as the use of hazardous chemicals, including pesticides used for the control of fungi, bacteria and insects. There is little quality control regarding contamination and potency of the product. As well, home cultivation has an enhanced risk of abuse, if individuals use the production for sale rather than exclusively for personal use. Access to marijuana by children and youth is also a serious concern with home cultivation. In the present marijuana for medical purposes system, where some users have been allowed to continue to grow for personal use, there is great difficulty in monitoring and inspecting these properties. However, this has been allowed given the Allard v Canada court decision, to not hinder access for medical purposes. Washington has not permitted home cultivation, but Colorado has allowed the growth of a small number of plants for personal use (up to 6 plants, with a maximum 3 mature ones, in an enclosed, locked space). 2.3. Should a system of licensing or other fees be introduced? Should limited home cultivation for non-medical purposes be an option, a system of registration and licensing would have to be set up to allow for tracking and inspections of home production. It would also allow penalties for non-registered producers as well as larger scale operations. This would be a system that would require intense government regulation, oversight and tremendous resources to be effective. 2.4. The MMPR set out rigorous requirements over the production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana. Are these types of requirements appropriate for the new system? Are there features that you would add or remove? The requirements for production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana set out by the MMPR are appropriate for the new system. However, a rigorous review of the MMPR should be conducted to determine if there are weaknesses that need to be corrected before expanding to a non-medical market. Ongoing evaluation will be warranted as well. Distribution would have to expand beyond the mail service. 2.5. What role, if any, should existing licensed producers under the MMPR have in the new system (either in the interim or the long-term)? The CMA’s policy position does not extend to whether the existing licensed producers should be suppliers to the recreational market. The experience in Colorado, however, showed that having the industry set up for medical purposes first allowed a smoother transition, in contrast with Washington, which did not have an industry. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA supports a tightly regulated competitive model wherein production and distribution is heavily regulated and includes strict oversight. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit home cultivation in the legalized system for non-medical use. The CMA recommends that the federal government evaluate the requirements established by the MMPR system for production, packaging, storage and distribution to introduce improvements for implementation in the new legalized system for non-medical use. 3. DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 3.1. Which distribution model makes the most sense and why? There is the need to continue mail availability for patients accessing marijuana for medical purposes to ensure nationwide access, however, a distribution system based exclusively on mail service would probably not meet the objectives of a recreational system. When a sample of our membership was asked about distribution models, first preference was given to existing non-health care structures, such as liquor stores. In some provinces, they would have the additional benefit of having a tightly regulated government monopoly by control board entities with a social responsibility mandate. Restrictions could be placed to limit the acquisition of both alcohol and marijuana. As stated earlier, marketing should be prohibited. Staff in these stores receives training and hours can be limited. A close second preference was given to legal storefronts, similar to the independent dispensaries. Several municipalities have been in varied degrees of discussion on the regulation of the presently illegal dispensaries, and those regulations could be looked at as models in a legalized environment. When asked about health care settings, such as pharmacies, respondents to the survey did not support this model. Almost 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed. A reason for this lack of support could be that placing marijuana in pharmacies could lend it credibility as a pharmaceutical medication, whereas placing it in liquor stores would send the message that it needs strict and formal controls. As per previous discussion, the creation of private industries for production and distribution would have to be very tightly controlled to avoid commercialization. As we have learned from the alcohol and tobacco industries, private companies have an interest in recruiting customers and encouraging high levels of ongoing consumption. It is important that the regulatory framework be protected from these commercial and fiscal interests. Regardless of the actual point of sale, storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. There is good evidence from the regulation of alcohol that the less restrictive retail outlet density is, the more harms associated with alcohol use occur. Restrictions would also be placed on distances from schools, parks, playgrounds, colleges and universities, as well as on hours of sale. Regulations would lay out standards, including for the control of product sources, proof of minimum age required for purchase and restrictions on quantities sold. 3.2. To what extent is variation across provinces and territories in terms of distribution models acceptable? In the CMA’s survey of our members, there was not a consensus among respondents as to whether provincial and territorial governments should decide on their own distribution mechanisms. Many comments stated that a federal standard is warranted due to the need for initial close oversight and the ability to make effective changes more quickly. The CMA position is that there is an important role for the federal government to play in ensuring consistency across the country and avoiding provincial/territorial variation. 3.3. Are there other models worthy of consideration? The CMA recommends a phased in approach to the roll out of the system of distribution. Several pilot locations could be considered before going nationwide. Given the novelty and impact of this new legislation, particular caution is absolutely necessary from a regulatory and public health perspective. SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the distribution model should occur outside health care structures, for example, in liquor stores, and that storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. The CMA recommends that the distribution model should be established at the federal level and be consistent across jurisdictions. The CMA recommends a phased implementation approach prior to national availability. 4. ENFORCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION 4.1. How should governments approach designing laws that will reduce, eliminate and punish those who operate outside the boundaries of the new legal system for marijuana? The severity of punishment for simple possession and personal use of marijuana should be eliminated with the removal of criminal sanctions. The CMA recommends that resources currently devoted to combating simple marijuana possession through the criminal law be diverted to public health and education strategies, particularly for youth. Having a criminal record limits employment prospects, and the impact on health status is profound, disproportionately among marginalized populations. Laws should include such things as the facilitation of access by individuals to services to address substance use, mental health and social stabilization. Laws should be drafted in a clear fashion to minimize ambiguity and provide as much guidance and direction to users, health care providers, enforcement authorities, producers, distributors and others. 4.2. What specific tools, training and guidelines will be most effective in supporting enforcement measures to protect public health and safety, particularly for impaired driving? The use of marijuana is associated with an increased risk of impairment, and is incompatible with the operation of vehicles and work in safety sensitive positions due to risk of injury to oneself, coworkers or the general public. Marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. Young people, particularly males, are more likely to drive after using marijuana. The Cross-Canada Report on Student Alcohol and Drug Use30 states that 14–21% of students in Grade 12 reported having driven within an hour of using marijuana, and more than 33% of Grade 12 students reported having been a passenger in a car where the driver had used the drug. Often, marijuana is associated with alcohol use, having an additive effect. A clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who use marijuana and drive absolutely needs to be in place nationally prior to legalization. This will be complicated by the fact that a roadside test for marijuana use is not in widespread use; blood and urine testing also pose challenges. Another issue is the fact that recent use does not necessarily equate to impairment and no scientific standard for impairment exists in the literature. All individuals charged with impaired driving should have a specialist assessment to determine whether a substance use disorder is present. Individuals with substance use disorders should have immediate access to addiction treatment, mental health services and social stabilization. There is also a need for the development of guidelines for employers for the assessment and management of risk. 4.3. Should consumption of marijuana be allowed in any publicly-accessible spaces outside the home? Under what conditions and circumstances? No public smoking should be permitted, due to the risk of second hand smoke. Second hand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins, including carcinogens, found in directly inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts, if not more. There is special concern for harmful health effects, especially among children. The CMA does not recommend the exposure of children to second hand smoke in public areas or in the home. The success in the reduction of tobacco use rates is significantly related to banning of smoking in public places. In the CMA’s survey of a sample of its members, 51.7% disagreed with consumption in designated public places, such as the Dutch model of coffee shops. SECTION 4 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the federal government reallocate resources currently dedicated to the enforcement of marijuana infractions, to public health, education and treatment programs. The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure that a clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana be in place nationally prior to the legalization of marijuana. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit smoking of marijuana for non-medical purposes in public places. 5. ACCESSING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES 5.1. What factors should the government consider in determining if appropriate access to medically authorized persons is provided once a system for legal access to marijuana is in place? The CMA recognizes that some individuals suffering from terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective may obtain relief with marijuana used for medical purposes. However, clinical evidence of medical benefits is limited and there is very limited guidance for the therapeutic use, including indications, potency (levels of THC, CBD), interactions with medications and adverse effects. Health Canada does not approve of marijuana as a medicine, as it has not gone through the approvals required by the regulatory process to be a pharmaceutical. The present system poses a serious challenge for physicians in providing the best care to patients. The CMA has long called for more research to better understand potential therapeutic indications, as well as its risks. It is important that there be support for research of marijuana in order to develop products that can be held to pharmaceutical standards, as is the case with dronabinol (Marinol®), nabilone (Cesamet®) and THC/CBD (Sativex®). The present marijuana for medical purposes regime operates as an exception to a criminal prohibition for production, possession and trafficking of marijuana. It was developed in reaction to court challenges regarding the right to legal access of individuals to marijuana for medical purposes. With the new legal system for marijuana for non-medical use, the requirement to maintain a separate regulatory framework would not be necessary, given court-mandated access will be provided. As well, the experience of legalization for non-medical use in Colorado and Washington has shown that two separate regimes with distinct regulations can be very difficult to enforce given the dual standards (including different minimum ages, purchase quantities and taxation). Provisions would have to exist within the new system to attend to legitimate medical needs of individuals who are under the minimum age for purchase of marijuana, or for those with a requirement for a more potent product than that which is legally available. Consideration might also be given to affordable access for those with low incomes. As stated previously, the option of distribution through mail would have to continue, to facilitate access in remote areas. As well, patients or their families would be able to access marijuana through the distributors of marijuana for non-medical purposes, such as storefronts or liquor store-like entities, which would have employees trained to support patients and their needs. The use of marijuana products for medical indications, through this system, should preferably be done under research protocols. This framework would contribute to the provision of more robust scientific data. SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATION: The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for marijuana, following legalization of non-medical marijuana, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire marijuana in a legal manner, e.g., those below the minimum age or those with a requirement for a more potent product than legally available. 6. Summary of Recommendations The CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on this important matter to physicians and the public. Legalization of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a fundamental shift in the approach to drugs. The CMA’s position is that it is essential that the government consult with experts, key stakeholders and the general public not only at this phase in preparation for legislation on this matter, but throughout the process of the development of regulations and implementation. Recommendations: 1) The CMA recommends that the federal government take a broad public health policy approach in legalizing marijuana for non-medical purposes, and that it be held accountable to these public health objectives. Section 1 2) The CMA recommends that the federal government incorporate the following measures to support improved implementation of the legalization of marijuana: a) Ensure sufficient time to adequately prepare for the implementation of the legalized regime, including a phased-in approach and piloting legalization in smaller regions prior to national roll-out; b) Assess international experience with legalization and incorporate lessons-learned from other jurisdictions into Canada’s approach; c) Assess the domestic experience in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol against meeting the national objectives for each substance and incorporate lessons-learned from those experiences; and, d) Develop capacity for national surveillance to ensure rigorous national-level monitoring and evaluation. e) Support for a research agenda. 3) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit the marketing and advertising of marijuana and that packaging requirements include plain packaging, potency labelling and health warnings. The CMA further recommends that the federal government prohibit flavouring and shapes. 4) The CMA recommends that the federal government employ taxation and pricing levers to discourage consumption and that the revenues of this taxation be allocated to the provinces and territories and clearly allocated for health and social services. 5) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish potency restrictions to reduce the harms associated with higher potencies. 6) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish dosing restrictions on marijuana products, notably edibles. 7) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish maximum limits on quantities of marijuana that can be purchased. 8) The CMA recommends that the federal government employ effective public education tools, including skills-based training, to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana usage. 9) The CMA recommends that the federal government expand access and availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services simultaneously to the legalization of marijuana. 10) As part of this initiative, the CMA recommends that the federal government implement a plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine. 11) The CMA recommends that the federal government set the minimum age of purchase and consumption at 21 and that quantities and potency be restricted for those under the age of 25. 12) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish the minimum age at the national level to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions. Section 2 13) The CMA supports a tightly regulated competitive model wherein production and distribution is heavily regulated and includes strict oversight. 14) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit home cultivation in the legalized system for non-medical use. 15) The CMA recommends that the federal government evaluate the requirements established by the MMPR system for production, packaging, storage and distribution to introduce improvements for implementation in the new legalized system for non-medical use. Section 3 16) The CMA recommends that the distribution model should occur outside health care structures, for example, in liquor stores, and that storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. 17) The CMA recommends that the distribution model should be established at the federal level and be consistent across jurisdictions. 18) The CMA recommends a phased implementation approach prior to national availability. Section 4 19) The CMA recommends that the federal government reallocate resources to the enforcement of marijuana infractions to public health, education and treatment programs. 20) The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure that a clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana be in place nationally prior to the legalization of marijuana. 21) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit smoking of marijuana for non-medical purposes in public places. Section 5 22) The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for marijuana, following legalization of non-medical marijuana, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire marijuana in a legal manner, e.g., those below the minimum age or those with a requirement for a more potent product than legally available. CMA Statement - Legalization of Marijuana Ottawa, September 9, 2016 - The CMA's submission to the Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation is framed by the fundamental position that the legalization of marijuana is a societal prerogative; the CMA is not weighing in on this decision as it has already been made. Keeping with our mandate as the national voice for the highest standards of health and health care, the CMA is squarely focused on minimizing the negative impact on individuals and public health. The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in smoked form. Children and youth are particularly at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development. As such, the CMA's submission is framed by the overarching recommendation that the government must take a broad public health policy approach in developing the legalization framework. Focusing on the legalization issue alone is inadequate to deal with the complexity of the situation. The CMA recommendations build on Canada's experience regulating alcohol and tobacco. The legalization framework must include:
Marketing and packaging restrictions
Restrictions on the types of products and their potency
Prohibiting home cultivation
Expanding access to support services such as mental health and substance use services
Expanding access to training programs in addiction medicine, and
Making extensive educational resources on the risks of harm to the user and others available We must recognize that the legalization of marijuana is a complex matter. Overall the CMA has submitted to the Task Force 22 evidence-based recommendations for a broad public health approach. For interviews: mediainquiries@cma.ca 613-806-1865
Documents
Less detail

143 records – page 1 of 8.