Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


71 records – page 1 of 4.

Promotion of healthy childhood

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy374
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC99-42
That the Canadian Medical Association promote both medical and social interventions to ensure an optimal start to life and a physically, mentally and socially healthy childhood.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC99-42
That the Canadian Medical Association promote both medical and social interventions to ensure an optimal start to life and a physically, mentally and socially healthy childhood.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association promote both medical and social interventions to ensure an optimal start to life and a physically, mentally and socially healthy childhood.
Less detail

Access by the elderly to medical and supportive health care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy377
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC99-78
That the Canadian Medical Association adopt as policy the following principle: Access in old age. Older citizens in all parts of Canada should have timely access to medical and supportive health care services that are clinically appropriate. This includes: a) rapid access to primary medical care, b) access to a full range of medical, surgical, diagnostic, treatment and rehabilitative services, and c) access to specialized programs designed to address the physical and mental problems of old age. Access to clinically appropriate services should not be denied on the basis of age or disability.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC99-78
That the Canadian Medical Association adopt as policy the following principle: Access in old age. Older citizens in all parts of Canada should have timely access to medical and supportive health care services that are clinically appropriate. This includes: a) rapid access to primary medical care, b) access to a full range of medical, surgical, diagnostic, treatment and rehabilitative services, and c) access to specialized programs designed to address the physical and mental problems of old age. Access to clinically appropriate services should not be denied on the basis of age or disability.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association adopt as policy the following principle: Access in old age. Older citizens in all parts of Canada should have timely access to medical and supportive health care services that are clinically appropriate. This includes: a) rapid access to primary medical care, b) access to a full range of medical, surgical, diagnostic, treatment and rehabilitative services, and c) access to specialized programs designed to address the physical and mental problems of old age. Access to clinically appropriate services should not be denied on the basis of age or disability.
Less detail

Safety of genetically modified organisms

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy378
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC99-80
That the Canadian Medical Association ask Health Canada to ensure it obtains sound evidence of the safety of genetically modified organisms before they are authorized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC99-80
That the Canadian Medical Association ask Health Canada to ensure it obtains sound evidence of the safety of genetically modified organisms before they are authorized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association ask Health Canada to ensure it obtains sound evidence of the safety of genetically modified organisms before they are authorized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Less detail

Information program for Canadians on genetically modified organisms

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy379
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health information and e-health
Resolution
GC99-81
That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to create an information program for Canadians on genetically modified organisms.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health information and e-health
Resolution
GC99-81
That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to create an information program for Canadians on genetically modified organisms.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to create an information program for Canadians on genetically modified organisms.
Less detail

Regulations for genetically modified organisms

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy380
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC99-82
That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to act quickly to adopt regulations controlling the development, testing and commercialization of genetically modified organisms.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC99-82
That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to act quickly to adopt regulations controlling the development, testing and commercialization of genetically modified organisms.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to act quickly to adopt regulations controlling the development, testing and commercialization of genetically modified organisms.
Less detail

Evaluating international medical graduates competencies

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy455
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health human resources
Resolution
GC99-29
That the Canadian Medical Association support efforts to evaluate the competencies of international medical graduates prior to licensure in Canada by applying equivalent evaluation standards to international medical graduates as those used for graduates of Canadian medical schools so that the safety of the public is assured.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Health human resources
Resolution
GC99-29
That the Canadian Medical Association support efforts to evaluate the competencies of international medical graduates prior to licensure in Canada by applying equivalent evaluation standards to international medical graduates as those used for graduates of Canadian medical schools so that the safety of the public is assured.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association support efforts to evaluate the competencies of international medical graduates prior to licensure in Canada by applying equivalent evaluation standards to international medical graduates as those used for graduates of Canadian medical schools so that the safety of the public is assured.
Less detail

Addressing professional issues of Canadian physicians and medical practice

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy465
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Resolution
GC99-60
That the Canadian Medical Association be the national focus for enhancing organized medicine's effectiveness in addressing the variety of professional issues facing Canadian physicians and medical practice.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
1999-08-25
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Resolution
GC99-60
That the Canadian Medical Association be the national focus for enhancing organized medicine's effectiveness in addressing the variety of professional issues facing Canadian physicians and medical practice.
Text
That the Canadian Medical Association be the national focus for enhancing organized medicine's effectiveness in addressing the variety of professional issues facing Canadian physicians and medical practice.
Less detail

Putting Patients First : Comments on Bill C 6 (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) : Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1979
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
1999-11-25
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Health information and e-health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
1999-11-25
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Health information and e-health
Text
CMA commends the federal government for taking this important first step that begins the debate on privacy and the protection of personal information. The issues are complex and the interests at stake significant. CMA welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-6 and hopes that its input will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that patient privacy and the confidentiality of medical records are adequately protected. CMA’s chief concern with Bill C-6 is the inadequacy of its provisions to protect the right of privacy of patients and the confidentiality of their health information. The right of privacy encompasses both the right to keep information about ourselves to ourselves if we so choose and to exercise control over what subsequently happens to information we confide in trust for the purpose of receiving health care. In recent years, this right, and the ability of physicians to guarantee meaningful confidentiality, have becoming increasingly threatened. Computerization of health information facilitates easy transfer, duplication, linkage and centralization of health information. Captured in electronic form, patient information is potentially more useful for the purpose of providing care. However, thus captured, it also becomes much more valuable and technically accessible to various third parties -- private and public, governmental and commercial -- wishing to use this information for other purposes unrelated to providing direct care. An additional concern is that the demand for health information, referred to by some commentators as ‘data lust’, is growing, partly as a consequence of ‘information hungry’ policy trends such as population health. There is also a disturbing tendency toward ‘function creep’, whereby information collected for one purpose is used for another, often without consent or even knowledge of the individual concerned and without public knowledge or scrutiny. Furthermore, initiatives concerning health information technology tend to be dominated by those who seek access to this information for secondary purposes. From this perspective, privacy may appear less as a fundamental right than as a hindrance or even roadblock. As we move further into the information age there is some danger that we will become so spell-bound by the promise of information centralization and database linkages that we lose sight of the patients who confided this information or reduce them to impersonal ‘data subjects’. To avoid this danger and the allure of the technology we need to ground the application of information technology and practices in well-tested, enduring principles. We need to put privacy first rather than treat it as a nuisance or impediment. Rules and regulatory regimes concerning health information should be based on the principle of patient privacy because ultimately health information technology is not about ‘bits and bytes’ or ‘data’ or even ‘data subjects’ but about patients, and patients deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and to have their wishes and choices valued and respected. If we are to put patients first the right of privacy must be given primacy in rules concerning health information. This does not mean that this right is absolute. What it does mean is that the burden of proof must rest with those whose purposes, however compelling they may be, encroach upon the right of privacy. It means that we value patient privacy at least enough to demand explicit justification of any proposal that would diminish privacy. Bill C-6 begins with the right premise: that “rules to govern information collection, use and disclosure” should recognize the “right of privacy”. However, it fails to recognize the special nature of health information and to tailor its provisions accordingly. In consequence there is confusion and uncertainty about Bill C-6's application to health care. Even more seriously, however, Bill C-6 fails to recognize that health information requires stronger or greater privacy protection than other types of information. The inadequacy of Bill C-6 for health care is not surprising because clearly it was not drafted with health information in mind. Rather, it is written from the perspective of encouraging commerce. It appears to have access to information as its dominant value. The world of health care is very different from that of commerce and consequently requires distinct rules that are more protective of privacy. Confiding information to your physician under the trust of the patient-physician relationship is not on par with giving your address to a salesclerk when you purchase a toaster or rent a movie. Health information is special by nature. Canadians know this. In a recent Angus Reid poll commissioned by CMA Canadians told us loudly and clearly that they regard their health information as especially sensitive. However, the obvious sensitivity of health information is not the only thing that makes it special and in virtue of which it warrants distinct rules to strengthen privacy protection. It is important to recognize that this information is typically collected under the trust patients vest in their physicians. Patients confide their information for the purpose of receiving care and in the expectation that it will be held in the strictest confidence. This purpose, and the preservation of this trust, should be given primacy in rules concerning health information. It is also important to recognize that the trust under which patients confide in their physicians is fundamental to the patient-physician relationship. If patients can not trust their physicians to protect their information and keep it secret they will not confide it as freely as they do. In consequence, the ability of physicians to provide the care needed would be severely diminished. Rules relating to health information must be developed in recognition of its special nature and the circumstances of trust and vulnerability in which it is initially collected or confided. Patients confide in their physicians for the purpose of receiving care. The potential that the information thus confided may subsequently be used for other purposes must not impede the therapeutic purpose or diminish the trust and integrity of the patient-physician relationship. In recent years the secondary use of information for purposes other than those for which it was collected has been increasing without adequate oversight or public knowledge. This ‘function creep’ undermines the trust of patient-physician relationship. Collection and use beyond the therapeutic context and for purposes unrelated to the provision of direct care should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they are permitted to occur. To the extent that they are permitted to occur without patient consent they should be explicitly authorized in legislation to ensure transparency and adequate oversight. Putting patients first means ensuring that health information, in all but exceptional and justifiable circumstances, is used only under the strict control of the patient. The patient must be able to exercise control through voluntary, informed consent. Moreover, a distinction must be made between a patient’s right to know what can or must happen to health information and the right to consent to such use. Bill C-6 permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purpose. The laxness and breadth of these exemptions as applied to health information is unacceptable. These uses, without the patient’s consent (or even knowledge), reduce the patient to a means to someone else’s end, however worthwhile that end may be. Moreover, the absence of consent (or even knowledge) undermines the integrity of the patient-physician relationship and has the potential to erode the trust patients have in their physicians - a trust that is essential to patients’ willingness to provide the complete information needed to provide them with care. CMA has developed and adopted a Health Information Privacy Code (Appendix A) in recognition of the special nature of health information and to give primacy to patients and to the right of privacy. This Code begins from the same starting point as Bill C-6, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Code which the Bill includes as Schedule 1. However, unlike Bill C-6, the CMA Code tailors the CSA Code to the specific circumstances of health information. The CMA Health Information Privacy Code, therefore, is able to address issues specific to health information that Bill C-6 either fails to address or, even worse, exacerbates. In light of the clear deficits in Bill C-6 and the inadequate protection of patient privacy and health information confidentiality, CMA urges this committee to accept the recommendations put forward in this brief to strengthen the Bill’s provisions for protecting privacy and to accept the amendment (Appendix B) CMA has prepared to give effect to these recommendations. CMA believes that Canadians desire and deserve no less than this as concerns the right of privacy with respect to health information. I. Introduction The Canadian Medical Association is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Our mission is to provide leadership for physicians and to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada's physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and 43 affiliated medical organizations. On behalf of its 46,000 members and the Canadian public, CMA performs a wide variety of functions, including addressing the emerging issue of electronic health information and confidentiality and privacy. It is in this capacity that we present our position on Bill C 6, The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. CMA commends the federal government for taking this important first step of beginning the debate on privacy and the protection of personal information. The issues are complex and the interests at stake significant. CMA welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-6 and hopes that its input will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that patient privacy and the confidentiality of medical records are adequately protected. In preparing this brief CMA has had the benefit of the final report of the federal Advisory Council on Health Infostructure, Canada Health Infoway: Paths to Better Health: Final Report. (“Advisory Council Report”) Where appropriate, CMA cites the findings contained in the Report. CMA wishes to underscore the key themes of its brief: A. Health information is special by its nature. Rules relating to health information must be developed in recognition of its special nature. Ensuring protection of privacy and confidentiality of the patient record must take precedence over other considerations. Bill C-6 fails to do this. Bill C-6 is written from the perspective of encouraging commerce. It appears to have access to information as its dominant value. The world of health care is very different from that of commerce and consequently requires distinct rules. B. Typically, health information is confided in the context of the therapeutic relationship and under the trust upon which this relationship is built. Rules concerning health information -- and in particular its collection, disclosure and use for purposes unrelated to the provision of direct care -- must be consistent with the expectations of patients about confidentiality and must not exploit the trust patients have in their physicians or compromise the ability of physicians to earn and maintain this trust. C. Health information must, in all but exceptional and justifiable circumstances, be used only under the strict control of the patient. The patient must be able to exercise control through voluntary, informed consent. Moreover, a distinction must be made between a patient’s right to know what can or must happen to health information and the right to consent to such use. Bill C-6 permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purpose. The laxness and breadth of these exemptions as applied to health information is unacceptable. These uses, without the patient’s consent (or even knowledge), reduce the patient to a means to someone else’s end, however worthwhile that end may be. Moreover, the absence of consent (or even knowledge) undermines the integrity of the patient-physician relationship and has the potential to erode the trust patients have in their physicians - a trust that is essential to patients’ willingness to provide the complete information needed to provide them with care. D. The root of most of the problems in applying Bill C-6 to health care information is its failure to distinguish among purposes for the collection, use and disclosure of health information. In particular, the Bill fails to distinguish between the primary purpose, which is to deliver care to and for the benefit of an individual patient, and secondary purposes, which are not for the direct benefit of the patient (and indeed may even use the patient’s information to his or her detriment). Provisions to protect privacy should give recognition to the difference between these purposes and should not hinder the ability of physicians and others to provide care consistent with the patient’s wishes. Moreover, the Bill has no effective mechanism to distinguish legitimate purposes, which should be permitted, from illegitimate purposes, which should not, notwithstanding the limitation to “purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances” in Section 5(3). E. In recent years the secondary use of information for purposes other than the purpose for which it was collected has been increasing without adequate oversight or public knowledge. This ‘function creep’ undermines the trust of patient-physician relationship. Collection and use beyond the therapeutic context and for purposes unrelated to the provision of direct care should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they are permitted to occur. To the extent that they are permitted to occur without patient consent they should be explicitly authorized in legislation to ensure transparency and adequate oversight. This Brief will first look at the apparent rationale of Bill C-6 and its potential application to health information. The brief will then describe why CMA considers health information to be special in nature and worthy of special protection. Finally, the brief reviews the difference in approach between Bill C-6 and CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code to illustrate that Bill C-6 provides inadequate protection to patient privacy and medical confidentiality. II. Rationale and Scope of Bill C-6 A. Rationale of Bill C-6 The driving force behind Bill C-6 is the support and promotion of electronic commerce. The second part of the Bill is devoted to permitting electronic versions of documents and signatures to be legitimate or ‘originals’ if the provisions of the Act are followed. Part 2 of the Bill is quite distinct from Part 2 and both parts could stand alone as separate pieces of legislation. Part 2 simply allows electronic versions of documents and signatures to be recognized as legitimate. On its face, this has little to do with the protection of personal information except to the extent that storage of documents in electronic form provides greater ability to access, link and merge information. Certainly, the Bill appears to draw on this connection by including, in its statement of purpose, the provision of a right of privacy in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and free flow of information. Part 1 concerns all forms of personal information, electronic and otherwise. It gives some protection to personal information by requiring consent in some instances. In CMA’s view, a fundamental difficulty with Part 1 and with the Bill in general is that its goal is to promote commerce and thus all information is implicitly considered as falling within the ‘commercial’ realm. In the case of health information this is surely not the case or the only consideration. Moreover, this creates a clash of values when applied to a health care system that is a public system. The Advisory Council Report takes a firm stand on this issue and states that legislation respecting the privacy protection of health information, “should also contain a clear prohibition against all secondary commercial use of personal health information.”Moreover, Bill C-6 fails to distinguish and priorize different purposes for collecting, using and disclosing information and in doing so treats all purposes as more or less equal and subject to the same rules. CMA takes a quite a different view when it comes to health information and will expound its view throughout this brief. B. Scope - Application to Health Records CMA has argued from the outset that C 6 (and its predecessor C 54) will apply to some health information. This view now appears to be widely accepted. Nevertheless, it is unclear as to what extent Bill C 6 will apply to health records. The full name of the Act states, in part: An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances . . . . What are these circumstances? Section 4(1) states that Part 1 (the part protecting personal information) applies in respect of personal information that: (a) the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities; or (b) is about an employee of the organization and that the organization collects, uses or discloses in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business. The definition of commercial activity given in 2(1) that commercial activity Ameans any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character@ is circular and does nothing to clarify uncertainties concerning the Bill’s scope. There are two points to be made here as concerns the application of this Bill to health information. The first concerns clarity around where commercial ends and health care begins. Which health care settings that operate for profit are excluded from the Act? This question speaks to the difficulty of delineating what activity is considered health care and what activity is considered commercial. Moreover the increase in public/private partnerships and joint funding of endeavours within the health care sector, which the government appears to be promoting, may make it increasingly difficult to make this distinction; for example in the area of research. The second concerns the specification of different regimes for information protection and privacy rights, depending on whether the information is deemed to come under commercial activity. This is clearly not desirable. However, the solution to this problem is not to reduce the privacy rules for all health information to the lowest common denominator but to raise them to a higher level of protection than is afforded commercially acquired information. Subjecting all health information to the regime laid out in the CMA Health Information Privacy Code would achieve this objective. In preparing this brief CMA has assumed that the Bill will provide a scheme that applies to at least some health information. Three years after it is in force it will apply equally to activities that occur strictly within the provinces, unless there is legislation in the province that is substantially similar to the Bill (see sections 27(2)(b) and 30). No doubt the extent of the federal government’s ability to legislate in this area generally will be the subject of extensive debate. However, CMA has no comment on this debate and provides its opinion in the interests of ensuring that the rules that relate to health information are compatible with preserving the integrity of the patient physician relationship and the protection of patient privacy and health information confidentiality. The federal government has an opportunity to provide Canadians with strong privacy rights in health information. It is incumbent upon the government to do so. C. Scope - Government Excluded Bill C-6 expressly excludes a large part of government activity from its ambit. Although government activity is to some extent governed by the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, P-21, the rules of this Act provide less protection than those of Bill C-6. Government should subject itself to at least the same rules that it requires of the private sector in so far as it is a collector and user of information. Indeed, government’s practices relating to the collection, storage, merging, transfer and use of health information should be subject to more stringent rules than those found in either the Privacy Act or Bill C-6. The Advisory Council Report also calls for the same rules to apply to the public and private sectors, rules that are more stringent than those found in the Privacy Act or Bill C-6. Therefore, CMA recommends: That, at least in connection with health information, the provisions of the Bill apply equally to the public and the private sectors. III. Considerations Regarding Patient Privacy and Confidentiality: Medical Context Versus Commercial Context A. CMA’s Position The world of health care is very different from that of commerce and consequently requires distinct rules that are more protective of privacy. Confiding information to your physician under the trust of the patient-physician relationship is not on par with giving your address to a salesclerk when you purchase a toaster or rent a movie. Health information is special by nature. Canadians know this. In a recent Angus Reid poll commissioned by CMA Canadians told us loudly and clearly that they regard their health information as especially sensitive. However, the obvious sensitivity of health information is not the only thing that makes it special and in virtue of which it warrants distinct rules to strengthen privacy protection. It is important to recognize that this information is typically collected under the trust patients vest in their physicians. Patients confide their information for the purpose of receiving care and in the expectation that it will be held in the strictest confidence. This purpose, and the preservation of this trust, should be given primacy in rules concerning health information It is also important to recognize that the trust under which patients confide in their physicians is fundamental to the patient-physician relationship. If patients could not trust their physicians to protect their information and keep it secret they would not confide it as freely as they do. In consequence, the ability of physicians to provide the care needed would be severely diminished. Rules relating to health information must be developed in recognition of its special nature and the circumstances of trust and vulnerability in which it is initially collected or confided. Patients confide in their physicians for the purpose of receiving care. The potential that the information thus confided may subsequently be used for other purposes must not impede the therapeutic purpose or diminish the trust and integrity of the patient-physician relationship. In recent years the secondary use of information for purposes other than those for which it was collected has been increasing without adequate oversight or public knowledge. This ‘function creep’ undermines the trust of patient-physician relationship. Collection and use beyond the therapeutic context and for purposes unrelated to the provision of direct care should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they are permitted to occur. To the extent that they are permitted to occur without patient consent they should be explicitly authorized in legislation to ensure transparency and adequate oversight. Putting patients first means ensuring that health information, in all but exceptional and justifiable circumstances, is used only under the strict control of the patient. The patient must be able to exercise control through voluntary, informed consent. Moreover, a distinction must be made between a patient’s right to know what can or must happen to health information and the right to consent to such use. Bill C-6 permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purpose. The laxness and breadth of these exemptions as applied to health information is unacceptable. These uses, without the patient’s consent (or even knowledge), reduce the patient to a means to someone else’s end, however worthwhile that end may be. Moreover, the absence of consent (or even knowledge) undermines the integrity of the patient-physician relationship and has the potential to erode the trust patients have in their physicians - a trust that is essential to patients’ willingness to provide the complete information needed to provide them with care. CMA has developed and adopted a Health Information Privacy Code (Appendix A) in recognition of the special nature of health information and to give primacy to patients and to the right of privacy. In commenting on this Code the Advisory Council Report notes: The Code represents an important contribution to the deliberations of Canadians and legislators on how to safeguard privacy across the health domain. In his 1998-99 Annual Report, the Federal Privacy Commissioner writes in support of the Health Information Privacy Code: Legislators looking for guidance on health information privacy law need not re-invent the wheel; the Canadian Medical Association’s Health Information Privacy Code is a comprehensive benchmark for achieving a high national level of protection for personal information. The Code could be the basis for drafting legislation. Given the grumblings that the Code sets the bar too high, perhaps some Health Infoway funds should be used to study the impact of its implementation. The patients at the heart of this system deserve no less. There are several key principles that guided the development of the Health Information Privacy Code and upon which it is based: 1. The provision of health care to all Canadians irrespective of social circumstances or health status is a highly regarded value in Canadian society. The system is publicly funded and universally accessible. 2. The right of privacy is fundamental to a free and democratic society. 3. Rules relating to health information must recognize its special nature. Health information has a high level of sensitivity and is confided or collected in circumstances of vulnerability and trust for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient. 4. The hallmark of the medical profession since the time of Hippocrates has been the willingness and ability to hold information confided secret. 5. The patient-physician relationship is one of trust. A central feature of this trust is the belief of patients that information confided in or collected by physicians and other health care providers will be kept secret. 6. Patients believe that the information they disclose or that is gathered as a result of their seeking health care will be used to provide them with health care. Use beyond the provision of health care without knowledge or consent goes beyond what a patient’s reasonable expectations were when information was confided or collected and therefore is a breach of the trust patients place in their physicians. 7. Except in very limited circumstances, consent is required for health information collection, use, disclosure or access for any purpose. 8. Information required to provide patients with the health care sought should be readily available to those who require it to provide an aspect of care as consistent with the wishes of the patient. 9. Uses of health information for purposes other than the provision of health care to the person seeking care should be subject to rules that: - protect and promote privacy and confidentiality; - generally require express consent; - can be justified according to specific criteria. 10. Patients should know the uses to which their health information may be put prior to disclosing it. 11. Patients may be reluctant to disclose information if they are concerned about the uses to which the information is put or the persons entitled to access it. B. Public Opinion To determine the public’s views on issues concerning privacy and health information, CMA commissioned Angus Reid to conduct research in two forms, quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus groups), and has found the following: 1. Canadians believe that health information is the most sensitive type of information, and indeed more sensitive than their financial information. 1. 2. Canadians believe that their health information will be kept confidential and consider this to be important. 3. Canadians believe it important to know and control how their health information is shared with others. 4. Canadians do not want their health information released to third parties (including governments and researchers) without their knowledge and consent. 5. Canadians have concerns about the release of delinked or anonymous information to third parties without their consent. 6. Some Canadians are reluctant to confide information to their physicians due to concerns about it subsequently being disclosed to others without their consent. 7. Patients believe that privacy rules should apply equally to the public and the private sector. These findings are consistent with the published literature and other findings relating to the public’s concerns about privacy and confidentiality. The CMA Health Information Privacy Code was developed in consideration of these views. Once developed, its principles were subsequently tested with the public in a series of cross-country focus groups and it was found that the Code appears to enjoy considerable public support. C. The Advisory Council Report The Advisory Council Report relates to the electronic health record. However, given the direction towards the greater use of technology and the underlying principles informing the Advisory Council, its recommendations are generalizable to all health information. A key principle of the Advisory Council Report is that access by health care professionals should be based on a need-to-know basis under the strict control of the patient. The Council, like CMA, calls for scrutiny and justification of secondary uses of health information. The Council is opposed to the use of multipurpose identifiers on the grounds that it becomes too easy for government officials from one department to gain access to a person’s health record or to combine a number of records to assemble a comprehensive profile. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that this concern may be justified and that there are insufficient safeguards preventing the flow of health information among government departments.) The Council recommends that all governments ensure that they have legislation to address privacy protection specifically aimed at protecting personal health information through explicit and transparent mechanisms. Included in these mechanisms are: * The provision of a precise definition of free and informed consent, as well as a statement of principle that informed consent should be the basis for sharing personal health information; * Any exemption to the requirement of informed consent should be clearly set out in law. More specifically, legislative guidance should be provided on how to balance the right of privacy with the public good for research purposes to implement a coherent and harmonized pan-Canadian system for independent, ethical review. * There should be provisions regulating secondary uses of non-identifiable health information. These provisions should address privacy concerns surrounding the degree to which data might be linked back to an identifiable individual. * Legislation should set clear limits on access to and use of health information by third parties outside the health care system. To prevent the serious invasions of privacy that can result from the unrestricted linking of personal health information with other kinds of information on the same individual, the legislation should contain provisions prohibiting the use for any other purpose of unique personal identifiers in health information systems. D. The Approach in Bill C-6 Bill C-6 begins with the right premise: that “rules to govern information collection, use and disclosure” should recognize the “right of privacy”. However, it fails to recognize the special nature of health information and to tailor its provisions accordingly. In consequence, there is confusion and uncertainty about Bill C-6's application to health care. Even more seriously, however, Bill C-6 fails to recognize that health information requires stronger or greater privacy protection than other types of information. The Bill makes a cursory attempt at distinguishing among varying types of personal information and gives inadequate additional protection to information that is highly sensitive (such as health information), notwithstanding the provisions in Paragraph 4.3.4 of Schedule 1 concerning consent which do provide some latitude for more stringent requirements in the case of sensitive information. The Bill permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purposes. In the context of health information, these grounds should be subject to intense scrutiny to determine their relevance and legitimacy. Some of these grounds would not withstand scrutiny if subjected to the tests established in the CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code. E. Conclusion CMA believes that health information is special and deserves a higher level of privacy protection than other types of information. The Advisory Council Report also recognizes that distinct rules, more protective of privacy, are required for health information. The Council’s Report places strong emphasis on the protection of privacy, recognizes that, as a general rule, the flow of health information should be on a need-to-know basis and under the control of the patient through the exercise of free and informed consent, and requires limits on the secondary use of health information. The inadequacy of Bill C-6 for health care is not surprising because clearly it was not drafted with health information in mind. Rather, it is written from the perspective of encouraging commerce. It appears to have access to information as its dominant value. However, the world of health care is very different from that of commerce and distinct rules that are more protective of privacy. The CMA Health Information Privacy Code begins from the same starting point as Bill C-6, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Code which the Bill includes as Schedule 1. However, unlike Bill C-6, the CMA Code tailors the CSA Code to the specific circumstances of health information. The CMA Health Information Privacy Code, therefore, is able to address issues specific to health information that Bill C-6 either fails to address or, even worse, creates. It offers a template for the protection that should be specifically accorded to the right of privacy in health information, a template that appears to have considerable public support and is designed to uphold patient confidence in their physicians and the health care system. Amending Bill C-6 to incorporate the principles in the CMA Code would ensure adequate privacy protection. CMA recommends: That Bill C-6 be amended to incorporate specific provisions relating to health information and that the provisions of the CMA Health Information Privacy Code provide the basis of such provisions. CMA developed the Health Information Privacy Code in recognition of trends and developments that pose new threats to patient privacy and the trust of the therapeutic relationship. In recent years the secondary use of information for purposes other than the purposes for which it was collected has been increasing without adequate oversight or public knowledge. This ‘function creep’ undermines the trust of patient-physician relationship. Collection and use beyond the therapeutic context and for purposes unrelated to the provision of direct care should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they are permitted to occur. To the extent that they are permitted to occur without patient consent they should be explicitly authorized in legislation to ensure transparency and adequate oversight. CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code provides a test to which legislation addressing health information should be subjected. This test (found in section 3.6 of the CMA Code) states: Any proposed or existing legislation or regulation made under legislative authority that permits or requires health information collection, use, disclosure or access shall be subjected to the following legislative test: (a) There must be demonstration that: (i) a patient privacy impact assessment has been conducted, the analysis has been made public and has been duly considered prior to the introduction of legislation [section 3.5 of the Code provides guidance with respect to the patient privacy impact assessment]; (ii) collection, use, disclosure and access will be limited to the greatest degree possible to ensure that * the collection of health information by persons external to the therapeutic context will neither trade on nor compromise the trust of the patient-physician relationship; * patients are not likely to be inhibited from confiding information for primary purposes; * the ability of physicians to discharge their fiduciary duties to patients will not be compromised; and, * patient vulnerability will not be exploited; (iii) collection, use, disclosure and access will be restricted to what is necessary for the identified purpose(s) and will not impede the confiding or collection of information for primary purposes; (iv) provisions exist for ensuring that patients are provided with knowledge about the purpose(s) and that, subject to 3.6(b), patient consent is clearly voluntary; (v) the means used are proportionate and the collection will be limited to purposes consented to or made known to the patient; (vi) the patient’s privacy will be intruded upon to the most limited degree possible in light of the purpose(s) consented to or made known to the patient; (vii) linkage of the health information will be limited; and (viii) unless clear and compelling reasons exist: * all reasonable steps will be taken to make health information anonymous; and * if it has been demonstrated that making health information anonymous would render it inadequate for legitimate uses, the information will be collected and stored in a deidentified-relinkable format. (b) When nonconsensual collection, use, disclosure or access is permitted or required by legislation or regulation that meets the requirements of the Code, the following conditions must also be met: (i) the right of privacy has to be violated because the purpose(s) could not be met adequately if patient consent is required; and (ii) the importance of the purpose(s) must be demonstrated to justify the infringement of the patient’s right of privacy in a free and democratic society. (c) Any legislative provision or regulation that permits or requires health information collection, use, disclosure or access nonconsensually shall not, without compelling reasons, be applied retroactively to existing health information. In its current form, Bill C-6 would not pass the scrutiny of the test. Consequently, CMA recommends: That the proposed rules for health legislation be subject to the legislative test found in CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code and formulated in light of this process. IV. Specific Comments on Bill C-6 From the Perspective of CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code This section highlights some key distinctions between the approach taken by Bill C-6 and CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code. It uses examples to illustrate divergent approaches taken for the purpose of demonstrating that Bill C-6 is inadequate in the protection it accords health information and to show how the CMA Health Information Privacy Code would address the issues adequately. A. General Bill C-6 and CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code are based on the Canadian Standards Association’s Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information (CSA Code). Bill C-6 and the CMA Code also augment the CSA Code’s provisions where considered necessary. The need to extend the provisions of the CSA Code demonstrates that the CSA Code, being general in nature, provides inadequate protection to information in many instances. The CSA recognized this at the time it developed its Code and specifically issued additional, specific guidance for health information in the form of an appendix to the Workbook for applying the Code. The Workbook begins: Information regarding one’s health and health records may be among the most sensitive of all personal data. Individuals are concerned that inappropriate disclosure of such information could unduly affect their employment status or their lives in general. . . Some health information is obtained directly from health care providers who have been given a patient’s private information with the expectation that this information will remain as a private communication. Health care providers . . . in turn, feel that such concerns could influence individuals to withhold vital information or avoid treatment to ensure their private information remains as such. Implementation of privacy procedures that adhere to the principles in the CSA Code and rigid applications of such procedures are essential steps for organizations that require access to health information, to maintain an individual’s trust that sensitive personal information remains confidential. In designing and implementing such procedures, organizations should recognize the sensitive nature of such information and also the fact that the primary reason that health care providers maintain records is to ensure that safe and efficacious care is provided. The Workbook goes on to list 7 interpretative points to augment the CSA Code, providing additional privacy protection as it applies to health information, including the following: requirements for the individual’s knowledge and consent be rigidly followed. Consent to acquire and disclose health information should be undertaken with the individual’s full knowledge of the scope of information to be requested. Bill C-6 does not include these additional interpretive points. It does not give due recognition that health information, because of its high sensitivity, deserves even stronger protection than is provided in the CSA Code as appended in Schedule 1 of the Bill (which even the Committee that drafted the CSA Code recognized). Although Bill C-6 and the CMA Code are based on the CSA Code, each takes a different approach to the ultimate protection accorded information and to the right of privacy. This divergence demonstrates that there are many ways to resolve issues left unresolved by the CSA Code. In other words, it is not a foregone conclusion that basing provisions on the CSA Code will result in appropriate or adequate protection of information. Rather, resolution of issues requires thought and deliberation and will depend in some measure on the primacy given to certain values. Bill C-6 appears to have given access primacy in the pursuit of commerce, whereas CMA gives privacy protection primacy in the pursuit of the provision of health care in accordance with physicians’ fiduciary obligations to patients and the integrity of the patient-physician relationship. CMA did not develop its approach in a vacuum. It reviewed, and was inspired by, the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled Privacy: Where Do We Draw the Line? This report articulates and makes explicit many of the issues that should be informing the current debate on Bill C-6. In addition, the Report of the Advisory Council takes a very different approach than Bill C-6. The Report recognizes the need to pay more than lip service to protecting privacy and confidentiality and recommends specific measures aimed at doing this. B. Primacy of the Therapeutic Purpose The root of most of the problems in applying Bill C-6 to health care is its failure to distinguish among purposes for the collection, use and disclosure of health information. In particular, the Bill fails to distinguish between the primary purpose, which is to deliver care to and for the benefit of an individual patient, and secondary purposes, which are not for the direct benefit of the patient and indeed may even involve using the patient’s information to his or her detriment. Under Bill C-6, the same rules apply equally to both the primary and to secondary purposes. In other sectors this failure to distinguish different purposes and to fashion rules in light of salient differences may not pose problems. In the health care sector, however, the consequences could be quite serious. As applied to secondary purposes, the provisions in Bill C-6 fail to limit access appropriately. Access to information may occur in ways that are inappropriate and violate the privacy of patients. As applied to the primary purpose -- the use of a person`s information to provide that person with care -- the rules in the Bill, if rigidly construed, may inhibit access that would otherwise be appropriate and consistent with the patient`s right of privacy. For example, the consent provisions in the Bill could create impediments to information flow where various members of a ‘health care team’ require information about the patient in order to be effective for the patient’s benefit; the provisions in the Bill that seek to limit the extent of information collection could inhibit physicians from being as extensive as they sometimes are and should be in collecting information from patients for the purpose of providing care; the provisions in the Bill requiring that the patient`s request to review his or her record be in writing could in fact be a barrier to patient access which might otherwise be facilitated informally and consistently with the patient`s wishes by a simple verbal request. Such consequences no doubt would be unintended by the drafters of the Bill; the drafters might even argue that for someone to interpret the provisions mentioned above as potentially leading to these consequences would be to misinterpret them. Regardless, the fact is that the Bill, on these matters and others, is somewhat strained when its provisions are applied to health care. The CMA Health Information Privacy Code, however, is not. It begins from the same starting point as Bill C-6, which is the CSA Code. However, the CMA, recognizing (as the drafters of the CSA Code apparently also did) that the CSA Code would need to be tailored to deal adequately with health information, did so in drafting its Health Information Privacy Code. This document was written from the ground up not just with privacy first and foremost as a value but also with specific reference to the health sector. And it is based on the fundamental premise that not all purposes for the use of health care are equal and that the therapeutic purpose must be given primacy. Thus the CMA Health Information Privacy Code avoids the kind of problems identified above that might arise as Bill C-6 is applied to health information. For example, it specifies that the collection of health information for the primary purpose of providing care “may be as extensive as necessary to fulfil these purposes and reflect the high level of trustworthiness and accountability of health professionals in the therapeutic context” (3.2) but that for any secondary purposes it should be “as minimal as necessary in recognition of the need to protect the patient’s right of privacy in the therapeutic context” (3.3.). As concerns consent, which CMA recognizes to be core to the protection of privacy, the CMA Code articulates rules for consent in recognition of the importance of timely information flow in the team context and as appropriate to meet the purpose for which the patient has confided the information in the first place, which is to receive care. It stipulates that consent for the primary purpose may therefore be implied, albeit with certain qualifications. Moreover, where consent is required, the provisions of the Code allow that “the conveyance of generic information is a reasonable means of providing knowledge” in most circumstances, which means that this requirement is unlikely to create unreasonable burdens that would diminish rather than strengthen the therapeutic relationship. Finally, the CMA Code limits itself to issues of principle concerning patient access to their records; Bill C-6, by specifying that requests must be in writing, could in fact be creating a barrier to patient access or an undue burden upon the patient-physician relationship as there may be instances when an informal request would be quite appropriate. C. Knowledge of Purpose Prior to Collection Bill C-6 Bill C-6 is ambiguous in its provisions relating to whether or not a person should know the purposes for which information will be used prior to disclosure. This is due in part to the use of the term “knowledge and consent” as one concept rather than distinguishing the knowledge requirement from the consent requirement. What a person should know in relation to the purposes for which information might be used or disclosed, prior to its being given, is distinct conceptually from whether the person must consent before information can be used or disclosed for a particular purpose. Schedule 1 of the Bill contains a number of principles. For the purposes of this Brief the schedule will be referred to in terms of the principles (and their subparagraphs). Principle 2 addresses the identification of purposes for which information will be used or disclosed. Provided a purpose is identified it becomes a legitimate purpose (this Brief recognizes that the addition of the “reasonable person” clause in 5(3) takes precedence and provides some grounds for distinguishing legitimate and illegitimate purposes). Subparagraph 3 states that the identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection. Section 5(2) of the Bill states that the use of ‘should’ in schedule 1 indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation. Therefore, according to subparagraph 3, it is recommended but is not obligatory that disclosure occur. On the other hand, principle 3 addresses consent and appears to impose an obligation by stating that the knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate. Similarly subparagraph 2 appears to create something of an obligation by stating, “organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.” Section 7(1)(a) permits the collection of information without knowledge and consent when collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained. The intent of this section could be made clearer, particularly in terms of who determines the “interests of the individual.” Otherwise this exception could give undesirable licence to collect without knowledge or consent. The provision in section 7(1)(b) is more problematic. This section appears to favour withholding knowledge from an individual if such knowledge would compromise accuracy, defeat the purpose for collection or prejudice the use. In some instances it may well be that, if an individual is provided with knowledge of the purposes for which information is collected and the uses to which it will be put, he or she may choose to withhold information rather than disclose it, and in doing so would clearly compromise accuracy, defeat the purpose for collection or prejudice the use to which the information will be put. This is contrary to principle 4.4.2, which recognizes that information should not be collected by misleading or deceiving individuals. The intent of this section should be far clearer and circumscribed in such a way as to make it clear that it is not permissible to withhold knowledge or not seek consent simply on the basis that if a person had knowledge they would not wish to disclose information. Section 7(1)(c) allows collection without knowledge or consent for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes. This provision is totally inappropriate in the case of health information. CMA Health Information Privacy Code The CMA Health Information Privacy Code is considerably more restrictive that Bill C-6. It recognizes that, in the therapeutic context, health information is confided or collected under the patient’s presumption that it is necessary to meet his or her therapeutic needs. The potential that health information may be subsequently collected, used, disclosed or accessed for other purposes without patient consent should be made known to patients before information is confided or collected for the primary therapeutic purpose. Moreover, it is not acceptable to withhold knowledge from patients deliberately out of concern that knowledge could inhibit them from confiding important information fully and truthfully. The CMA Health Information Privacy Code limits the nonconsensual collection of health information to circumstances where it is either permitted or required by legislation or ordered or decided by a court of law. In addition, the CMA Code gives explicit direction to legislators with respect to the conditions under which legislation should permit or require health information collection (see section 3.6 of CMA Code). In the case of nonconsensual collection, the following conditions are stipulated: 1. The right of privacy has to be violated because the purposes could not be met adequately if patient consent is required; and 2. The importance of the purposes must be demonstrated to justify the infringement of the patient’s right of privacy in a free and democratic society. D. Use Without Knowledge Or Consent Bill C-6 Once information has been collected and despite the limits, inadequate though they be, placed on collection without knowledge or consent, it can be put to even greater use than for the purposes for which it has been collected (with or without knowledge or consent). Section 7(2) opens up dramatically the uses to which collected information may be put without either knowledge or consent. At a minimum, and with little additional administrative effort, the enumerated grounds of section 7(2) (and 7(3) should be made known to an individual prior to their disclosure of information, which would be in keeping with the principle of openness and explicitness. Section 7(2)(a) allows use in connection with the investigation of an offence. In the medical context this could be problematic, particularly if it is interpreted to impose an obligation. Generally, there is no obligation to assist in the investigation of an offence, and indeed the fiduciary duty between patient and physician and the duty of confidentiality owed to the patient by the physician would suggest that physicians not offer information, despite its usefulness. Section 7(2)(b) recognizes emergency situations. However, as worded, section 7(2)(b) would allow access to anyone’s information if it is for the purpose of acting in an emergency threatening the life, health or security of an individual. The implications of this section should be carefully thought through. It is not desirable to give such a broad licence to access anyone’s information on the basis of an emergency. There should be some limiting principle that takes into account the prevailing view that people generally are not required to go to the assistance of others (emergency or otherwise) and that information about oneself is considered worthy of protection against use or disclosure, despite its potential benefit to others (for example, genetic information or HIV or Hepatitis C status). Section 7(2)(c) is very problematic as it permits the use of “identifiable” information for a host of purposes, including statistical and research, when it is impractical to seek consent. Even though the Commissioner must be informed of the use before the information is used the Commissioner has no power to approve or reject the use. If the use is legitimate under the Bill there would be no grounds open to the Commissioner to cause an audit to occur. This section gives significant scope for the secondary use of information that has been collected without knowledge or consent; in the case of health information it is very problematic. CMA Health Information Privacy Code The CMA Code makes a clear distinction between the primary purpose for the collection and use of health information and secondary purposes for its use. The key distinction between these two categories is that primary purposes relates to the provision of the health care benefit sought whereas secondary purposes are ends or aims that are not directly related to the provision of care. The CMA Code divides secondary purposes into two categories: 1. Secondary legislated purposes are those purposes that have been subjected to the legislative test specified in the Code and have subsequently been written into law; 2. Secondary nonlegislated purposes are any other purposes, such as education or research not governed by legislation, that meet the provisions of the CMA Code and the secondary nonlegislative test provided by the Code. The tests that the CMA Code requires of both relate to: 1. Impact on privacy. 2. Impact on the patient-physician relationship, especially confidentiality and trust. 3. Impact on the willingness of patients to disclose information. 4. Impact on patients’ ability to receive care. 5. Evidence of broad public support for the measure. 6. The use will not exploit or compromise the trust of the patient-physician relationship. 7. Patient vulnerability will not be exploited. 8. Under most circumstances patients will be fully informed of the purpose and patient consent will be clearly voluntary. 9. Patient privacy will be intruded upon to the most limited degree possible. 10. Linkage of health information will be restricted and consented to by patients. In other words, the CMA Code does not permit any and all secondary purposes for the use of health information. Rather, it requires justification for the secondary use and assurance that the secondary use will neither impede nor undermine the patient-physician relationship and the provision of health care to the patient. This test is much more privacy protective than the “reasonable person” test the Bill contains in Section 5(3). Moreover, the CMA Code only permits use without consent if it is permitted or required by legislation or when ordered or decided by a court of law. The Advisory Council Report Like the CMA, the Advisory Council Report makes distinctions among various types of uses. The Report calls for legislation to clearly prohibit all secondary commercial use of personal health information (in which respect the Advisory Council takes an even stronger position than the CMA). In addition, the Report recommends that there be provisions regulating secondary uses of non-identifiable health information and that such provisions should address privacy concerns surrounding the degree to which such data might be linked back to an identifiable individual. In this context, the Report recommends that legislation set clear limits on access to and use of health information by third parties outside the health care system. In addition the Report reviews the uses of health information for statistical and research purposes. In connection with research, the Report calls for a number of safeguards and restrictions: 1. Where the data sets used have a higher level of potential identifiability, “the general rule should be informed consent and stringent assurances about privacy protection and security arrangements are necessary before a researcher can have access to personally identifiable information.” 2. The Report recognizes that in some instances it may be impractical to obtain consent from patients. Whether in anonymous or identifiable form, the Report requires that notice be given about the use of the information. In the case of the use of identifiable information, the Report states that the research should be subject to independent ethics review with the onus on the person seeking to use the information without consent to demonstrate that: (a) a tangible public good of significant benefit will result; (b) consent is impossible to secure at a reasonable cost; (c) less identifiable data will not serve the same purpose; and (d) no harm can occur to any person directly or indirectly as a result of this use of his or her personal information. E. Disclosure Without Knowledge Or Consent Bill C-6 The comments found under C. and D. above apply equally here. Section 7(3) adds further instances when collected information can be disclosed to others without knowledge or consent. CMA Health Information Privacy Code In the case of secondary use of health information, the CMA Code takes a far more restrictive approach. As concerns use, disclosure or access, it states: The potential that health information, in whole or in part, may be subsequently collected, used, disclosed or accessed for other purposes without their consent, and what those purposes might be, must be made known to the patient by reasonable means before it is confided or collected for primary purposes. Moreover, the CMA Code recognizes that information disclosed by one organization is collected by another. The Code defines collection to mean: the act of accessing, receiving, compiling, gathering, acquiring or obtaining health information from any source, including third parties, and by any means. It includes information collected from the patient, as well as secondary collection of this information in whole or in part by another provider or user. The collecting organization should be bound by the provisions of the CMA Code, which generally requires consent for use for any purpose and always requires knowledge of the potential purposes that information will or must be put to prior to the information being disclosed. CMA’s Code states: Health information custodians must ensure that third parties privy to health information have adopted this Code or are bound by equivalent provisions. Finally, the CMA Code explicitly recognizes that information can be retrieved from a variety of sources to formulate records. Any and all such practices and the composite form developed are given the same degree of protection as that accorded information collected directly from the patient. F. Consent Bill C-6 In those cases where consent for collection, use or disclosure are required, the provisions in Bill C-6 are inadequate as applied to health care. Schedule 1 distinguishes between express and implied consent. Express consent is not adequately defined and it appears that this is not equivalent to what in health care is called ‘informed consent’. For example, Principle 4.3.2. says that “organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used”. In the health care context, the notion of ‘reasonableness’ with respect to the doctrine of informed consent applies not to the effort to advise or inform (that much is assumed or given) but rather to determinations regarding what information should be provided to the patient. In addition, the application of some of the means described in Principle 4.3.7 by which individuals can give consent, and in particular the ‘negative option’ checkoff box in (b), may be quite problematic in the health care context. The broad scope allowed to implied consent in the Bill is also worrisome as applied to the health care setting. Principle 4.3.6 says “implied consent would generally be appropriate when the information is less sensitive”. However, with implied consent the issue is not the sensitivity of the information but rather the wishes of the patient. It is appropriate to infer consent even when the information is very sensitive provided one has reason to believe this is grounded in the patients wishes; conversely, it is not appropriate to infer consent, even in the case of information deemed not to be sensitive, if there is reason to believe the patient would object if asked explicitly. CMA Health Information Privacy Code The CMA Code furnishes clear definitions for consent: “Consent” means a patient’s informed and voluntary agreement to confide or permit access to or the collection, use or disclosure of his or her health information for specific purposes. For purposes other than the provision of direct care, which is the purpose for which the patient presents in the first place, the consent must always be explicit or express since there is no logical connection between secondary purposes and the desire to achieve care. Therefore inferences cannot be made with any confidence. The Code defines express consent as follows: “Express consent” is given explicitly, either orally or in writing. Express consent is unequivocal and does not require any inference on the part of the provider seeking consent. The CMA Code defines implied consent to disallow the loose use of the term, which is increasing today, to justify access for purposes (secondary purposes in particular) that the patient may not wish to occur: Implied consent arises where agreement may reasonably be inferred from the action or inaction of the individual and there is good reason to believe that the patient has knowledge relevant to this agreement and would give express consent were it sought. The CMA Code also lays out clear rules for the use of the concept of consent and makes clear that consent can be inferred for primary purposes (i.e., the provision of health care to the patient) but not for secondary ones, which require express consent. The Code grounds the notion of implied consent not in the desire to subvert express consent and thereby gain access to information that might otherwise be denied but rather in the wishes of the patient and the importance of providing health care for therapeutic purposes as consistent with those wishes. Advisory Council Report In addition to being more stringent than Bill C-6 about exemptions to consent, the Advisory Council Report also gives greater importance to defining the term clearly and strictly. It says that any legislation concerning health information should: contain a precise definition of free and informed consent, as well as a statement of principle that informed consent should be the basis for sharing personal health information. Although not as precise and emphatic on the subject of consent as is the CMA Health Information Privacy Code, the Report is certainly more so than is Bill C-6. G. Information Flow Within Organizations Bill C-6 Bill C-54 defined use to include “the transfer of personal information within an organization.” Bill C-6 no longer defines use, which leaves it uncertain whether the definition of use quoted above from Bill C-54 would be a reasonable interpretation of Bill C-6. If so, this would create a problem. Interpreting use in this way could have the effect of inappropriately restricting the free flow of information within an organization. In the health care context this is not a reasonable or desirable outcome and would hinder, rather than promotes, the patient’s right of privacy. CMA Code The CMA Code recognizes that the free flow of health information is desirable to the extent that it furthers the provision of the health care benefit sought and that it occurs with patient consent. The Code defines the primary purpose to mean: (i) Primary therapeutic purpose is the initial reason for a patient seeking or receiving care in the therapeutic context, and pertains to the delivery of health care to a particular patient with respect to the presenting health need or problem. It encompasses consultation with and referral to other providers on a need-to-know basis. (ii) Primary longitudinal purpose concerns developing composite health information about a particular patient, such as a detailed medical history, beyond direct application to the presenting health need or problem, in order to enhance ongoing care to that person. The Code goes on to state that: Health information collection, use, disclosure or access for the primary therapeutic and longitudinal purposes may be as extensive as necessary to fulfil these purposes and reflect the high level of trustworthiness and accountability of health professionals in the therapeutic context. And further states that: Security safeguards shall impede as little as possible health information collection, use, access and disclosure for primary purposes. Finally, in addressing consent the Code states: Consent to health information collection, use, disclosure and access for the primary therapeutic purpose may be inferred. Consent to subsequent collection, use, disclosure and access on a need-to-know basis by or to other physicians or health providers for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, may be inferred, as long as there is no evidence that the patient would not give express consent to share the information. The principles in the CMA Code that give effect to the patient’s right to control what happens to his or her information are not incompatible with the free flow of information among members of a health team for the purpose of providing care to the patient. Indeed, they facilitate and enable this flow to the extent this is in keeping with the patient’s wishes. H. Information Protected Bill C-6 The Bill covers “personal information” which is defined to mean “information about an identifiable individual, but does not include the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an oganization.” This definition raises a host of questions: 1. Does the Bill cover information that has been delinked to an identifiable individual but that could be relinked to identify them? 2. Does the Bill only exclude anonymous information - that is, information that could never be relinked to an identifiable individual? And if so, is there an unjustified assumption that information can, in all cases, be rendered truly anonymous? 3. In the case of delinked and anonymous information, who decides that information about an identifiable individual can be rendered delinked or anonymous? The holder of the information or the person to whom the information pertains? 4. Is it accurate or reasonable to assume that people have no interest in information emanating from them once it has been rendered delinked or anonymous? 5. Given that anonymous information is generated from personal information, is the act or process rendering personal information into anonymous form considered a use under the terms of the Bill, and if so does this use require consent? In considering these questions, it is important to keep in mind that the concept of “anonymity” means different things to different people. Moreover, there are no generally used or accepted standards that address what is required to render identifiable information truly anonymous. As a consequence, different people use different standards (of varying degrees of rigour), if they use a standard at all. It is also important to note that, in virtue of sophisticated techniques for identifying individuals from supposedly anonymous information, there is debate about the extent to which true anonymity can ever be achieved or guaranteed. CMA Health Information Privacy Code In light of issues concerning the definition of ‘personal information’ and in the interest of ensuring a thorough scrutiny of information practices, the CMA Code provides a broad definition of health information: Health information means any information about a patient that is confided or collected in the therapeutic context, including information created or generated from this information and information that is not directly or indirectly linked to the provision of health care. It includes all information formats. The CMA Code covers identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite form that is produced when health information is linked to other information about the patient. CMA’s research indicates that patients have an interest in their information even when it is in delinked and in anonymous formats. This view has recently received support from a decision of the High Court of Justice in England that is particularly relevant in the context of the commercial use of health information (Source Informatics Ltd. v. Department of Health). The issue arose because a prescription database company sought judicial review of a Department of Health policy document that advised National Health Service GPs and pharmacists not to sell “anonymous” prescribing or dispensing information. The document contained the following analysis: Anonymisation (with or without aggregation) does not, in our view, remove the duty of confidence towards the patients who are the subject of the data. Apart from the risk of identification of a patient despite anonymisation, the patient would not have entrusted the information to the GP or the pharmacist for it to be provided to the data company. The patient would not be aware of or have consented to the information being given to the data company, but would have given it to be used in connection with his care and treatment and wider NHS purposes. Anonymisation of the data (with or without aggregation) would not obviate a breach of confidence. . . .The duty of confidence may in some circumstances be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. However we have severe reservations that disclosure by GPs or NHS pharmacists of dispensing information to X or other data companies would be argued to be in the public interest. Indeed it might well be contrary to the public interest if the data company is further selling the information on doctors prescribing habits to the pharmaceutical industry. High Court Justice Latham upheld the policy document, arguing that the information in question, though anonymous, was nonetheless confidential. He also argued that consent to its release was necessary and could not be implied, and that the breach of confidentiality involved in selling this information could not be justified as being in the public interest: In my view, it is impossible to escape the logic . . . that the proposal involves the unauthorised use by the pharmacist of confidential information. . . . In my judgement what is proposed will result in a clear breach of confidence unless the patient gives consent, which is not part of the proposal at present. Nor is it suggested that the patient can be said to have given implied consent. . . . I recognize that, for some, the sensitivity, as they see would see it, of the information may be such that they would feel that any use of the information without their consent, would be unconscionable. In other words it would be a breach of trust which they were reposing in the pharmacist. . . I have come to the conclusion that . . . this [is] a type of situation . . . in which there is a public interest in ensuring that confidences are kept. It is important that those who require medical assistance should not be inhibited in any way from seeking or obtaining. As I have indicated, I believe that there may be some patients who will feel very strongly that the pharmacist should not give any information obtained from the prescription without their consent. In view of the fact that there is a growing industry in so-called anonymous health information, it is important to ensure that this information is protected as consistent with the duties of health care providers and the expectation patients have that their providers will keep their information confidential. Advisory Council Report The Advisory Council Report addresses this issue in a number of ways. In making recommendations concerning the definition of health information, the Report calls for legislation that embodies: a clear definition of health information, broad enough to incorporate health information collected in public and private systems and to ensure that equal obligations and penalties apply to both public and private sectors. The Report recognizes a spectrum of data formats: completely anonymous, linked to pseudo-identities, code linked and reidentifiable, completely identifiable. In terms of sensitivity, the Report notes that information that can be re-identified is somewhat more sensitive than completely anonymous data or anonymous data linked to pseudo-identities and that completely identifiable health information is the most sensitive type of health information. The Report also notes that there can be some degree of risk of re-identification of what was believed to be anonymous data through such processes as data matching and the results of analysis using small cells. In this light, the Report recommends that legislation should recognize: A definition of personal health information, which takes into account the spectrum of potential identifiability in the case of health information. Furthermore, in the case of secondary uses of health information, the Report notes that provisions regulating secondary uses of non-identifiable health information must form part of any comprehensive legislation. Such provisions should address privacy concerns surrounding the degree to which data might be linked back to an identifiable individual. The Report raises further issues relating to the use of delinked and anonymous data. The Report notes that there may be group interests and concerns regarding data collected and states: Privacy can also be a concern for groups such as Aboriginal and immigrant communities. These communities worry that research on their members could be released to the media without notice and used in a negative way. This emerging issue is growing in importance and, in the Council’s view, should be a serious consideration in the context of ethical reviews of proposed research projects. It is important to note that, in these instances, it is not the fact that data is linked to an identifiable individual that is of concern. Rather, it is the ability to accumulate, process and dissect information that has ramifications for an individual because they are part of a group segregated and identified by the research. Finally, the Report considers the use of person-oriented data (data linked to individuals in a form where personal identifiers have been replaced by a code) for statistical purposes and notes that this too raises concerns about privacy. The Report notes that: “These concerns have traditionally been seen as a tradeoff against data access for research and analysis in the public interest.” The Report restates this to provide a more positive view of privacy and states: the best way for analysts to maintain the public’s consent to use sensitive (but anonymous) health data is to show the public that privacy, confidentiality and security are being taken seriously. In view of the issues concerning the definition of personal information and in the interest of ensuring maximum scrutiny of practices concerning health information and maximum protection of the right of privacy with respect to health information, CMA recommends: That there be a clear definition of the information being accorded a right of privacy and that this definition, at least in the case of health information, include identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite information produced when health information is linked to any information about a person from any other source. I. Individual Access Bill C-6 Bill C-6 restricts the right of individual access to personal information. The grounds for denying access to information are inappropriate in the health care context. CMA Code The CMA Code follows the prevailing case law as it relates to medical records. Primarily this gives patients a right of access to their record in all but very limited circumstances. These circumstances are when there is a significant likelihood of a substantial adverse effect on the physical, mental or emotional health of the patient or substantial harm to a third party. The onus lies on the provider to justify denial of access on these grounds. J. Accuracy and Amendment Bill C-6 Bill C-6 requires that information be as accurate, complete and up-to-date as possible and that it shall not be routinely updated unless this is necessary to fulfil the purpose for its collection. In so far as amendment is concerned, Bill C-6 permits amendment to the record in specified circumstances. CMA Code The CMA Code takes a different approach in light of the nature and purpose of health information. The Code recognizes that the recording of statements of fact, clinical judgements and determinations or assessments should reflect as nearly as possible what has been confided by the patient and what has been ascertained, hypothesized or determined to be true using professional judgement. In terms of amending the record in light of a patient’s request, the CMA Code seeks to preserve the original record but also provide for noting the patient’s concerns. To accommodate both requirements the CMA Code states: Patients who have reviewed their information and believe it to be inaccurately recorded or false have the right to suggest amendments and to have their amendments appended to the health information. K. Sensitivity Bill C-6 Schedule 1 recognizes that medical records have a high level of sensitivity attached. For this reason this information may warrant special attention concerning consent, reasonable expectations, individual access and the degree of security that is appropriate. CMA Code The CMA Code recognizes that, even as all health information is sensitive (when considered against other forms of information about individuals), there are also variations in the level of sensitivity in various aspects of the health record. The CMA Code defines the “sensitivity of health information” to refer to: the patient’s interest in keeping the information secret. It varies according to the nature of the information, its form, and the potential negative repercussions of its collection, use or disclosure on the patient’s interests. Under the Code’s consent provisions it is stated that: Although all health information is sensitive and should be treated as such, the more sensitive the health information is likely to be, given what is known about the circumstances or preferences of the patient, the more important it is to ensure that consent is voluntary and informed. With respect to security the Code states: The development of security safeguards with respect to levels of access for various users shall recognize the differences in the sensitivity of health information and permit access accordingly. Moreover, the Code recognizes that health information is special and therefore requires distinct rules that afford stronger privacy protection not just due to its sensitivity but also to the circumstances of vulnerability and trust under which it is initially confided or collected. These special circumstnaces, which include much more than sensitivity, are outlined in Principle 2 of the Code. Bill C-6, by contrast, fails to consider these other features that make health information a special case. In consequence its provisions are not adquately tailored to the special nature of health information and do not accord it the strong privacy protection it warrants. V. Conclusions The increased capacity to collect, store, transfer, merge and access information, coupled with trends that support increased use of and access to information, have the potential to erode our traditional understanding and protection of privacy and confidentiality. The issues are complex and the choices we must make are difficult. Nevertheless, these issues should be squarely on the table and the choices that we make must be clear, transparent and defensible. Of paramount importance is that the public is not mislead into believing that their information is being protected or kept confidential when in fact it is not. Therefore, even to refer to Bill C-6 as the “Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act” should be the subject of debate. Is the Bill truly about information protection or is it actually about permitting access to information? The approach to rules for information in Bill C-6 is directed toward commerce and appears to have access, and not privacy, as its dominant value, notwithstanding the Bill’s reference to a “right of privacy”. In CMA’s view, the Bill’s approach is inadequate when applied to health information. Based on the evidence, it seems highly likely that the public would also find Bill C-6 inadequate. Bill C-6 was not developed with health information in mind. In consequence there is confusion and uncertainty about its application to the health care context. Even more seriously, however, Bill C-6 fails to recognize that privacy with respect to health information requires stronger or greater protection than other types of information. CMA presents a different approach, an approach that recognizes the special nature of health information; an approach that puts patients first and values privacy and the preservation of the trust and integrity of the patient-physician relationship. This approach appears to be well-grounded in the values that Canadians hold about privacy and would likely enjoy broad public support. In addition, the CMA approach draws support from the Federal Advisory Council Report, which like CMA recognizes the importance of preserving patient privacy and the confidentiality of the health record in an era of increased use of technology. Implicitly, the Report recognizes that the benefits of such technology cannot be realized if public support, based on respect for privacy, cannot be secured. The CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code does what Bill C-6 fails to do. Amending Bill C-6 to incorporate the principles in the CMA Code would ensure adequate privacy protection. In light of the clear deficits in Bill C-6 and the inadequate protection of patient privacy and health information confidentiality, CMA urges this Committee to accept its recommendations and the amendment that incorporates them. Nothing less would give Canadians the high level of privacy protection they desire and deserve when it comes to their health information. VI. Summary of Recommendations That Bill C-6 be amended to incorporate specific provisions relating to health information and that the provisions of the CMA Health Information Privacy Code provide the basis of such provisions; and That any proposed rules for health legislation be subject to the legislative test found in CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code and formulated in light of this process; and That there be a clear definition of the information being accorded a right of privacy and that this definition, at least in the case of health information, include identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite information produced when health information is linked to any other information about a person from any other source; and That, at least in connection with health information, the provisions of the Bill apply equally to the public and the private sectors. CMA has drafted an amendment to Bill C-6 (Appendix B) which, if accepted, would achieve all of these recommendations and adequately give Canadians the kind of privacy protection with respect to their health information that they deserve and desire.
Documents
Less detail

Listening to our Patient's Concerns : Comments on Bill C 54 (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act) : Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1980
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
1999-03-18
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Health information and e-health
Ethics and medical professionalism
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
1999-03-18
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Health information and e-health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
Over the last year, CMA has become increasingly concerned that debate on the issues concerning health information have been framed in terms of access to information with an attendant erosion of privacy and confidentiality. This one-sided approach comes at a time of expansion in our capacity to collect, store, merge, transfer and access information, coupled with trends both in the health care sector and generally related to the use of information To address these concerns and to ensure that privacy and confidentiality in the medical context are valued, protected and preserved, CMA developed and adopted a Health Information Privacy Code. This Code should form the basis of all legislation governing the collection, use and disclosure of health information. Health information is special by its nature. Rules relating to health information must be developed in recognition of its special nature. Ensuring protection of privacy and confidentiality of the patient record must take precedence over other considerations. Bill C-54 fails to do this. Bill C-54 is written from the perspective of encouraging commerce. It appears to have access to information as its dominant value. CMA considers the world of health care to be very different from that of commerce and consequently requiring distinct rules. Health information use must, in all but exceptional and justifiable circumstances, occur only under the strict control of the patient. The patient must be able to exercise control through voluntary, informed consent. Bill C-54 permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purpose. The evident lack of protection accorded health information based on such ground, is unacceptable. The absence of protection undermines the integrity of the patient-physician relationship and has the potential to erode the trust patients have in their physicians - a trust that is essential to patients’ willingness to provide the complete information needed to provide them with care. Moreover, distinctions must be made between a patient’s right to know what can or must happen to health information and the right to consent to such use. Not all purposes for the collection and use of health information are equal. Collection and use beyond the therapeutic context should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they are permitted to occur. Bill C-54 fails to make such a distinction and treats all purposes that could be identified for information collection or use as equal. Moreover, the Bill has no mechanism to distinguish legitimate purposes, which should be permitted from illegitimate purposes, which should not. In light of the clear deficits in Bill C-54 and the inadequate protection of patient privacy and health information confidentiality, CMA makes the following recommendations: That Bill C-54 be amended to incorporate specific provisions relating to health information and that the provisions of the CMA Code provide the basis of such provisions; and That the proposed rules for health legislation be subject to the legislative test found in CMA’s Code and formulated in light of this process; and That there be a clear definition of the information being accorded a right of privacy and that this definition, at least in the case of health information, include identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite form produced when information is linked to any information about a person from any other source; and That, at least in connection with health information, the provisions of the Bill apply equally to the public and the private sectors. I. Introduction The Canadian Medical Association is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Our mission is to provide leadership for physicians and to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada's physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and 43 affiliated medical organizations. On behalf of its 45,000 members and the Canadian public, CMA performs a wide variety of functions, including addressing the emerging issue of electronic health information and confidentiality and privacy. It is in this capacity that we present our position on Bill C 54, The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. CMA commends the government for taking the first, important step of beginning the debate on the protection of personal information. The issues are complex and the interests at stake significant. CMA welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-54. CMA hopes that its input will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that patient privacy and the confidentiality of medical records are adequately protected. In preparing this brief CMA has had the benefit of the final report of the federal Advisory Council on Health Infostructure, Canada Health Infoway: Paths to Better Health: Final Report. (“Advisory Council Report”) Where appropriate, CMA cites the findings contained in the report. CMA wishes to underscore the key themes of its brief: A. Health information is special by its nature. Rules relating to health information must be developed in recognition of its special nature. Ensuring protection of privacy and confidentiality of the patient record must take precedence over other considerations. Bill C-54 fails to do this. Bill C-54 is written from the perspective of encouraging commerce. It appears to have access to information as its dominant value. CMA considers the world of health care to be very different from that of commerce and consequently requiring distinct rules. B. Health information use must, in all but exceptional and justifiable circumstances, occur only under the strict control of the patient. The patient must be able to exercise control through voluntary, informed consent. Bill C-54 permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purpose. The evident lack of protection accorded health information based on such ground, is unacceptable. The absence of protection undermines the integrity of the patient-physician relationship and has the potential to erode the trust patients have in their physicians - a trust that is essential to patients’ willingness to provide the complete information needed to provide them with care. Moreover, distinctions must be made between a patient’s right to know what can or must happen to health information and the right to consent to such use. C. Not all purposes for the collection and use of health information are equal. Collection and use beyond the therapeutic context should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before they are permitted to occur. Bill C-54 fails to make such a distinction and treats all purposes that could be identified for information collection or use as equal. Moreover, the Bill has no mechanism to distinguish legitimate purposes, which should be permitted from illegitimate purposes, which should not. This brief will first look at the apparent rationale of Bill C-54 and its potential application to health information. The brief will next describe why CMA considers health information to be special in nature and worthy of special protection. Finally, the brief reviews the difference in approach between Bill C-54 and CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code to illustrate that Bill C-54 provides inadequate protection to patient privacy and health record confidentiality. II. Rationale and Scope of Bill C-54 A. Rational of Bill C-54 The driving force behind Bill C-54 is the support and promotion of electronic commerce. The second part of the Bill is devoted to permitting electronic versions of documents and signatures to be legitimate or ‘originals’ if the provisions of the Act are followed. Part two of the Bill is quite distinct from part one and both parts could stand alone as separate pieces of legislation. Part two simply allows electronic versions of documents and signatures to be recognized as legitimate. On its face, this has little to do with the protection of personal information except to the extent that storage of documents in electronic form provides greater ability to access, link and merge information. Certainly, the Bill appears to draw on this connection by including, in its statement of purpose, the provision of a right of privacy in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and free flow of information. Part one concerns all forms of information, electronic and otherwise. It gives some protection to personal information by requiring consent in some instances. In CMA’s view, a fundamental difficulty with part one and the Bill in general is that it’s goal is to promote commerce and thus all information is implicitly considered as falling within the ‘commercial’ realm. In the case of health information this is surely not the case or the only consideration. Moreover, this creates a clash of values when applied to a health care system that is a public system. The Advisory Council Report takes a hard line on this issue and states that legislation respecting the privacy protection of health information, “should also contain a clear prohibition against all secondary commercial use of personal health information.” Because all information is subjected to similar rules, there is no attempt within the Bill to distinguish some purposes for collecting information from other purposes. The Bill takes the approach that the purposes should be known and documented. While not stated explicitly, the assumption is that all purposes identified are legitimate and are permitted. CMA has quite a different view when it comes to health information and will expound its view throughout this brief. B. Scope - Application to Medical Records CMA is uncertain whether or to what extent Bill C-54 will apply to health records. The full name of the Act states, in part: An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances.... What are these circumstances? Section 4(1) states that Part 1 (the part protecting personal information) applies in respect of personal information that: (a) the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities; (b) the organization collects, uses or discloses interprovincially or internationally; or (c) is about an employee of the organization and that the organization collects, uses or discloses in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business. It should further be noted that three years after the Act is in force it will apply equally to activities that occur strictly within the province unless there is legislation in the province that is substantially similar to the Bill (see sections 27(2)(d) and section 30). The first issue is the provision of section 4(1)(a) - collection, use and disclosure in the course of commercial activities. There seems to be an assumption on the part of government that this automatically excludes health records, (although the Act fails to define what is meant by commercial activity). Is this accurate or does the assumption fail to recognize that there is not a clear, unambiguous distinction between what might constitute commercial activity or other activity? There are two points to be made here. The first concerns clarity around where commercial ends and health care begins. Which health care settings that operate for profit are excluded from the Act? This question speaks to the difficulty of delineating what activity is considered health care and what activity is considered commercial. Moreover it recognizes that the increased encouragement to public/private funding of endeavours within the health care sector may make it increasingly difficult to make this distinction; for example in the area of research. The second concerns the movement of health information from the health care setting (recognizing that this is not easily distinguished from the commercial setting) to the commercial setting; for example, health information provided to insurance companies. When health care information is collected in a health care setting and transferred to a commercial setting, which rules apply - Bill C-54 or no rules? In CMA’s view, there is no clear way of distinguishing commercial activity from health care activity in a way that ensures that the health care record is subject to different rules than those pertaining to other records. Moreover, the dilemma for government is that even if such distinction could occur, would it be desirable that health records be subject to no rules? Put in another way, will those organizations that currently collect health care information be entitled to claim that since the information forms part of the health record they are not subject to the provisions of C-54? Under such a regime health care records would be subject to an even lower standard than that provided for information collected in the commercial context. In terms of the provisions of 4(1)(b) - interprovincial and international transfer of information. This appears to apply to all information. In the existing environment and developments such as the “health information highway,” interprovincial transfers of information, the capacity for the central collection and storage of information, mechanisms such as telephone and cable to transfer information and general trends related to population health, it seems likely that interprovincial traffic will grow rather than diminish. The significance of this section, therefore, cannot be underestimated. Finally, the provisions of 4(1)(c) may well contain health information about the employee. In preparing this brief CMA has assumed that the Bill will provide a scheme that applies to some health information. No doubt the extent of the federal governments ability to legislate in this area generally will be the subject of extensive debate. However, CMA has no comment on this debate and provides its opinion in the interests of ensuring that the rules that relate to health information are compatible with preserving the integrity of the patient-physician relationship and the protection of patient privacy and health information confidentiality. CMA considers that the government has an opportunity to provide Canadians with strong privacy rights in health information. Indeed, CMA believes that it is incumbent upon the government to do so. C. Scope - Government Excluded Bill C-54 expressly excludes a large part of government activity from its ambit. While government activity is to some extent governed by the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, P-21, the rules of this act provide less protection than those of Bill C-54. Government should subject itself to at least the same rules that it requires of the private sector in so far as it is a collector and user of information. Moreover, CMA is of the view that government’s practices relating to the collection, storage, merging, transfer and use of health information must be subject to more stringent rules than those found in either the Privacy Act or Bill C-54. The Advisory Council Report also calls for the same rules to apply to the public and private sectors, rules that are more stringent than those found in the Privacy Act or Bill C-54. Therefore, CMA recommends: That, at least in connection with health information, the provisions of the Bill apply equally to the public and the private sectors. III. Considerations Regarding Patient Privacy and Confidentiality: Medical Context Versus Commercial Context A. CMA’s Opinion Over the last year, CMA has become increasingly concerned that debate on the issues concerning health information have been framed in terms of access to information with an attendant erosion of privacy and confidentiality. This one-sided approach comes at a time of expansion in our capacity to collect, store, merge, transfer and access information, coupled with trends both in the health care sector and generally related to the use of information To address these concerns and to ensure that privacy and confidentiality in the medical context are valued, protected and preserved, CMA developed and adopted a Health Information Privacy Code, which is appended to and forms part of this brief. In commenting on this Code the Advisory Council Report notes: The code represents an important contribution to the deliberations of Canadians and legislators on how to safeguard privacy across the health domain. There are a number of principles underpinning the Health Information Privacy Code: 1. The provision of health care to all Canadians irrespective of social circumstances or health status is a highly regarded value in Canadian society. The system is publicly funded and universally accessible. 2. The right of privacy is fundamental to a free and democratic society. 3. Rules relating to health information must recognize its special nature. Health information has a high level of sensitivity, it is confided or collected in circumstances of vulnerability and trust for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient. 4. Physicians now and historically promise that they will keep their patients’ information secret; this is a hallmark of the profession. 5. The patient-physician relationship is one of trust and a central feature of this trust is the belief in patients that information confided in or collected by physicians and other health care providers will be kept secret. 6. Patients believe that the information they disclose or that is gathered as a result of their seeking health care will be used to provide them with health care; uses beyond the provision of health care without knowledge or consent go beyond what a patient’s reasonable expectations were when information was disclosed or gathered and is a breach of the trust patients place in their physicians. 7. Except in very limited circumstances, consent is required for health information collection, use, disclosure or access for any purpose. 8. Information required to provide patients with the health care sought should be readily available to those who require it to provide an aspect of care. 9. Uses of health information for purposes other than the provision of health care to the person seeking care should be subject to rules that: - protect and promote privacy and confidentiality; - generally require express consent; - can be justified according to specific criteria. 10. Patients should know the uses to which their health information is put prior to their disclosure of it. 11. Patients may be reluctant to disclose information if they are concerned about the uses to which the information is put or the persons entitled to access it. B. Public Opinion To determine the public’s view on these issues, CMA commissioned Angus Reid to conduct research in two forms, quantative (survey) and qualitative (focus groups), and has found the following: 1. Patients believe that their health information will be kept confidential and consider this to be important. 2. Patients believe it important to know and control how their health information is shared with others. 3. Patients do not want their health information released to third parties (including governments and researchers) without their knowledge and consent. 4. Patients may have concerns about the release of delinked or anonymous information to third parties without their consent. 5. Patients may be reluctant to confide information as a result of concerns related to its use or disclosure. These findings are consistent with general findings relating to the public’s concerns about privacy and confidentiality. C. The Advisory Council Report The Advisory Council Report relates to the electronic health record. However, given the direction towards the greater use of technology and the underlying principles informing the Advisory Council, CMA believes that the recommendations are generalizable to all health information. A key principle of the Advisory Council is that access by health care professionals should be based on a need-to-know basis under the strict control of the patient. The Council, like CMA calls for scrutiny and justification of secondary uses of health information. The Council is opposed to the use of multipurpose identifiers on the grounds that it becomes too easy for government officials from one department to gain access to a person’s health record or combine a number of records to assemble a comprehensive profile. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that this concern may be justified and that there are insufficient safeguards preventing the flow of health information among government departments) The Council recommends that all governments ensure that they have legislation to address privacy protection specifically aimed at protecting personal health information through explicit and transparent mechanisms. Included in these mechanisms are: * The provision of a precise definition of free and informed consent, as well as a statement of principle that informed consent should be the basis for sharing personal health information; * Any exemption to the requirement of informed consent should be clearly set out in law. More specifically, legislative guidance should be provided on how to balance the right of privacy with the public good for research purposes to implement a coherent and harmonized pan-Canadian system for independent, ethical review. * There should be provisions regulating secondary uses of non-identifiable health information. These provisions should address privacy concern surrounding the degree to which data might be linked back to an identifiable individual. * Legislation should set clear limits on access to and use of health information by third parties outside the health care system. To prevent the serious invasions of privacy that can result from the unrestricted linking of personal health information with other kinds of information on the same individual, the legislation should contain provisions prohibiting the use for any other purpose of unique personal identifiers in health information systems. D. The Approach in Bill C-54 Bill C-54 is inadequate in its protection of health information. The Bill makes a meagre attempt at distinguishing among varying types of personal information and gives no additional protection to information that is highly sensitive (such as health information). The Bill permits the collection, use and disclosure of information without knowledge or consent on grounds such as expediency, practicality, public good, research, offence investigation, historic importance and artistic purposes. In the context of health information, these grounds should be subject to intense scrutiny to determine their relevance and legitimacy. In CMA’s view and according to the tests established in the CMA’s Code, some of these grounds would not withstand such scrutiny. E. Conclusion CMA’s Code offers a template for the protection that should be accorded health information, a template that appears to have some public support and that strives to retain patient confidence in their physicians and the health care system. The Report of the Federal Advisory Council also recognizes that special rules are required for health information. The Council’s Report places strong emphasis on the protection of privacy, recognizes that as a general rule the flow of health information should be on a need-to-know basis and under the control of the patient through the exercise of free and informed consent and requires limits on the secondary use of health information. In CMA’s view, Bill C-54 should incorporate specific rules relating to health information and CMA’s Code should form the basis of these rules. CMA recommends: That Bill C-54 be amended to incorporate specific provisions relating to health information and that the provisions of the CMA Code provide the basis of such provisions. In addition, CMA’s Code provides a test that legislation addressing health information should be subjected to. This test (found in section 3.6 of the CMA Code) states: Any proposed or existing legislation or regulation made under legislative authority that permits or requires health information collection, use, disclosure or access shall be subjected to the following legislative test: (a) There must be demonstration that: (i) a patient privacy impact assessment has been conducted, the analysis has been made public and has been duly considered prior to the introduction of legislation [section 3.5 of the Code provides guidance with respect to the patient privacy impact assessment]; (ii) collection, use, disclosure and access will be limited to the greatest degree possible to ensure that * the collection of health information by persons external to the therapeutic context will neither trade on nor compromise the trust of the patient-physician relationship; * patients are not likely to be inhibited from confiding information for primary purposes; * the ability of physicians to discharge their fiduciary duties to patients will not be compromised; and, * patient vulnerability will not be exploited; (iii) collection, use, disclosure and access will be restricted to what is necessary for the identified purpose(s) and will not impede the confiding or collection of information for primary purposes; (iv) provisions exist for ensuring that patients are provided with knowledge about the purpose(s) and that, subject to 3.6(b), patient consent is clearly voluntary; (v) the means used are proportionate and the collection will be limited to purposes consented to or made known to the patient; (vi) the patient’s privacy will be intruded upon to the most limited degree possible in light of the purpose(s) consented to or made known to the patient; (vii) linkage of the health information will be limited; and (viii) unless clear and compelling reasons exist: * all reasonable steps will be taken to make health information anonymous; and * if it has been demonstrated that making health information anonymous would render it inadequate for legitimate uses, the information will be collected and stored in a deidentified-relinkable format. (b) When nonconsensual collection, use, disclosure or access is permitted or required by legislation or regulation that meets the requirements of the Code, the following conditions must also be met: (i) the right of privacy has to be violated because the purpose(s) could not be met adequately if patient consent is required; and (ii) the importance of the purpose(s) must be demonstrated to justify the infringement of the patient’s right of privacy in a free and democratic society. (c) Any legislative provision or regulation that permits or requires health information collection, use, disclosure or access nonconsensually shall not, without compelling reasons, be applied retroactively to existing health information. In its current form, Bill C-54 would not pass the scrutiny of the test. Consequently, CMA recommends: That the proposed rules for health legislation be subject to the legislative test found in CMA’s Code and formulated in light of this process. IV. Specific Comments on Bill C-54 From the Perspective of CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code This section highlights some key distinctions between the approach taken by Bill C-54 and CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code. The purpose of this section is to illustrate through examples the divergence of approaches taken with the ultimate aim of demonstrating that Bill C-54 is inadequate in the protection it accords health information. A. General Bill C-54 and CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code are based on the Canadian Standards Association’s Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information (CSA Code). Bill C-54 and the CMA Code also augment the CSA Code’s provisions where considered necessary. The need to extend the provisions of the CSA Code demonstrates that the CSA Code, being general in nature, provides inadequate protection to information in many instances. Although Bill C-54 and the CMA Code are based on the CSA Code, each takes a different approach to the ultimate protection accorded information. This divergence demonstrates that there are many ways to resolve issues left unresolved by the CSA Code. In other words, it is not a foregone conclusion that basing provisions on the CSA Code will result in appropriate or adequate protection of information. Rather, resolution of issues requires thought and deliberation and will depend in some measure on the primacy given to certain values. Bill C-54 appears to have given access primacy in the pursuit of commerce, whereas CMA gives privacy protection primacy in the pursuit of the provision of health care in accordance with physicians fiduciary obligations to patients and the integrity of the patient-physical relationship. CMA did not develop its approach in a vacuum. It reviewed and was inspired by the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled Privacy: Where Do We Draw the Line? This report articulates and makes explicit many of the issues that should be informing the current debate on Bill C-54. In addition, the Report of the Advisory Council takes a very different approach to Bill C-54. The Report recognizes the need to pay more than lip service to protecting privacy and confidentiality and recommends specific measures aimed at doing this. B. Information Protected Bill C-54 The Bill covers “personal information” which is defined to mean “information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form.” This definition raises a host of questions: 1. Does the Bill cover or not information that has been delinked to an identifiable individual but that could be relinked to identify them? 2. Does the Bill only exclude anonymous information - that is, information that could never be relinked to an indentifiable individual? And if so, is there an unjustified assumption that information can, in all cases, be rendered truly anonymous? 3. In the case of delinked and anonymous information, who decides that information about an identifiable individual can be rendered delinked or anonymous? The holder of the information or the person to whom the information pertains? 4. Is it accurate or reasonable to assume that people have no interest in information emanating from them once it has been rendered delinked or anonymous? CMA Health Information Privacy Code The CMA Code provides a broad definition of health information: Health information means any information about a patient that is confided or collected in the therapeutic context, including information created or generated from this information and information that is not directly or indirectly linked to the provision of health care. It includes all information formats. In addition, the CMA Code covers identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite form that is produced when health information is linked to other information about the patient. CMA’s research indicates that patients may have an interest in their information when it is in delinked and anonymous formats. Advisory Council Report The Advisory Council Report addresses this issue in a number of ways. In making recommendations concerning the definition of health information the Report calls for legislation that embodies: a clear definition of health information, broad enough to incorporate health information collected in public and private systems and to ensure that equal obligations and penalties apply to both public and private sectors. The report recognizes a spectrum of data formats: completely anonymous, linked to pseudo-identities, code linked and reidentifiable, completely identifiable. In terms of sensitivity, the Report notes that information that can be re-identified is somewhat more sensitive that completely anonymous data or anonymous data linked to pseudo-identities and that completely identifiable health information is the most sensitive type of health information. The Report also notes that there can be some degree of risk of re-identification of what was believed to be anonymous data through such processes as data matching and the results of analysis using small cells. In this light, the Report recommends: A definition of personal health information, which takes into account the spectrum of potential identifiability in the case of health information. Furthermore, in the case of secondary uses of health information, the Report notes that provisions regulating secondary uses of non-identifiable health information must form part of the legislation. Such provisions should address privacy concerns surrounding the degree to which data might be linked back to an identifiable individual. The Report raises further issues relating to the use of delinked and anonymous data. The Report notes that there may be group interests and concerns regarding data collected and states: Privacy can also be a concern for groups such as Aboriginal and immigrant communities. These communities worry that research on their members could be released to the media without notice and used in a negative way. This emerging issue is growing in importance and, in the Council’s view, should be a serious consideration in the context of ethical reviews of proposed research projects. It is important to note that in these instances it is not the fact that data is linked to an identifiable individual that is of concern. Rather, it is the ability to accumulate, process and dissect information that has ramifications for an individual because they are part of a group segregated and identified by the research. Finally, the Report considers the use of person-based data but not people’s names, for statistical purposes and notes that this too raises concerns about privacy. The Report notes that: “These concerns have traditionally been seen as a tradeoff against data access for research and analysis in the public interest.” The Report restates this to provide a more positive view of privacy and states: “the best way for analysts to maintain the public’s consent to use sensitive (but anonymous) health data is to show the public that privacy, confidentiality and security are being taken seriously.” Recommendation That there be a clear definition of the information being accorded a right of privacy and that this definition, at least in the case of health information, include identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite form produced when information is linked to any information about a person from any other source. C. Knowledge of Purpose Prior to Collection Bill C-54 Bill C-54 is ambiguous in its provisions relating to whether or not a person should know the purposes for which information will be used prior to disclosure. This is due in part to the use of the term “knowledge and consent” as one concept rather than distinguishing the knowledge requirement from the consent requirement. What a person should know in relation to the purposes information might be used or disclosed for, prior to its being given is distinct conceptually from whether the person must consent before information can be used or disclosed for a particular purpose. Schedule 1 of the Bill contains a number of principles. For the purposes of this brief the schedule will be referred to in terms of the principles (and their subparagraphs). Principle 2 addresses the identification of purposes that information will be used or disclosed for. Provided a purpose is identified it becomes a legitimate purpose under the Bill. Subparagraph 3 states that the identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection. Section 5(2) of the Bill states that the use of ‘should’ in schedule 1 indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation. Therefore, according to subparagraph 3, it is recommended but is not obligatory that disclosure occur. On the other hand, principle 3 addresses consent and appears to impose an obligation by stating that the knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate. Similarly subparagraph 2 appears to create something of an obligation by stating, “organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.” The relationship between these sections should be clarified and made consistent. CMA is pleased to note that principle 3 has been modified to define when, and only when, organizations may collect information without knowledge or consent. Section 7(1)(a) permits the collection of information without knowledge and consent when collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained. The intent of this section could be made clearer, particularly in terms of who determines the “interests of the individual.” Otherwise this exception could give undesirable license to collect without knowledge or consent. The provision in section 7(1)(b) is more problematic. This section appears to favour withholding knowledge from an individual if such knowledge would compromise accuracy, defeat the purpose for collection or prejudice the use. In some instances it may well be that if an individual is provided with knowledge of the purposes for which information is collected and the uses to which it will be put, they may choose to withhold information rather than disclose it, and in doing so would clearly compromise accuracy, defeat the purpose for collection or prejudice the use the information will be put to. This is contrary to the principle found in principle 4.1 which recognizes that information should not be collected by misleading or deceiving individuals. The intent of this section should be far clearer and circumscribed in such a way as to make it clear that it is not permissible to withhold knowledge or not seek consent simply on the basis that if a person had knowledge they would not wish to disclose information. Section 7(1)(c) allows collection without knowledge or consent for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes. This provision is totally inappropriate in the case of health information. CMA Health Information Privacy Code The CMA Code is considerably more restrictive that Bill C-54. It recognizes that in the therapeutic context, health information is confided by or collected from patients under the patient presumption that it is necessary to meet his or her therapeutic needs. CMA also believes that the potential that health information may be subsequently collected, used, disclosed or accessed for other purposes without patient consent should be made known to patients before information is confided or collected for the primary therapeutic purpose. CMA further notes that it is not acceptable to withhold knowledge from patients deliberately out of concern that knowledge could inhibit them from confiding important information fully and truthfully. CMA limits the circumstances the nonconsensual collection of health information to those: 1. Permitted or required by legislation; 2. When ordered or decided by a court of law. Moreover, the CMA gives explicit direction to legislators with respect to the conditions under which legislation should permit or require health information collection (see section 3.6 of CMA Code). In the case of nonconsensual collection, the following conditions are stipulated: 1. The right of privacy has to be violated because the purposes could not be met adequately if patient consent is required; and 2. The importance of the purposes must be demonstrated to justify the infringement of the patient’s right of privacy in a free and democratic society. While Bill C-54 is clearly enabling the collection of information, it does not, in CMA’s opinion put sufficient emphasis on or provide protections that preserve privacy and confidentiality, especially in the medical context. D. Use Without Knowledge Or Consent Bill C-54 Once information has been collected and despite the, albeit inadequate, limits placed on collection without knowledge or consent, it can be put to even greater use than the purposes it has been collected for with or without knowledge or consent. Section 7(2) opens up dramatically the uses to which collected information may be put without either knowledge or consent. At a minimum and without little additional administrative effort, the enumerated grounds of section 7(2) (and 7(3))should be made known to an individual prior to their disclosure of information, which would be in keeping with the principle of openness and explicitness. Section 7(2)(a) allows use in connection with the investigation of an offence. In the medical context this might be problematic particularly if it is interpreted to impose an obligation. Generally, there is no obligation to assist in the investigation of an offence and indeed the fiduciary duty between patient and physician and the duty of confidentiality owed to the patient by the physician would suggest that physicians not offer information despite its usefulness. Section 7(2)(b) recognizes emergency situations. However, as worded, section 7(2)(b) would allow access to anyone’s information if it is for the purpose of acting in respect of an emergency threatening the life, health or security of an individual. The implications of this section should be carefully thought through. Do we really intend to give such a broad licence to access anyone’s information on the basis of an emergency. In CMA’s view there should be some limiting principle that takes into account the prevailing view that people generally are not required to go to the assistance of others (emergency or otherwise) and that information about oneself is considered worthy of protection against use or disclosure despite its potential benefit to others for example, genetic information or HIV, Hepatitis C status. Section 7(2)(c) is very problematic as it permits the use of “identifiable” information for a host of purposes, including statistical and research, when it is impractical to seek consent. Even though the Commissioner must be informed of the use before the information is used the Commissioner has no power to approve or reject the use, and since the use is legitimate under the Bill provided the Commissioner has been notified there would be no grounds open to the Commissioner to cause an audit to occur. This section gives significant scope to use information that has been collected without knowledge or consent and certainly in the case of health information is problematic. CMA Health Information Privacy Code The CMA Code makes a clear distinction between the primary purpose for the collection and use of health information and secondary purposes for its use. The key distinction between these two categories is that primary purposes relates to the provision of the health care benefit sought whereas secondary purposes are ends or aims that are not directly related to the provision of care. The CMA Code divides secondary purposes into two categories: 1. Secondary legislated purposes, those purposes that have been subjected to the legislative test specified in the Code and have subsequently been written into law; 2. Secondary nonlegislated purposes are any other purposes, such as education or research not governed by legislation, that meet the provisions of the CMA Code and the secondary nonlegislative test provided by the Code. The tests that CMA requires both to go through relate to: 1. Impact on privacy. 2. Impact on the patient-physician relationship, especially confidentiality and trust. 3. Impact on the willingness of patients to disclose information. 4. Impact on patients’ ability to receive care. 5. Evidence of broad public support for the measure. 6. The use will not exploit or compromise the trust of the patient-physician relationship. 7. Patient vulnerability will not be exploited. 8. Under most circumstances patients will be fully informed of the purpose and patient consent will be clearly voluntary. 9. Patient privacy will be intruded upon to the most limited degree possible. 10. Linkage of health information will be restricted and consented to by patients. In other words, CMA is not satisfied that any and all secondary purposes for the use of health information should be permitted. Rather, CMA seeks justification for the secondary use and assurance that the secondary use will neither impede nor undermine the patient-physician relationship and the provision of health care to the patient. Moreover, the CMA Code only permits use without consent if it is permitted or required by legislation or when ordered or decided by a court of law. The Advisory Council Report Like CMA, the Advisory Council Report makes distinctions among various types of uses. The report calls for legislation to clearly prohibit all secondary commercial use of personal health information. In addition, the Report recommends that there be provisions regulating secondary uses of non-identifiable health information and that such provisions should address privacy concerns surrounding the degree to which such data might be linked back to an identifiable individual. In this context, the Report recommends that legislation set clear limits on access to and use of health information by third parties outside the health care system. In addition the Report reviews the uses of health information for statistical and research purposes. The Report’s findings with respect to statistical use have already been discussed. In connection with research, the Report calls for a number of safeguards and restrictions: 1. Where the data sets used have a higher level of potential identifiability, “the general rule should be informed consent and stringent assurances about privacy protection and security arrangements are necessary before a researcher can have access to personally identifiable information.” 2. The Report recognizes that in some instances it may be impractical to obtain consent from patients. Whether in anonymous or identifiable form the Report requires that notice be given about the use of the information in either form. In the case of the use of identifiable information, the Report states that the research should be subject to independent ethics review with the onus on the person seeking to use the information without consent to demonstrate that: (a) a tangible public good of significant benefit will result; (b) consent is impossible to secure at a reasonable cost; (c) less identifiable data will not serve the same purpose; and (d) no harm can occur to any person directly or indirectly [note the above discussion on group privacy] as a result of this use of his or her personal information. E. Disclosure Without Knowledge Or Consent Bill C-54 The comments found under C. and D. above apply equally here. Section 7(3) adds further instances when collected information can be disclosed to others without knowledge or consent. CMA Code In the case of health information CMA takes a far more restrictive approach. In the case of use, disclosure or access the CMA Code states: The potential that health information, in whole or in part, may be subsequently collected, used, disclosed or accessed for other purposes without their consent, and what those purposes might be, must be made know to the patient by reasonable means before it is confided or collected for primary purposes. Moreover, the CMA Code recognizes that information disclosed by one organization is collected by another. The Code defines collection to mean: the act of accessing, receiving, compiling, gathering, acquiring or obtaining health information from any source, including third parties, and by any means. It includes information collected from the patient, as well as secondary collection of this information in whole or in part by another provider or user. The collecting organization should be bound by the provisions of the CMA Code, which generally requires consent for use for any purpose and always requires knowledge of the potential purposes that information will or must be put to prior to the information being disclosed. CMA’s Code states: Health information custodians must ensure that third parties privy to health information have adopted this Code or are bound by equivalent provisions. Finally, the CMA Code explicitly recognizes that information can be retrieved from a variety of sources to formulate records. Any and all such practices and the composite form developed are given the same degree of protection as that accorded the original data collected by or through the patient. F. Information Flow Within Organizations Bill C-54 Bill C-54 defines use to include, “the transfer of personal information within an organization.” Therefore, to the extent that Bill C-54 restricts the free flow of information it restricts in within an organization. In the health care context this is not a reasonable or desirable outcome. CMA Code The CMA Code recognizes that the free flow of health information is desirable to the extent that it furthers the provision of the health care benefit sought and that it occurs with patient consent. The CMA Code defines the primary purpose to mean: (i) Primary therapeutic purpose is the initial reason for a patient seeking or receiving care in the therapeutic context, and pertains to the delivery of health care to a particular patient with respect to the presenting health need or problem. It encompasses consultation with and referral to other providers on a need-to-know basis. (ii) Primary longitudinal purpose concerns developing composite health information about a particular patient, such as a detailed medical history, beyond direct application to the presenting health need or problem, in order to enhance ongoing care to that person. The Code goes on to state that: Health information collection, use, disclosure or access for the primary therapeutic and longitudinal purposes may be as extensive as necessary to fulfil these purposes and reflect the high level of trustworthiness and accountability of health professionals in the therapeutic context. And further states that: Security safeguards shall impede as little as possible health information collection, use, access and disclosure for primary purposes. Finally, in addressing consent the Code states: Consent to health information collection, use, disclosure and access for the primary therapeutic purpose may be inferred. Consent to subsequent collection, use, disclosure and access on a need-to-know basis by or to other physicians or health providers for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, may be inferred, as long as there is no evidence that the patient would not give express consent to share the information. G. Individual Access Bill C-54 Bill C-54 restricts the right of individual access to personal information. The grounds for denying access to information are inappropriate in the health care context. CMA Code The CMA Code follows the prevailing case law as it relates to medical records. Primarily this gives the patients a right of access to their record in all but very limited circumstances. These circumstances are, if there is a significant likelihood of a substantial adverse effect on the physical, mental or emotional health of the patient or substantial harm to a third party. The onus lies on the provider to justify denial of access. H. Accuracy and Amendment Bill C-54 Bill C-54 requires that information be as accurate, complete and up-to-date as possible and that it shall not be routinely updated unless this is necessary to fulfil the purpose for its collection. In so far as amendment is concerned, Bill C-54 permits amendment to the record in specified circumstances. CMA Code The CMA Code takes a different approach in light of the nature and purpose of health information. The Code recognizes that the “recording of statements of fact, clinical judgements and determinations or assessments should reflect as nearly as possible what has been confided by the patient and what has been ascertained, hypothesized or determined to be true using professional judgement.” In terms of amending the record in light of a patient’s request, the CMA Code seeks to preserve the original record but also note the patient’s concerns. To accommodate both requirements the CMA Code states: Patients who have reviewed their information and believe it to be inaccurately recorded or false have the right to suggest amendments and to have their amendments appended to the health information. I. Sensitivity Bill C-54 In a number of instances Bill C-54 and in particular schedule 1 recognize that medical records have a high level of sensitivity attached. Which in turns warrants special attention concerning consent, reasonable expectations, individual access and implicity, the degree of security that is appropriate. CMA Code The CMA Code seeks to recognize that while all health information is sensitive (when considered against other forms of information about individuals) there are also variations in the level of sensitivity in various aspects of the health record. The CMA Code defines the “sensitivity of health information” to refer to: the patient’s interest in keeping the information secret. It varies according to the nature of the information, its form, and the potential negative repercussions of its collection, use or disclosure on the patient’s interests. Under the Code’s consent provisions it is stated that: Although all health information is sensitive and should be treated as such, the more sensitive the health information is likely to be, given what is known about the circumstances or preferences of the patient, the more important it is to ensure that consent is voluntary and informed. With respect to security the Code states: The development of security safeguards with respect to levels of access for various users shall recognize the differences in the sensitivity of health information and permit access accordingly. V. Conclusions The increased capacity to collect, store, transfer, merge and access information coupled with trends that support increased use of and access to information have the potential to erode our traditional understanding and protection of privacy and confidentiality. The issues are complex and the choices we must make are difficult. Nevertheless, these issues should be squarely on the table and the choices that we make must be clear, transparent and defensible. Of paramount importance is that the public is not mislead into believing that their information is being protected or kept confidential when in fact it is not. Therefore, even to refer to Bill C-54 as the “Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act” should be the subject of debate. Is the Bill truly about information protection or is it actually about permitting access to information? Bill C-54 presents one approach, an approach that values commerce and access. In CMA’s view the approach is totally inadequate when applied to health information. CMA also believes that the public would also find Bill C-54 inadequate. CMA presents a different approach, an approach that values privacy and the preservation of the trust and integrity of the patient-physician relationship. CMA believes that its approach would receive broad public support. Moreover, CMA believes that to the extent the CMA Code presents tests rather than conclusions, these tests should be administered in good faith prior to legislative initiatives related to health information or in the case of secondary usage of health information in general. CMA believes that its approach draws support from the Federal Advisory Council Report, which also recognizes the importance of preserving patient privacy and the confidentiality of the health record in an era of increased use of technology. Implicitly, the Report recognizes that the benefits of such technology cannot be realized if public support, based on assurance of privacy protection, cannot be secured. CMA urges this committee to implement CMA’s recommendations and in doing so provide the type of protection that health information deserves and that Canadians desire. VI. Summary of Recommendations That Bill C-54 be amended to incorporate specific provisions relating to health information and that the provisions of the CMA Code provide the basis of such provisions; and That the proposed rules for health legislation be subject to the legislative test found in CMA’s Code and formulated in light of this process; and That there be a clear definition of the information being accorded a right of privacy and that this definition, at least in the case of health information, include identifiable information, delinked information, anonymous information and any composite form produced when information is linked to any information about a person from any other source; and That, at least in connection with health information, the provisions of the Bill apply equally to the public and the private sectors.
Documents
Less detail

Cannabis for Medical Purposes

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10045
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2010-12-04
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2010-12-04
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has always recognized the unique requirements of those individuals suffering from a terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective and for whom cannabis may provide relief. However, there are a number of concerns, primarily related to the limited evidence to support many of the therapeutic claims made regarding cannabis for medical purposes, and the need to support health practitioners in their practice.1,2,3,4 While the indications for using cannabis to treat some conditions have been well studied, less information is available about many potential medical uses. Physicians who wish to authorize the use of cannabis for patients in their practices should consult relevant CMPA policy5 and guidelines developed by the provincial and territorial medical regulatory authorities to ensure appropriate medico-legal protection. The CMA’s policy Authorizing Marijuana for Medical Purposes6, as well as the CMA’s Guidelines For Physicians In Interactions With Industry7 should also be consulted. The CMA makes the following recommendations: 1. Increase support for the advancement of scientific knowledge about the medical use of cannabis. The CMA encourages the government to support rigorous scientific research into the efficacy for therapeutic claims, safety, dose-response relationships, potential interactions and the most effective routes of delivery, and in various populations. 2. Apply the same regulatory oversight and evidence standards to cannabis as to pharmaceutical products under the Food and Drug Act, designed to protect the public by the assessment for safety and efficacy. 3. Increase support for physicians on the use of cannabis for medical purposes in their practice settings. As such, CMA calls on the government to work with the CMA, The College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2 and other relevant stakeholders, to develop unbiased, accredited education options and licensing programs for physicians who authorize the use of cannabis for their patients based on the best available evidence. Background In 2001, Health Canada enacted the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). These were in response to an Ontario Court of Appeal finding that banning cannabis for medicinal purposes violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.8 The MMAR, as enacted, was designed to establish a framework to allow legal access to cannabis, then an illegal drug, for the relief of pain, nausea and other symptoms by people suffering from serious illness where conventional treatments had failed. While recognizing the needs of those suffering from terminal illness or chronic disease, CMA raised strong objections to the proposed regulations. There were concerns about the lack of evidence on the risks and benefits associated with the use of cannabis. This made it difficult for physicians to advise their patients appropriately and manage doses or potential side effects. The CMA believes that physicians should not be put in the untenable position of gatekeepers for a proposed medical intervention that has not undergone established regulatory review processes as required for all prescription medicines. Additionally, there were concerns about medico-legal liability, and the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), encouraged those physicians that were uncomfortable with the regulations to refrain from authorizing cannabis to patients. Various revisions were made to the MMAR, and then these were substituted by the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) in 2013/ 2014 and subsequently by the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) in 2016 and now as part of the Cannabis Act (Section 14)9. Healthcare practitioners that wish to authorize cannabis for their patients are required to sign a medical document, indicating the daily quantity of dried cannabis, expressed in grams. For the most part, these revisions have been in response to decisions from various court decisions across the country.10,11,12 Courts have consistently sided with patients’ rights to relieve symptoms of terminal disease or certain chronic conditions, despite the limited data on the effectiveness of cannabis. Courts have not addressed the ethical position in which physicians are placed as a result of becoming the gate keeper for access to a medication without adequate evidence. The CMA participated in many Health Canada consultations with stakeholders as well as scientific advisory committees and continued to express the concerns of the physician community. As previously noted, the Federal government has been constrained by the decisions of Canadian courts. 3 The current state of evidence regarding harms of cannabis use is also limited but points to some serious concerns. Ongoing research has shown that regular cannabis use during brain development (up to approximately 25 years old) is linked to an increased risk of mental health disorders including depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia, especially if there is a personal or family history of mental illness. Long term use has also been associated with issues of attention, impulse control and emotional regulation. Smoking of cannabis also has pulmonary consequences such as chronic bronchitis. It is also linked to poorer pregnancy outcomes. Physicians are also concerned with dependence, which occurs in up to 10% of regular users. From a public and personal safety standpoint, cannabis can impact judgement and increases the risk of accidents (e.g. motor vehicle incidents). For many individuals, cannabis use is not without adverse consequences.3,13,14 Pharmaceutically prepared alternative options, often administered orally, are also available and regulated in Canada.15 These drugs mimic the action of delta-9-tetra-hydrocannabional (THC) and other cannabinoids and have undergone clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness and have been approved for use through the Food and Drug Act. Of note is that in this format, the toxic by-products of smoked marijuana are avoided.16 However, the need for more research is evident. Approved by the CMA Board in December 2010. Last reviewed and approved by the CMA Board in March 2019. References 1 Allan GM, Ramji J, Perry D, et al. Simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care. Canadian Family Physician, 2018;64(2):111-120. Available: http://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/64/2/111.full.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 2 College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC). Authorizing Dried Cannabis for Chronic Pain or Anxiety: Preliminary Guidance. Mississauga: CFPC; 2014. Available: https://www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/_PDFs/Authorizing%20Dried%20Cannabis%20for%20Chronic%20Pain%20or%20Anxiety.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 3 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2017. 4 Whiting PF, Wolff RF, Deshpande S, et al. Cannabinoids for medical use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2015;313(24):2456-73. 5 Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). Medical marijuana: considerations for Canadian doctors. Ottawa: CMPA; 2018. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/advice-publications/browse-articles/2014/medical-marijuana-new-regulations-new-college-guidance-for-canadian-doctors (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 6 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Authorizing marijuana for medical purposes. Ottawa: CMA; 2014. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11514 http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD15-04.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 7 Canadian Medical Association. (CMA) Guidelines for Physicians In Interactions With Industry. Ottawa: CMA; 2007. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD08-01.pdf. (accessed 2019 Jan22). 4 8 R. v. Parker, 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON CA). Available: http://canlii.ca/t/1fb95 (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 9 Cannabis Act. Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes. Section 14. 2018. Available: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-144/page-28.html#h-81 (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 10 Hitzig v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 3451 (ON SC). Available: http://canlii.ca/t/1c9jd (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 11 Allard v. Canada, [2016] 3 FCR 303, 2016 FC 236 (CanLII), Available: http://canlii.ca/t/gngc5 (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 12 R. v. Smith, 2014 ONCJ 133 (CanLII). Available: http://canlii.ca/t/g68gk (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 13 Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SRB. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2219–2227. 14 World Health Organization. The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/msbcannabis.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 15 Ware MA. Is there a role for marijuana in medical practice? Can Fam Physician 2006;52(12):1531-1533. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1952544/pdf/0530022a.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan 8). 16 Engels FK, de Jong FA, Mathijssen RHJ, et.al. Medicinal cannabis in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(18):2638-2644. Available: https://www.clinicalkey.com/service/content/pdf/watermarked/1-s2.0-S0959804907007368.pdf?locale=en_US (accessed 2019 Jan 8).
Documents
Less detail

Towards a Sustainable Health Care System in the New Millennium : Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance 2000 Pre-Budget Consultation Process

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1977
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
1999-09-10
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
1999-09-10
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
On the cusp of the new millennium, it is appropriate to reflect with pride on our nation's past and to plan with compassion, innovation and creativity for our nation's future. The new century will present us with many challenges-an ageing population, increased knowledge with corresponding advances in technology and research, competitiveness at home and abroad- to meet the needs of Canadians. CMA recognizes that we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. A world where globalization has meant that we, as a country, must look forward and beyond our borders when it comes to determining how we can reach our collective potential. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] As we plan for the future it is vital to recognize the importance of the social programs that must remain essential features of our society. Our health care system is an important and defining feature of what it is to be Canadian. CMA believes a well funded, sustainable, quality health care system must be at the forefront of the federal government's strategic priorities. The haste to reduce health care costs over the past several years has left a destabilized and demoralized health system in its wake. Diminished access to critical health care services and insufficient human resources are only part of the legacy. Rebuilding Canadians' confidence in the health care system will not be easy. CMA noted the important first step that was taken by the federal government in its 1999 budget. A reinvestment of $11.5 billion earmarked for health care was an important signal to Canadians. However, with the complete restoration of funds in 2003/04 the health care system will only be back to its 1995 nominal spending levels, some seven years after the fact - with no adjustment for the increasing health care needs of an increased number of more aged Canadians, inflation or economic growth. CMA is encouraged with federal government's recent initiatives to increase health research funding. This is of direct benefit to the health of Canadians; to the health care system; to foster the development of health care as an industry and to ensure our best and brightest medical scientists and health researchers are educated and remain in Canada. However, we know that more needs to be done to ensure innovation and competitiveness. We would like to echo the words of the Prime Minister who said we consider Medicare to be the best example of how good social policy can be good economic policy, too. While reflecting the desire of Canadians to show compassion for their fellow citizens, Medicare also serves as one of our key competitive advantages. A sustained health care system will ensure a healthy population, and a healthy labour force that contributes to the productivity of the nation. In seeking to place the health care system on the road to long-term sustainability, the CMA is committed to working in close partnerships with the federal government and others in identifying, developing and implementing policy initiatives that serve to strengthen Canadians' access to quality health care The CMA looks forward to contributing to the search for solutions. To work with the federal government and others in building a responsive, flexible and sustainable health care system for all Canadians. In this spirit of co-operation the CMA offers the following recommendations: 1. That the federal government fund Canada's publicly financed health care system on a long-term, sustainable basis to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. 2. That the federal government introduce a health-specific portion of federal cash transfers to the provinces and territories to promote greater public accountability, transparency and visibility. 3. That the federal government, at a minimum, increase federal cash for health care by an additional $1.5 billion, effective April 1, 2000. 4. That beginning, April 1, 2001, the federal government fully index the total cash entitlement allocated to health care through the use of a combination of factors that would take into account the changing needs of Canadians based on population growth, ageing, epidemiology, current knowledge and new technologies, and economic growth. 5. That the federal, provincial and territorial governments adopt the guiding principle of national self-sufficiency in the production and retention of physicians to meet the medical needs of the population, including primary to highly specialized medical care, and the requirements for a critical mass for teaching and research. 6. That the federal government establish and fund a national pool of re-entry positions in postgraduate medical education. 7. That the federal government establish a National Centre for Health Workforce Research. 8. That the federal government enhance financial support systems, such as the Canada Student Loans Program, for medical students in advance of any future tuition increase, and ensure that these support systems are set at levels that meet the financial needs of students. 9. That health care services funded by the provinces and territories be zero-rated. 10. That the federal government establish a National Health Technology Fund to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies. 11. That the federal government continue to increase funding for health research on a long-term, sustainable basis. 12. That the federal government commit stable funding for a comprehensive tobacco control strategy; this strategy should ensure that the funds are invested in evidence-based tobacco control projects and programs, which would include programs aimed at prevention and cessation of tobacco use and protection of the public from tobacco's harmful effects. 13. That the federal government support the use of tobacco tax revenues for the purpose of developing and implementing tobacco control programs. 14. That the federal government place a high priority for funding tobacco prevention and evidence-based cessation programs for young Canadians as early as primary school age. 15. That the federal government follow a comprehensive integrated tobacco tax policy a) To implement selective stepwise tobacco tax increases to achieve the following objectives: (1) reduce tobacco consumption, (2) minimize interprovincial/territorial smuggling of tobacco products, and (3) minimize international smuggling of tobacco products; b) To apply the export tax on tobacco products and remove the exemption available on tobacco shipments in accordance with each manufacturers historic levels; and c) To enter into discussions with the US federal government to explore options regarding tobacco tax policy, raising Canadian tobacco price levels in line with or near the US border states, in order to minimize international smuggling. 16. That the dollar limit of RRSPs at $13,500, increase to $15,500 for the year 2000/01. 17. That the federal government explore mechanisms to increase RRSP contribution limits in the future given the delay in achieving pension parity, since 1988. 18. That the 20% Foreign Property Rule for deferred income plans such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Retirement Income Funds be increased in 2% annual increments to 30% over a five year period, effective the year 2000. 19. That the federal government explores the regulatory changes necessary to allow easier access to RRSP funds for investment in small and medium-size businesses. 20. That the federal government undertake the necessary steps to creditor-proof RRSPs and RRIFs. I. INTRODUCTION The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) commends the federal government in its second mandate, for continuing with the pre-budget consultation process. This visible and accountable process encourages public dialogue in the consideration and development of finance, economic and social policies of the country. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] As part of the 2000 pre-budget consultation process, the CMA welcomes the opportunity to submit its views to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, and looks forward to meeting with the Committee at a later date to discuss our recommendations and their rationale in greater detail. II. POLICY CONTEXT Over the past few years, there has been a significant amount of attention placed on the fact that Canada is living in a world that is increasingly interdependent. A world where globalization has meant that we, as a country, must look forward, outward and with others when it comes to determining how we can reach our collective potential. While further political and economic change is likely to continue, it is important to recognize that there are important social programs that must remain essential features of our society. One such program is our health care system - an important and defining feature of what it is to be Canadian. The CMA believes that when it comes to maintaining and enhancing the health of Canadians, a well-funded, sustainable health care system must be at the forefront of the federal government's strategic priorities. By 2002, it is estimated that there will be 2.3 million more Canadians and 444,000 more Canadians over the age of 65. As a consequence, Canada's health care system will continue to face significant challenges in the near future. The pan-Canadian haste of governments across the country to reduce health care costs as quickly as possible over the past several years left a destabilized and demoralized health system in its wake. Diminished access to critical health care services and insufficient human resources are only part of the legacy. The initial federal reinvestment will help ease some of the pressures but it will not be much more than a short-term solution given that expectations and demands on the system will continue to rise. Rebuilding Canadians' confidence in the health care system will not be easy. Reports of overcrowded emergency rooms, physician and nursing shortages, and of patients being sent to the United States for treatment to reduce waiting times will not help restore their faith. The CMA fully recognises the importance of the first step taken by the federal government. However, fundamental questions remain about future steps needed to sustain our cherished health care system over the short-, medium- and long-term - ensuring that all Canadians will have ready access when they or their families are in need. Given this first step, the CMA believes that we must shift our focus to the vision and overarching strategic framework the federal government must develop to ensure that the health care system will be funded on a sustainable basis. In seeking to place the health care system on the road to long-term sustainability, the CMA is committed to working closely with the federal government in identifying, developing and implementing policy initiatives that serve to strengthen Canadians' access to quality health care. III. TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM In its 1999 budget, the federal government took an important first step forward toward stabilizing Canada's health care system. The government announced a five-year fiscal framework, effective April 1, 1999 that reinvested $11.5 billion, on a cumulative basis, in the health care system. While this is an important first step, it must be placed in perspective. The $11.5 billion is a cumulative figure over five consecutive years. On an annual basis, this means that federal cash for health care is scheduled to increase by $2.0 billion for 1999/2000; it will remain at the same level for 2000/01 and then increase by $500 million (to $2.5 billion) in 2001/02, and remain at that level for the years 2002/03 and 2003/04. Only in year 4 does the CHST cash floor increase by a total of $2.5 billion. 1 Restoring $2.5 billion to the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) cash floor in 2002/03, the fourth year of the government's five-year timetable, means that the health system will only be back to its 1995 nominal spending levels, 7 years after the fact - with no adjustment for the increasing health care needs of Canadians, inflation or economic growth. 2 [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [TABLE END] In current dollars, it is estimated that the federal government allocates approximately 41% of CHST cash for health care. Based on a cash floor of $12.5 billion this amounts to $5.13 billion. The CMA recognizes that the federal amount has increased cash by a minimum of $2.0 billion in 1999/00 to $7.13 billion, however, once again this figure must be placed in context; $7.13 billion represents only 9 cents of each dollar spent on health care in Canada. Another way to express the $11.5 billion is to adjust the figure by the number of Canadians (i.e., a per capita basis - see Figure 1). 3 Scenario 1 illustrates nominal per capita federal CHST cash for health care prior to the 1999 budget with projections to 2003/04. In absence of a five-year fiscal framework introduced by the government, federal CHST cash (formerly Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan) would have gone from $247 in 1990/01 to $163 per Canadian in 2003/04 - a decrease of 34%. Adjusting for inflation, federal CHST cash for health care would have dropped from $247 to $131 per Canadian - a decrease of 47%. With the introduction of the $11.5 billion in 1999 (Scenario 2), nominal per capita CHST cash for health care increases from $168 to $233 in 1999/00. This, however, falls short of the $258 per capita in 1995/96. With an estimated population of 30.6 million Canadians, the CHST shortfall is estimated to be $765 million (i.e., $258 - $233 x 30.6 million). Recognizing that inflation since 1995 has eroded the value of the federal CHST cash in 1999, the figure is estimated to be closer to $1.5 billion than $1.0 billion. Furthermore, there is no escalator attached to the federal CHST cash to account for inflation, a growing and ageing population, epidemiological trends or the diffusion of new technologies. This is a departure from previous formulae under Established Programs Financing (EPF) and the CHST which included an escalator (i.e., a three-year moving average of nominal Gross Domestic Product) to grow the value of the cash transfer. 4 In summary, the context placed around $11.5 billion is important, for it underscores the importance of the initial step that has been taken by the federal government when it comes to shoring up funding for health care in Canada. However, the critical issue now becomes what immediate and successive steps will be taken by the government to place the funding of our health care system on a longer-term and sustainable basis. The CMA is not alone in its view that there must be a full restoration of CHST cash. The Communiqué issued by the First Ministers at the recent 40th Annual Premiers Conference in Quebec City was clear in the interpretation of sustainability. While we consider how to ensure that the health care system will be here for all Canadians over the short, medium and long-term, we know that our society is growing and ageing. It is projected that individuals over the age of 65 will increase from just over one in ten (12.2%) in 1996 to one in five (21.7%) in 2031. 5 [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] The combination of population growth and ageing will place additional pressure on health expenditures. Estimated per capita health expenditures by age for 1994 (see Table 1), shows that per capita expenditures for the 65 and over age group were $8,068, in comparison to $2,478 for the population as a whole-just over a three-to-one ratio. 6 Of interest, while the 65 and over population represented less than 12% of the population in 1994, it is estimated to have accounted for almost 40% of total health expenditures. The Auditor General of Canada, using age-specific per capita health spending, has projected that government health expenditures may reach 12% of GDP. 7 This is a large estimated increase given that the 1998 total health expenditures, which includes both government and private sources, is approximately 9% of GDP. [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] Table 1 Per Capita Health Expenditures By Age Group, 1994 Age Group Expenditures per capita 0-14 $1,156 15-44 $1,663 45-64 $2,432 65+ $8,068 Source: National Health Expenditures, CIHI, 1996. [TABLE END] While it may be argued that those are only estimates, the OECD study on population shows that they are not at all atypical of the international experience. 8 This information alone will present the health care system with a number of challenges when it comes to meeting the future needs of the population. Given the current and impending pressures on the health care system, it is incumbent on the federal government - the guardian of Medicare - to think how we, as a society, will be able to maintain our health care system well beyond the new millennium. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] The CMA therefore recommends: 1. That the federal government fund Canada's publicly financed health care system on a long-term, sustainable basis to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. 2. That the federal government introduce a health-specific portion of federal cash transfers to the provinces and territories to promote greater public accountability, transparency and visibility. 3. That the federal government, at a minimum, increase federal cash for health care by an additional $1.5 billion, effective April 1, 2000. 4. That beginning April 1, 2001, the federal government fully index the total cash entitlement allocated to health care through the use of a combination of factors that would take into account the changing needs of Canadians based on population growth, ageing, epidemiology, current knowledge and new technologies, and economic growth. Recommendation 1 is principle-based and speaks to the importance of moving away from managing Canada's health care system on a crisis-to-crisis basis. While the balance between affordability and sustainability of our system should be at the forefront of our thinking, it must not deny Canadians reasonable access to quality health care. It also recognizes that although the federal government has an essential role to play, it cannot do it alone; it must work in close partnership with the provinces and territories. Consistent with the Minister of Health's call for increased accountability and transparency in our health care system, Recommendation 2 calls on the federal government to be measured by the very same principle when it comes to funding Canada's health care system. It is also consistent with the Social Union Agreement calling for greater public accountability on all levels of government. While last year's allocation under the CHST for health care sends an important message, consideration must be given as to how the CHST can be restructured to promote greater transparency and linkage between the sources of federal funding for health care and their intended uses at the provincial/territorial level. This is particularly important when one considers the need to better understand the relationship between defined health care expenditures and their relationship to health outcomes. In fact, it could be argued that last year's federal budget implicitly re-introduced the concept of earmarking CHST cash to health care. At a time of increased demand for accountability, the CHST mechanism appears to be anachronistic by having one indivisible cash transfer that does not recognize explicitly the federal government's contribution to health in a post-Social Union Agreement world. Last year, the CMA recommended to the federal government that it reinvest a total of $3.5 billion effective April 1, 1999 into the health care system with the principal objectives of: stabilizing the health care system; and assisting in the transitional process of expanding the continuum of care. As part of the $3.5 billion, the CMA recommended the creation of a Health System Renewal Fund which focused on four discrete areas of need: (1) acute care infrastructure; (2) community care infrastructure; (3) support Canadians at risk; and (4) health information technology. Given that the government reinvested $2.0 billion in 1999/2000, the CMA recommends that the federal government move immediately to reinvest an additional $1.5 billion for health care to facilitate continued system stabilization as well as further development toward an expanded continuum of care. These additional and necessary resources would be welcomed in addressing strategic policy challenges related to health human resource requirements - particularly those associated with the need for an adequate and stable supply of physicians and nurses; the cornerstone of our health care system. Furthermore, these resources would assist in the development of necessary capital infrastructure required to assist in the transition from institutional to community-based models of care, within a more integrated framework. While more specific and substantial funding announcements would be expected with any new shared programs announced by the federal and provincial/territorial governments (e.g., home care and pharmacare), there is a need now, while the system is in flux to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. This transitional funding will assist in the stabilization of the system and will also serve to ensure that as the system evolves toward an expanding continuum of care, it will remain accessible, with minimal interruption of service to Canadians. Based on recent estimates of the government's surplus in 1999 (standing at $4.8 billion through the first three months of fiscal 1999) and beyond, (9) it would appear that the government has an opportunity to make good on its commitment to make health care a key priority for future action. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] Recommendation 4 addresses the need for a fully indexed escalator to ensure that the federal cash contribution will continue to grow to meet the future health needs of Canadians. The escalator formula recognizes that health care needs are not always synchronized with economic growth. In fact, in times of economic hardship (e.g., unemployment, stress, and familial discord), a greater burden is placed on the health care system. If left as is, the current federal cash value will continue to erode over time with increasing demands from an ageing and growing population, and inflation. Combined, these recommendations speak not only to the fundamental principles of the necessity of having a sustainable health care system, but also in terms of the federal government continuing to take the necessary concrete leadership steps to ensure that adequate and long-term funding is available to meet the health care needs of all Canadians. The recommendations are strategic and targeted, and serve to build on and strengthen the core foundation of our health care system. If Canada's health care system is not only to survive, but thrive in the new millennium, we must give serious consideration to a range of possible solutions that place our system, and the federal role in that system, on a more secure and sustainable financial foundation. The CMA is prepared to continue to work with governments and others in developing innovative and lasting solutions to the challenges that face the health care system. IV. SUSTAINABLE HEALTH CARE AND PRODUCTIVITY In last year's report tabled in the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Finance proposed the development of a productivity covenant. The Covenant "should subject all existing government initiatives (spending, taxation, regulation) to an assessment which evaluates their expected effects on productivity and hence the standard of living of Canadians. Every new budgetary initiative should be judged according to this productivity benchmark." 10 [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] In the context of reinvesting in health care, the Standing Committee's Covenant asks that a "business case" be made. The CMA is of the view that there exists an important relationship between a well-funded, sustainable, public health care system and economic productivity. Just as strong economic fundamentals are generally viewed as an essential requirement for Canada's prosperous future, stable, adequate and where required, increased resources for health and health care funding should also be considered as an investment in the future well-being of Canadians, and by extension, our economic ability to compete. Framed in this context, these "investments" strengthen the capacity of Canadians to live rewarding and productive lives. From a structural perspective, studies have recognized the link between a well-funded, sustainable health care system as an important contributor to Canada's economic performance. 11 [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] The studies suggest that the nature in which Canada largely finances its health care system through general taxes is more efficient compared to the United States which finances its system predominantly through employer-sponsored programs. Compared to the United States, Canada finances its health care system more equitably by spreading the financial risk across all taxpayers. As well, issues related to job mobility and the portability of health care benefits are not in question in the Canadian system. However, recent federal underfunding in health care has significantly contributed to impaired access to care by injured and sick workers delaying their return to work, decreasing productivity and increasing the cost of doing business and the cost to society. 12 A well-funded, sustainable health care system can be viewed as an important component in the decision-making process of businesses to locate in Canada. 13 In this context, there are a number of benefits that may accrue to Canadians at the individual and societal level, for example: * it can attract medium- and long-term business investment; * lead to the development of new infrastructure (e.g., facilities, equipment); * nurture the development of new long-term (value-added) jobs; * generate real and growing incomes; * increase individual and societal economic activity/consumption, wealth and investment capital; * reduce overall dependence on publicly funded social programs (e.g., employment insurance, income support programs); and * contribute to a growing and sustainable tax base. Underscoring the important linkages between the quality of life of Canadians and productivity is the important role of an efficient and well-funded public health care system and sustained economic growth. Given that policy decisions impact on the economy, health and health care should not necessarily be considered in isolation. In fact, wherever possible, good economic policy and good health and health care policy should be mutually reinforcing, or at a minimum, better synchronized. In an increasingly global, interdependent and competitive marketplace, businesses are not looking to assume greater costs. When it comes to health care, they are not looking to absorb high risk and high cost cases that are currently funded through the public sector. Instead, it would appear that they prefer a well-funded, sustainable health care system that is responsive to the health and health care needs of Canadians. 14 As well, a sustainable publicly funded health care system affords Canadians full mobility (i.e., portability) when it comes to pursuing job opportunities, which in turn, improves productivity. Good economic policy and good health care policy are compatible Canadian societal priorities. One need not be sacrificed to achieve the other nor should they be considered to be in competition with each other. Access to quality health and health care services is an important contributor towards Canada's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly complex global economic environment. Governments at all levels, must take responsibility to ensure that the health system remains on a long-term sustainable financial footing to the extent that it continues to benefit Canadians at the individual and societal level, and in terms of maximizing our quality of life and our ability to be productive. V. PHYSICIAN WORKFORCE ISSUES Canada is now beginning to experience a physician shortage that will be significantly exacerbated in the early decades of the next century. One of the chief contributing factors to the emerging shortage of physicians has been the almost singular focus of governments in their efforts to contain health care costs in the 1990s. A key policy approach introduced by governments to reduce cost growth in health has been to decrease the supply of physicians. A 12-point accord on physician resource management reached by Health Ministers in Banff, Alberta in 1992 included a recommendation for a 10% reduction in undergraduate enrolment in medical schools, which was implemented in the fall of 1993, and a recommendation for a similar percentage reduction in the number of postgraduate training positions. In addition, the introduction in 1992 of the requirement for a minimum of 2 years of prelicensure training removed most of the flexibility that used to exist in the number of postgraduate training slots. For instance, the opportunity for re-entry was no longer available to practising physicians; these re-entry opportunities ensured that young graduates (in general and family medicine) who had opted to go out and do locums or rural placements could then come back into the system at a later date for skills enhancement or speciality training. What the federal/provincial/territorial Ministers of Health did not take into account, however was that the output of Canada's medical schools peaked in the mid-1980s. Between 1986 and 1989, physician supply increased on average by 1,900 per year. This growth was halved between 1989 and 1993 - dropping to an average increase of 960 physicians per year. After 1993, total physician supply dropped in three successive years. This period of declining growth occurred well before the 1993 reductions have had an opportunity to work through the undergraduate education and post-MD training systems. Part of the reason for the decrease in supply is fewer Canadian medical graduates, but a significant part is due to increased attrition from the physician population. One factor has been increased retirement of physicians. The annual number of physicians retiring increased by 40% between the 1985-1989 and 1990-1995 periods. Although there have been up turns in the total supply of physicians in 1997 (285) and 1998 (960), this is unlikely to be sustained, given our lower levels of output from the educational system and higher attrition. The removal of most of these positions was unfortunate because re-entry can provide for more flexibility in the system and can allow for a more rapid adjustment in the physician workforce to meet the health needs of the public. For the Committee's information, appended to the Brief is the CMA's Draft Principles for a Re-entry System in Canadian Postgraduate Medical Education. According to the CMA's projection via the Physician Resource Evaluation Template (PRET), if the current levels of enrolment and attrition patterns continue, Canada will definitely experience a physician shortage in the first decades of the next century, especially after 2011, when the baby-boomer cohort of physicians will begin to retire. There is additional evidence that Canada is experiencing a physician shortage. First, it can be demonstrated that physicians are working harder than ever. Data from the CMA Physician Resource Questionnaire survey show that the mean hours per week worked by physicians (excluding on-call) have increased from 46.9 per week in 1993 to 54.1 hours in 1999 - an increase of 15.4%. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] Second, population-based data suggest that it is becoming more difficult to access physician services. Tracking surveys conducted by the Angus Reid group on behalf of CMA show that in 1998, an estimated 60% of the population believed that access to specialist services has worsened in the past couple of years - up from 41% in 1996. Similarly, in 1998 27% of Canadians reported that access to services from a family physician had worsened - almost double the level of 14% that was reported in 1996. 15 An August 1999 poll conducted by Angus Reid asked Canadians to assess the availability of physicians in their own communities. Only a little over one half of Canadians (52%) feel there are enough physicians available to meet their community's needs. Furthermore, they expect the situation to worsen over the next five years. Less than one third (29%) feel that five years from now there will be enough physicians to meet the health care needs in their communities. 16 In summary, there is ample evidence that not only is Canada heading for a severe physician shortage, but that a shortage has been developing over the past few years. At the same time, it must be recognized that it takes on average six years to train a general practitioner and 8-12 years to train a specialist from the time one enters medical school. If we are to avoid what appears to be a significantly worsening crisis, planning for the future must begin immediately. The CMA therefore recommends: 5. That the federal, provincial and territorial governments adopt the guiding principle of national self-sufficiency in the production and retention of physicians to meet the medical needs of the population, including primary to highly specialized medical care, and the requirements for a critical mass for teaching and research. 6. That the federal government establish and fund a national pool of re-entry positions in postgraduate medical education. In close consultation and collaboration with the provinces and territories, the federal government could play an increasingly vital role when it comes to ensuring that Canada produces an adequate supply of physicians. Furthermore, it could play a role in giving physicians the flexibility they need should they require additional training to meet the emerging needs of Canadians. Cost containment initiatives have also led to decreased numbers of other health care providers all across the country, particularly nurses. The federal government could play a major role in funding and coordinating research across all jurisdictions in Canada on the appropriate supply, mix and distribution of the entire health workforce. Strategic planning in the short, medium and long-term would be greatly facilitated through the establishment of a national institution that could draw on existing national databases and compile research from all the centres in the jurisdictions across the land. The CMA therefore recommends: 7. That the federal government establish a National Centre for Health Workforce Research. RURAL-REMOTE ISSUES While there are physician shortages across the country, it is particularly acute in rural and remote regions of Canada. For a number of personal and professional reasons, physicians are not finding rural and remote practice as rewarding nor sustainable. In 1999, CMA conducted a survey of rural physicians who were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with rural medical practice both from a personal and professional perspective; this study was funded by Health Canada. A similar survey was previously done in 1991. 17 There has been little change in the level of satisfaction for the personal and family factors. However, the level of satisfaction with the professional factors has fallen significantly. In 1991, the proportion indicating they were very satisfied with work hours, professional backup, availability of specialty services and continuing medical education opportunities all decreased by at least 10 percentage points. Similarly, the percentage who were very satisfied with hospital services fell by more than half from 40% in 1991 to 17% in 1999. Likewise, in 1991 42% were very satisfied with their earning potential compared with 23% in 1999. ESCALATION AND DEREGULATION OF TUITION FEES The CMA remains very concerned about high, and rapidly escalating, medical school tuition fee increases across Canada. The CMA is particularly concerned about their subsequent impact on the physician workforce and the Canadian health care system. In addition to the significant impact of high tuition fees on current and potential medical students, the CMA believes that high tuition fees will have a number of consequences, they will: (1) create barriers to application to medical school and threaten the socioeconomic diversity of future health care providers serving the public; and (2) exacerbate the physician 'brain drain' to the United States so that new physicians can pay down their large and growing debts more quickly. In support of this priority matter, the CMA Board has struck a working group to develop a position paper on tuition fee escalation and deregulation; the working group is also planning a national, multiprofession stakeholder conference on this issue. In addition to the recommendation that follows, the CMA believes that governments should increase funding to medical schools to alleviate the pressures driving tuition increases, and that any further tuition increases should be regulated and reasonable. The CMA decries tuition deregulation in Canadian medical schools and recommends: 8. That the federal government enhance financial support systems, such as the Canada Student Loans Program, for medical students in advance of any future tuition increase, and ensure that these support systems are set at levels that meet the financial needs of students. BRAIN DRAIN The net loss of physicians from Canada to other countries has doubled since the beginning of the 1990s. Whereas a net loss of 223 physicians due to migration was recorded in 1991, the corresponding figure for 1997 was 432 physicians - which represents roughly the annual output of four to five medical schools. While these physicians leave for a variety of professional and personal reasons, what is particularly telling is that the figure has doubled over the course of the 1990s. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] For several years, the CMA has warned governments and policy makers about the impending crisis of physician shortages and their implications for the health care system. Regrettably, the calls for a more measured, responsible and deliberate approach to physician resource planning has fallen on deaf ears. There are a number of factors that contribute to physicians leaving Canada. While they would appear to be a combination of personal, professional and economic considerations, the bottom line is our brain drain is a de facto brain gain for another country - predominantly the United States. In reviewing the brain drain issue, Statistics Canada concludes that "there is significant net brain drain in the health professions. Brain gain in health is not enough to make up for brain drain to the United States." 18 This issue is very real for physicians - who are being asked to do more where colleagues are no longer practising; and to the public - who are being asked to be patient as access to the system is delayed or compromised. In the absence of timely, strategic and lasting policy measures, we are likely to continue to risk losing physicians - many of them our best and brightest - to other countries. In this regard, the CMA is of the view that the federal government has an important role to play when it comes to synchronizing policy in the areas of health care, finance and economics. One factor that may contribute to a physician's decision to leave or think about leaving Canada is our tax structure. It is important to note that Canada relies more heavily on personal income taxes than any other G-7 country. 19 While this is important, what is more of concern is how Canada's marginal tax structure compares to that of the United States. While it is understood that Canada has taken a fundamentally different approach with regard to the magnitude and role of the tax system in social policy, the gap between the two systems can no longer be ignored in a world of increasing globalization, economic interdependence and labour mobility. While Canada's personal income tax schedule should be reviewed, it should not come as a surprise to this Committee that other tax policies - such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST)/Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) only serve to remind physicians of the severity and inequity of the problem. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (GST) In its 1997 report to the House of Commons the Standing Committee noted the concerns of the medical profession about the application of the GST and by 1998 indicated that this issue merits further consideration by the government. The CMA believes that it has rigorously documented its concerns and further study is not required (20) - the time has come for concerted action from the federal government to remove this tax impediment. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] When it comes to tax policy and the tax system in Canada, the CMA is strongly of the view that both should be administered in a fair and equitable manner. This principle-based statement has been made to the Standing Committee on a number of different occasions. While these principles are rarely in dispute, the CMA has expressed its strong concerns regarding their application - particularly in the case of the goods and services tax (GST) and the recently introduced harmonized sales tax (HST) in Atlantic Canada. By designating medical services as "tax exempt" under the Excise Tax Act, physicians are in the unenviable position of being denied the ability to claim a GST refund (i.e., input tax credits - ITCs) on the medical supplies necessary to deliver quality health care, and on the other, cannot pass the tax onto those who purchase such services. This is a critical point when one considers the raison-d'être of introducing the GST: to be an end-stage consumer-based tax, and not having a producer of a good or a service bear the full burden of the tax. Yet this tax anomaly does precisely that. As a result, physicians are "hermetically sealed" - they have no ability to claim ITCs due to the Excise Tax Act, or pass the costs to consumers due to the Canada Health Act. The CMA has never, nor is currently asking for, 'special treatment' for physicians under the Excise Tax Act. However, if physicians, as self-employed individuals are considered as small businesses for tax purposes, then it is clearly reasonable that they should have the same tax rules extended to them that apply to other small businesses. This is a fundamental issue of tax fairness. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] While other self-employed professionals and small businesses claim ITCs, an independent (KPMG) study has estimated that physicians have "overcontributed" in terms of unclaimed ITCs by $57.2 million per year. Furthermore, with the introduction of the HST in Atlantic Canada, KPMG has estimated that it will cost physicians an additional $4.686 million per year. By the end of this calendar year, physicians will have been unfairly taxed in excess of $500 million. As it currently applies to medical services, the GST is bad tax policy and the HST will make a bad situation much worse for physicians. There are other health care providers (e.g., dentists, physiotherapists, psychologists, chiropractors, nurses) whose services are categorized as tax exempt. However, there is an important distinction between whether the services are publicly insured or not. Health care providers who deliver services privately have the opportunity to pass along the GST costs through their fee structures. It must be remembered that physicians are in a fundamentally different position given that 99% of their professional earnings come from the government health insurance plans: under the GST and HST, "not all health care services are created equal". There are those who argue that the medical profession should negotiate the GST at the provincial/ territorial level, yet there is no province or territory that is prepared to cover the additional costs that are being downloaded onto physicians as a result of changes to federal tax policy. Nor do these governments feel they should be expected to do so. The current tax anomaly, as it affects the medical profession, was created with the introduction of the GST - and must be resolved at the federal level. The principles that underpin the fundamental issue of tax fairness outlined by Chief Justice Hall are unassailable and should be reflected in federal tax policy. Clearly, it is fairness, not special treatment that the profession is seeking. As it currently stands for medical services, the GST and HST is bad tax policy that does not reinforce good health care policy in Canada. The CMA strongly recommends: 9. That health care services funded by the provinces and territories be zero-rated. This recommendation would be accomplished by amending the Excise Tax Act as follows: (1). Section 5 part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act is replaced by the following: "A supply (other than a zero-rated supply) made by a medical practitioner of a consultative, diagnostic, treatment or other health care service rendered to an individual (other than a surgical or dental service that is performed for cosmetic purposes and not for medical or reconstructive purposes)." (2). Section 9 Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act is repealed. (3). Part II of Schedule VI to the Excise Tax Act is amended by adding the following after Section 40: 41. A supply of any property or service but only if, and to the extent that, the consideration for the supply is payable or reimbursed by the government under a plan established under an Act of the legislature of the province to provide for health care services for all insured persons of the province. The CMA's recommendation fulfils at least two over-arching policy objectives: (1) it strengthens the relationship between good economic policy and good health policy in Canada; and (2) it applies the fundamental principles that underpin our taxation system (fairness, efficiency, effectiveness), in all cases. In this regard, the CMA is committed to working closely, and on an ongoing basis, with the government to develop collaborative solutions to this tax anomaly. DIFFUSION OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES Recently, concerns have been raised about the lack of access to necessary diagnostic and treatment technologies in Canada. Many of the technologies are essential in the early detection of cancers (e.g., breast, prostate, lung), tumours, circulatory complications (e.g., stroke, hardening of the arteries) and other illnesses. A recent study concluded that Canada is generally in the bottom third of OECD countries in availability of technology. Canada ranks 18th (of 29 OECD countries) in making available computed tomography; 19th (of 24 OECD countries) in lithotriptor availability; and 18th (of 27 OECD countries) in availability of magnetic reasonance imagers. Canada ranks favourably only in the availability of radiation equipment (5th out of 16 OECD countries). 21 [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] Given the very real concerns that have been raised with regard to waiting lists across the country, Canadians deserve better when it comes to making available needed health technologies that can effectively diagnose and treat disease. Furthermore, it is clear that we must facilitate the diffusion of new cost-effective health technologies that are properly evaluated and meet defined standards of quality. While physicians are trained to provide quality medical care to all Canadians- they must, at the same time, have the "tools" to do so. In this context, the federal government should establish a National Health Technology Fund that would allow the provinces and territories to access funds. While the provinces and territories would be responsible for determining their respective technological priorities, the federal government would very clearly link the sources of funding with their intended uses, with full recognition for an essential investment in the health care of Canadians. The CMA recommends: 10. That the federal government establish a National Health Technology Fund to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies. The CMA is prepared to work closely with the federal government to assist in the development of objectives and deliverables of such a fund within a reasonable period of time. In so doing, the federal government would work in a strategic partnership with the provinces and territories such that monies from the fund to purchase equipment would be supported by ongoing operational resources at the site of delivery. VI. SYNCHRONIZING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY: WHERE FINANCE, ECONOMICS AND HEALTH CARE COME TOGETHER In appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the CMA is well aware that policy considerations in finance and economics have an important and direct impact on the funding and delivery of health care in Canada. In the world of public policy, rarely are difficult decisions portrayed as simply being black or white. In most instances, where tough choices are made amongst a series of competing ends, they are often in varying shades of grey. While this is true when it comes to health care policy in Canada or any other discipline, it is important that it be placed in a broader context in terms of being consistent with, or reinforcing other good policy choices that have been implemented. This concept is critical to ensure that, if possible, all policy decisions are moving consistently in the same direction. In effect, synchronized in a way that the "policy whole" is greater than the sum of its individual parts. Such an approach also ensures that policy decisions taken in one sector are not countering decisions taken in other sectors. HEALTH RESEARCH IN CANADA In previous submissions to the Standing Committee on Finance, the CMA has encouraged the federal government to take the necessary steps to establish a national target and implementation plan for health research in Canada. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] The CMA was very encouraged with the federal government's announcement in last year's budget to set aside significant resources to develop the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR). By 2001, funding for the CIHR is expected to increase to $484 million. The CMA was also pleased with the Minister's recent announcement to earmark $147 million to attract and retain health researchers in Canada. In offering a vision and structure to facilitate health research in Canada, the government should be congratulated. The CMA believes that significantly increasing funding in support of health research is of direct benefit to: (1) the health of Canadians; (2) Canada's health care system; and (3) to foster the development of health care as an industry. This is where good economic policy goes hand-in-hand with good health and health care policy in Canada. The CMA strongly supports the CIHR model and is prepared to work closely with government and others to do what is necessary to make this become a reality. Recognizing that Canada is moving into a new phase when it comes to funding and undertaking health research, the government is taking an important step to ensure our best and brightest medical scientists and health researchers are developed and remain in Canada. [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] As a national organization representing the views of practising physicians across the country, the CMA strongly believes it has a meaningful contribution to make in moving the CIHR model forward. Specifically, in the areas of: * knowledge management (the CMA contributed greatly to stimulating clinical and health services research in Canada) * contributing to the research agenda (the CMA contributes to the research agenda in health services research, for example the Western Waiting List project funded by the Health Transition Fund) * ensuring quality peer-reviewed research (the CMA publishes the leading peer-reviewed medical journal in Canada) * research transfer (the CMA plays a leading role in developing tools to transfer research into practice - such as the Clinical Practice Guideline Database) * ethics (the CMA maintains a standing committee on ethics) * sustainability (the CMA has advocated for a strong Canadian presence in health research) While the CIHR will have a broad mandate for health research, physicians will have a key role to play in medical and health services research. The CMA looks forward to playing a more substantive role as the model moves to become reality. The CMA recommends: 11. That the federal government continue to increase funding for health research on a long-term, sustainable basis. TOBACCO CONTROL PROGRAMS Tobacco taxation policy should be used in conjunction with other strategies for promoting health public policy, such as public education programs to reduce tobacco use. The CMA continues, however, to maintain that a time-limited investment is not enough. Substantial and sustainable fund-ing is required for programs in prevention and cessation of tobacco use. 22 [BOX CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [BOX END] A possible source for this type of program investment could be tobacco tax revenues or the tobacco surtax. The CMA believes that that the federal government should designate 0.6 cents per cigarette sold to a fund to defray the costs of tobacco interventions, including those provided by physicians with the expertise in the treatment of nicotine addiction. This would generate approximately $250 million per year to help smokers quit. 23 The CMA recommends: 12. That the federal government commit stable funding for a comprehensive tobacco control strategy; this strategy should ensure that the funds are invested in evidence-based tobacco control projects and programs, which would include programs aimed at prevention and cessation of tobacco use and protection of the public from tobacco's harmful effects. 13. That the federal government support the use of tobacco tax revenues for the purpose of developing and implementing tobacco control programs. 14. That the federal government place a high priority for funding tobacco prevention and evidence-based cessation programs for young Canadians as early as primary school age. TOBACCO TAXATION POLICY Smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature mortality in Canada. The most recent estimates suggest that more than 45,000 deaths annually in Canada are directly attributable to tobacco use. The estimated economic cost to society from tobacco use in Canada has been estimated from $11 billion to $15 billion. 24 Tobacco use directly costs the Canadian health care system $3 billion to $3.5 billion (25) annually. These estimates do not consider intangible costs such as pain and suffering. CMA is concerned that the 1994 reduction in the federal cigarette tax has had a significant effect in slowing the decline in cigarette smoking in the Canadian population, particularly in the youngest age groups - where the number of young smokers (15-19) is in the 22% to 30% range and 14% for those aged 10-14. 26 A 1997 Canada Health Monitor Survey found that smoking among girls 15-19 is at 42%. 27 A Quebec study found that smoking rates for high school students went from 19% to 38%, between 1991 and 1996. 28 The CMA congratulates the federal government's initiatives to selectively increase federal excise taxes on cigarettes and tobacco sticks. This represents the first step toward the development of a federal integrated tobacco tax strategy, and speaks to the importance of strengthening the relationship between good health policy and good tax policy in Canada. The CMA understands that tobacco tax strategies are extremely complex. Strategies need to consider the effects of tax increases on reduced consumption of tobacco products with increases in interprovincial/ territorial and international smuggling. In order to tackle this issue, the government could consider a selective tax strategy. This strategy requires continuous stepwise increases to tobacco taxes in those selective areas with lower tobacco tax (i.e., Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada). The goal of selective increases in tobacco tax is to increase the price to the tobacco consumer over time (65-70% of tobacco products are sold in Ontario and Quebec). The selective stepwise tax increases will approach but may not achieve parity amongst all provinces; however, the tobacco tax will attain a level such that interprovincial/territorial smuggling would be unprofitable. The selective stepwise increases would need to be monitored so that the new tax level and US/Canadian exchange rates do not make international smuggling profitable. The selective stepwise increase in tobacco taxes can be combined with other tax strategies. The federal government should be congratulated for reducing the export exemption available on shipments in accordance with each manufacturers' historic levels, from 3% of shipments to 2.5%. However the CMA believes that the federal government should remove the exemption. The objective of implementing the export tax would be to make cross-border smuggling unprofitable. The federal government should establish a dialogue with the US federal government. Canada and the US should hold discussions regarding harmonizing US tobacco taxes with Canadian levels at the factory gate. Alternatively, Canadian tobacco tax policy should raise price levels such that they approach US tobacco prices. The CMA therefore recommends: 15. That the federal government follow a comprehensive integrated tobacco tax policy (a) To implement selective stepwise tobacco tax increases to achieve the following objectives: (1) reduce tobacco consumption, (2) minimize interprovincial/territorial smuggling of tobacco products, and (3) minimize international smuggling of tobacco products; (b) To apply the export tax on tobacco products and remove the exemption available on tobacco shipments in accordance with each manufacturers' historic levels; and (c) To enter into discussions with the US federal government to explore options regarding tobacco tax policy, raising Canadian tobacco price levels in line with or near the US border states, in order to minimize international smuggling. REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS (RRSPS) There are at least two fundamental goals of retirement savings: (1) to guarantee a basic level of retirement income for all Canadians; and (2) to assist Canadians in avoiding serious disruption of their pre-retirement standard of living upon retirement. Reviewing the demographic picture in Canada, we know that an increasing portion of society is not only aging, but is living longer. Assuming that current trends will continue and peak in the first quarter of the next century, it is important to recognize the role that private RRSP savings will play in ensuring that Canadians may continue to live in dignity well past their retirement from the labour force. In its 1996 budget statement, the federal government announced that the contribution limits of RRSPs was to be frozen at $13,500 through to 2002/03, with increases to $14,500 and $15,500 in 2003/04 and 2004/05 respectively. As well, the maximum pension contribution limit for defined benefit registered pension plans will be frozen at its current level of $1,722 per year of service through 2004/05. This is a de facto increase in tax payable. This policy runs counter to the 1983 federal government White Paper on The Tax Treatment of Retirement Savings where the House of Commons Special Committee on Pension Reform recommended that the limits on contributions to tax-assisted retirement savings plans be amended so that the same comprehensive limit would apply regardless of the retirement savings vehicle or combination of vehicles used. In short, the principle of 'pension parity' was explicitly recognized and endorsed. Since that time, in three separate papers released by the federal government (1983, 1984, 1987), the principle of pension parity would have been achieved between money-purchase (MP) plans (i.e., RRSPs) and defined-benefit (DB) plans (i.e., Registered Pension Plans) had RRSP contribution limits risen to $15,500 in 1988. As a founding member of the RRSP Alliance, the CMA, along with others has been frustrated that eleven years of careful and deliberate planning by the federal government around pension reform has not come to fruition. In fact, if the current policy remains in place it will have taken more than 17 years to implement needed reforms to achieve parity (from 1988 to 2005). While pension parity will be achieved between RRSP plans and RPP plans in 2004/05, it will have been accomplished on the backs of Canadians whose RRSP contribution levels have been frozen for far too long. As a consequence, the current policy of freezing RRSP contribution limits and RPP limits without adjusting the RRSP contribution limits to achieve pension parity serves to maintain inequities between the two plans until 2004/05. This situation is further compounded by the implementation of this policy because the RRSP/RPP plans are frozen and therefore unable to grow at the rate in the yearly maximum pensionable earnings (YMPE) Specifically, if the recommended policy of pension parity had been implemented in 1988, the growth in RRSP and RPP contribution limits could have grown in line with the yearly maximum pensionable earnings - and would be approximately $21,000 today. [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] TABLE 2 - RRSP Contribution Limits Adjusted by the Yearly Maximum Pensionable Earnings (YMPE Earnings (YMPE) Year YMPE % change RRSP Limits 1988 $27,700 $15,500 1989 $28,500 2.89 $15,948 1990 $28,900 1.40 $16,171 1991 $30,500 5.54 $17,067 1992 $32,200 5.57 $18,018 1993 $33,400 3.73 $18,690 1994 $34,400 2.99 $19,249 1995 $34,900 1.45 $19,529 1996 $35,400 1.43 $19,809 1997 $35,800 1.13 $20,032 1998 $36,900 3.07 $20,648 1999 $37,400 1.36 $20,928 YMPE Source: Revenue Canada, April 1999 [TABLE END] Each year the Department of Finance publishes revenue cost to the federal treasury of a number of policy initiatives. For RRSP contributions, the net tax expenditure (i.e., tax revenue not collected) is estimated to be $7.5 billion in 1998. The net tax expenditure associated with registered pension plans is estimated to be $6.2 billion in 1998. In this context, it is critical to understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax deferral. RRSPs allow Canadians to set aside necessary resources to provide for their retirement years. In the medium and longer-term, when RRSPs are converted to annuities, they bring increased tax revenues to government. While current contributions exceed withdrawals, this will not continue indefinitely as the baby boom generation retires at an accelerated rate. In sum, at a time when the government is reviewing the role of public benefits in society, there is a social responsibility placed on government to ensure a stable financial planning environment is in place which encourages greater self-reliance on private savings for retirement. From the standpoint of synchronizing good tax policy with good social policy, it is essential that the RRSP system be expanded such that it gives Canadians the means and incentive to prepare for retirement, while at the same time, lessening any future burden on public programs. The CMA recommends: 16. That the dollar limit of RRSPs at $13,500 increase to $15,500 for the year 2000/01. 17. That the federal government explore mechanisms to increase RRSP contribution limits in the future given the delay in achieving pension parity, since 1988. Under current federal tax legislation, 20% of the cost of an RRSP, RRIF or Registered Pension Plan's investments can be made in 'foreign property'. The rest is invested in 'Canadian' investments. If the 20% foreign content limit is exceeded at the end of a month, the RRSP pays a penalty of 1% of the amount of the excess. In its December 1999 pre-budget consultation, the Standing Committee on Finance made the following recommendation (p. 58): "The Committee recommends that the 20% Foreign Property Rule be increased in 2% increments to 30% over a five year period. This diversification will allow Canadians to achieve higher returns on their retirement savings and reduce their exposure to risk, which will benefit all Canadians when they retire." A study by Ernst and Young demonstrated that Canadian investors have experienced substantially better investment returns over the past 20 years with higher foreign content limits. As well, the Conference Board of Canada concluded that lifting the foreign content limit to 30% would have a neutral effect on Canada's economy. The CMA strongly supports the Standing Committee's position that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Canadians would benefit from an increase in the Foreign Property Rule, from 20% to 30%. The CMA therefore recommends: 18. That the 20% Foreign Property Rule for deferred income plans such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Retirement Income Funds be increased in 2% annual increments to 30% over a five year period, effective the year 2000. As part of the process to revitalize and sustain our economy, greater expectations are being placed on the private sector to create long-term employment opportunities. While this suggests that there is a need to re-examine the current balance between public and private sector job creation, the government nonetheless has an important responsibility in fostering an environment that will accelerate job creation. In this context, the CMA strongly believes that current RRSPs should be viewed as an asset rather than a liability. With proper mechanisms in place, the RRSP pool of capital funds can play an integral role in bringing together venture capital and small and medium-size business and entrepreneurs. The CMA would encourage the federal government to explore current regulatory impediments to bring together capital with small and medium-size businesses. The CMA recommends: 19. That the federal government explores the regulatory changes necessary to allow easier access to RRSP funds for investment in small and medium-size businesses. Currently, if an individual declares bankruptcy, creditors are able to launch a claim against their RRSP or RRIF assets. As a consequence, for self-employed Canadians who depend on RRSPs for retirement income, their quality of life in retirement is at risk. In contrast, if employees declare bankruptcy, creditors are unable to lay claim on their pensionable earnings. This is an inequitable situation that would be remedied if RRSPs were creditor-proofed. The CMA recommends: 20. That the federal government undertake the necessary steps to creditor-proof RRSPs and RRIFs. ENDNOTES: 1. It is important to keep in mind that in addition to the CHST, a separate accounting procedure was established through what is called a CHST Supplement. The Supplement, which totals $3.5 billion, was charged to the 1998 federal government public accounts, but is allocated over a three-year period (i.e., $2.0 billion, $1.0 billion, and $0.5 billion). However, at any point in time, a province or territory can take its portion of the $3.5 billion. 2. The $2.5 billion dollars to be reinvested represents the amount of federal cash that was removed with the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) beginning in April 1996 through to 1998. The amount is calculated on the basis of the recent historical federal cash allocation (approximately 41%) under EPF and CAP (now the CHST) to health care as a proportion of the $6.0 billion required to restore the CHST cash floor to $18.5 billion (1995/96 level). 3. The data sources for Figure 1 are: (1) CHST: Canadian Medical Association, Looking Toward Tomorrow, September 1998, p. 4.; (2) Historical national cash transfer to health from Established Programs Financing Reports, Federal-Provincial Relations Division, Department of Finance; (3) Population Statistics: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 91-213; (4) CPI annual % change: Source for 1990-96 is Canadian Economic Observer, cat. No. 11-210-XPB, Historical Statistical Supplement 1996/97, p. 45. For 1996, 1997 and 1998 the source is Canadian Economic Observer, cat. No. 11-010-XPB, April 1999. For 1999 and 2000 the source is Royal Bank of Canada Econoscope, May 1999, p.14. For 2001, 2002 and 2003 CPI % change is assumed to stay constant at the 2000 level of 1.3%. 4. Thomson A. Federal Support for Health Care. Health Action Lobby. June 1991, p. 13. 5. Statistics Canada, Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories, Medium Growth Scenario, 1993-2016, December, 1994 (Catalogue #91-520). 6. Health Canada. National Health Expenditures in Canada, 1975-1994. January 1996. 7. 1998 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 6, Population Aging and Information for Parliament: Understanding the Choices, April. WWW: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9860xe12.html, available on 06/09/99 at 17:38:37. 8. Maintaining Prosperity in an Ageing Society. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1998. 9. The Fiscal Monitor, Department of Finance. August 1999. Current Analysis, The Royal Bank of Canada, August 1999. The Bank estimates that the fiscal dividend will reach $25.9 billion in 2004/05, and $41.2 billion in 2007/08. 10. Facing the Future - Challenges and Choices for A New Era. Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, December 1998, p. 30-31. 11. Green JP, MacBride-King J. Corporate Health Care Costs in Canada and the U.S.: Does Canada's Medicare System Make a Difference? Conference Board of Canada, 1999. Purchase B. Health Care and Competitiveness. School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, 1996. KPMG. The Competitive Alternative: A Comparison of Business Costs in Canada and the United States, 1996. Amanor-Boadu, Martin LJ. Canada's Social Programs, Tax System and the Competitiveness of the Agri-Food Sector, Guelph, Agri-Food Competitiveness Council, 1994. 12. Green JP, MacBride-King J. Corporate Health Care Costs in Canada and the U.S.: Does Canada's Medicare System Make a Difference? Conference Board of Canada, 1999. 13. KPMG. The Competitive Alternative: A Comparison of Business Costs in Canada and the United States, 1996. 14. Baillie C. Health Care in Canada: Preserving a Competitive Advantage, Speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, April, 1999. 15. National Angus Reid Poll, 1998. 16. National Angus Reid Poll, 1999. 17. Canadian Medical Association. The 1991 Survey of Physicians in Rural Medical Practice, 1991. Canadian Medical Association. Survey on Rural Medical Practice in Canada, 1999. 18. Presentation by Statistics Canada Officials to the Standing Committee on Industry, May 1999. 19. Business Council on National Issues: Creating Opportunity, Building Prosperity. October 1998, p. 6. 21. KPMG, Review of the Goods and Services Tax on Canadian Physicians, June 12, 1992. KPMG, Review of the Impact of a Provincial Value Added Tax on Physicians in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, August 12, 1996. 21. Harriman D, McArthur W, Zelder M. The Availability of Medical Technology in Canada: An International Comparative Study. The Fraser Institute. August 1999. 22. In California, between 1988 and 1993, when the state was carrying on an aggressive public anti-smoking campaign, tobacco consumption declined by over 25%. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1988; 279: 772-777. 23 In 1998, 45.613 billion cigarettes were sold in Canada. Statistics Canada, Catalogue #32-022, December, 1998. In 1997/98, total tobacco revenues were $2.04 billion, Public Accounts, Volume II, Part 1, Excise Tax Revue. The rationale for 0.6 cents per cigarette is based on a total amount of 25 cents per pack, of which the federal and provincial/territorial governments would contribute on an equal basis (i.e., 12 cents each). Recently, California passed Proposition 99 which added 25 cents to each pack of cigarettes. 24. Health Canada, Economic Costs Due to Smoking (Information Sheet). Ottawa: Health Canada, November 1996. 25. Health Canada, Economic Costs Due to Smoking (Information Sheet). Ottawa: Health Canada, November 1996. 26. Health Canada, Youth Smoking Behaviour and Attitudes (Information Sheet). Ottawa: Health Canada, November 1996. 27. Canada Health Monitor, Highlights Report, Survey #15. Price Waterhouse, January-February 1997. 28. Editorial. Raise Tobacco Taxes. The Gazette [Montreal] 1997 Sept 23. Sect B:2.
Documents
Less detail

Response to Health Canada’s Discussion Papers on “Proposed New Labelling Requirements for Tobacco Products” and “Options for Tobacco Promotion Regulations”

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1982
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
1999-03-12
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
1999-03-12
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
I. Introduction This document presents the position of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)on the discussion papers “Proposed New Labelling Requirements for Tobacco Products” and “Options for Tobacco Promotion Regulations”, which were released by Health Canada on January 18, 1999. The document assesses the proposals outlined in the two papers and places them in the context of CMA’s comprehensive policy on tobacco control. The CMA is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Our mission is to provide leadership for physicians and to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians. On behalf of its 45,000 members and the Canadian public, CMA performs a wide variety of functions, including advocating health promotion and disease and injury prevention policies and strategies. It is in this capacity that we present this brief, the most recent of many statements on tobacco which CMA has made since it issued its first public warning on tobacco’s hazards in 1954. We have spoken out strongly and consistently for more than forty years because physicians have first-hand experience of the havoc that tobacco plays with the lives of Canadians. Tobacco kills 45,000 people a year in this country1 - more than traffic accidents, murders, suicides, drug abuse and AIDS combined. Because many people with tobacco-related diseases do not die of them, this number greatly underestimates the actual burden of suffering caused by tobacco in Canada. This burden of disease comes with a high price tag. Health Canada estimates that tobacco costs the Canadian health care system $3.5 billion a year in direct health care expenses. This does not include the cost of the disability, lost productivity and human pain and suffering caused by tobacco, which has been estimated at between $8 and 11 billion annually.2 It is for these reasons that the CMA has consistently recommended tough legislative and regulatory measures to control tobacco use. Since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down portions of the Tobacco Products Control Act in 1995, we have advocated strong replacement legislation. We supported Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, and welcomed its enactment in 1997; since then we have repeatedly expressed our opposition to suggested amendments that would weaken the Act. CMA now commends Health Canada on its proposal to augment the Tobacco Act with regulations to mandate strong health warnings on packages of tobacco products, and on initiating discussion on regulations to control tobacco advertising and promotion. The following discusses in detail Health Canada’s specific suggestions. II. “Option for Tobacco Promotion Regulations” Before discussing specific options it should be said that the CMA advocates the prohibition of all forms of tobacco promotion in Canada. This includes advertisements in broadcast and print media, the sale of accessories and tobacco products displaying brand names, logos or colours, and advertising at point of sale. Accordingly we view the options described in the paper as compromises rather than ideal solutions, and our recommendations should be considered from this viewpoint. a) Tobacco Products, (Sections 3.1 (a) to 3.1 (f)) The CMA recommends a total ban on advertising and promotion of tobacco products at point of sale. The eye-catching “power walls” of cigarettes that one sees in corner stores could be considered a form of advertising. CMA therefore recommends the most restrictive option proposed in the paper, i.e. that tobacco products not be displayed above counter-tops. There should be no exemption from this restriction for any store. b) Accessories and Nontobacco Products (Section 3.1 (g) to 3.1 (k)) CMA’s recommended ban on tobacco advertising extends to a ban on the sale of accessories and nontobacco products carrying tobacco brand elements. We are aware that the Tobacco Act permits the use of tobacco brand elements on nontobacco products; however, we recommend that regulations restrict their use to the greatest extent possible. c) Service (Section 3.1 (l)) We assume that this provision is intended to control in-store advertising for events sponsored by tobacco companies. CMA has publicly opposed all advertising related to such events. We note that this advertising will be removed from stores altogether by 2003, under the provisions of Bill C-42. d) Availability Signs (Sections 3.1(m) - 3.1(p)) The CMA questions the need for availability signs; however, if they are permitted, Health Canada’s regulations must ensure that they not be used as advertising. For example, the number of signs that a location can display should be limited; the text on signs should be in plain black and white font; and the content should be restricted as described in Section 3.1(p). e) Advertising (Section 3.2) Again, CMA reminds Health Canada that it opposes tobacco advertising in all forms and would prefer a total ban to the options proposed in this section. However, since the Tobacco Act permits a limited amount of advertising, we recommend that Health Canada act on its stated intent to restrict this advertising’s attractiveness to young people and its potential to reach them. Accordingly we recommend the following: * that all advertisements for tobacco products, accessories or nontobacco products displaying tobacco product brand elements carry prominent health warning messages as proposed; * that advertisements be “text-only” without illustrations or decorative fonts; * that if it is impossible to keep brand elements off advertisements, they occupy as small a space as possible; * that advertisements be print-only and restricted to adult-circulation publications, as mandated in the Tobacco Act; * that the size of advertising signs be restricted; and * that the above recommendations also apply to advertising signs in places where young persons are not permitted. The Tobacco Act allows advertising in such places with the proviso that it not be “lifestyle” related. However, the concept of "lifestyle" advertising is vague and open to broad interpretation; as such, it is difficult to police and could be easily ignored or circumvented. Therefore CMA believes that a comprehensive ban on advertising is preferable to a partial one. f) Tobacco Product Packaging (Section 3.3) Packaging is an important part of the marketing of any product, and tobacco is no exception. Cigarette packages should not serve as an advertising tool and inducement to purchase. Plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness of cigarette boxes to consumers; accordingly CMA recommends that tobacco products be sold in plain packages. We are pleased to see standardized plain packaging presented as an option in this section, and we recommend that this option be adopted. III. “Proposed New Labelling Requirements for Tobacco Products” As Health Canada’s own research indicates, package labelling is a health education tool that can reach a large number of people for minimal cost; we believe that health warning labels have contributed to raising public awareness of the dangers of smoking and the toxic content of tobacco. Accordingly, CMA supports in principle the proposals in this paper. In addition to our support for plain packaging, CMA recommends that packages of tobacco products: * Contain health warnings prominently displayed; * Display messages that are as simple and direct as possible; this applies not only to health warnings but to all proposed messages, e.g. those reminding of the ban on sales to minors; * Use messages that are supported by scientific data and focus on the health effects of tobacco rather than social norms or emotional appeals. In particular, CMA recommends eliminating the message, “Smoking is a weakness, not a strength.” We believe that this message unfairly blames the victim for an activity that is in fact an addiction, not a weakness; * Display a list of toxic ingredients and additives; and * Provide information on treatment for tobacco addiction, for example, information on nicotine replacement, advice to smokers to consult their physicians if they are ready to stop smoking, and information about available cessation programs. Packages might also include inserts containing additional information on product content and health risks. This information should also be based on scientific evidence focusing on the medical consequences of tobacco use. However, the use of inserts should be carefully evaluated in light of its possible impact on the environment. The labelling requirements proposed in this paper are consistent with the spirit of CMA’s policy. We commend Health Canada for taking these steps, and for mandating health warnings not only on cigarettes but on all tobacco products. IV. The Larger Context It is important to emphasize that CMA does not consider the proposed regulations, or any other single initiative, a “miracle cure” for Canada’s tobacco problem. Just as there are a variety of reasons why children take up the smoking habit, so it will take a variety of initiatives, working in combination, to effectively fight tobacco. We urge the government of Canada to augment its proposed regulations on labelling and promotion by: * Providing support for smoking cessation services for those who are addicted to tobacco. CMA has been involved with three of its provincial divisions in the “Mobilizing Physicians for Clinical Tobacco Intervention (MP-CTI)” project, whose purpose is to help physicians counsel their patients on how to stop smoking. Evidence shows that even brief counseling by a health professional increases the quit rate, particularly when combined with the “patch” or other nicotine replacement therapies.3 MP-CTI has provided physicians and other health professionals with motivation to make smoking cessation counseling a part of their routine and with tools to enhance their counseling practices. The CMA believes that the government should support MP-CTI and other programs that encourage evidence-based practices in health care. * Continuing to increase consumer and manufacturer tobacco taxes, raising them as high as is compatible with discouraging smuggling. In our 1998 pre-budget brief to the Standing Committee on Finance we recommended that the government gradually increase tobacco taxes, and we supported the tobacco tax increase implemented in February 1998.4 * Providing funding to ensure that Canada maintains strong, sustained and effective programs to discourage children from smoking. In 1997 the Liberal Party promised to commit $100 million over five years for tobacco control programs, including $50 million for public education5. We would like to see this amount committed as a minimum, and preferably increased. The CMA also continues to support the concept of a levy on tobacco products to fund programs to discourage tobacco use, and we urge the government to take action soon in this regard. Tobacco is the number one cause of preventable disease and death in Canada. The CMA urges the Government of Canada to deal with it as strongly as the burden it imposes on this country warrants. V. References 1. Ellison LF, Mao Y, Gibbons L Projected smoking-attributable mortality in Canada, 1991 2000. Chron Dis Can 1995; 16: 84 - 89. 2. Health Canada. Economic Costs due to Smoking (Information Sheet). Health Canada, November 1996. 3. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Smoking Cessation (Clinical Practice Guideline Number 18). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996. 4. Canadian Medical Association. Canadians’ Access to Quality Health Care: a System in Crisis. Brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, August 1998. 5. Liberal party. Securing our Future. Liberal Party of Canada, 1997.
Documents
Less detail

Proposed Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada (Impaired Driving) : Response to Issue Paper of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1983
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
1999-03-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
1999-03-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The CMA believes that comprehensive long-term efforts that incorporate both deterrent legislation and public awareness and education constitute the most effective policy in attempting to reduce the number of lives lost and injuries suffered in crashes involving impaired drivers. The CMA supports a multidimensional approach to the issue. The CMA therefore recommends the following: * developing awareness campaigns and education programs, particularly at the high school level where the pattern of alcohol misuse is often established; * retaining the curative treatment provision found in Section 255(5) of the Criminal Code; * providing comprehensive treatment suited to the needs of the individual person. Those repeatedly convicted of impaired driving should be considered for mandatory assessment; * seizing or impounding the driver’s vehicle for the length of the license suspension if an individual is charged with impaired driving while his or her licence is suspended because of a previous impaired driving conviction; * lowering the legal BAC limit to 50 mg%; and * creating probationary licence systems for new drivers that would make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle during this probationary period with any measurable alcohol in the body. I. Introduction The Canadian Medical Association is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Our mission is to provide leadership for physicians and to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada's physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and 43 affiliated medical organizations. On behalf of its 45,000 members and the Canadian public, CMA performs a wide variety of functions, including advocating health promotion and disease and accident prevention policies and strategies. It is in this capacity that we present our position on proposed amendments to the Criminal Code sections on impaired driving. The CMA welcomes this opportunity to comment on the issue of drinking and driving and the safety of our public roadways. The injuries and deaths resulting from impaired driving present a major public health concern. Physicians see the consequences of impaired driving in their practices. In 1996, 3,420 persons were killed in motor vehicle crashes. Alcohol was involved in 39.7% of those fatalitiesi. In CMA policy documents and publications like the Physicians’ Guide to Driver Examination, the CMA has advocated for measures to reduce injury and death resulting from drinking and driving. The CMA has previously endorsed legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of drinking and driving, including the use of the breathalyser test, more severe penalties for those convicted and the taking of a mandatory blood sample if the individual is unable to provide a breath sampleii. Several of CMA’s provincial and territorial divisions have also issued policy statements on impaired driving (Appendix 1). II. Multidimensional Approach From 1987 to 96, there was a general decline in the percentage of fatally injured drivers who had been drinkingiii. In 1996, of tested drivers fatally injured in motor vehicle crashes, 41.6% had been drinking (with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) over 1 mg%>) while 34.9% were legally impaired (BAC >80 mg%)iv. CMA believes that to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries even further, a comprehensive, multidimensional approach encompassing the expertise, resources and experience of health professionals and all levels of government is required. This approach encompasses: (1) public education, (2) medical assessment and treatment interventions and (3) legislation. 1. Public Education Drinking and driving must be viewed as socially unacceptable behaviour and until this change in attitude occurs, the judicial system cannot be completely effective in controlling the drinking and driving patterns of individuals. Education and information programs which increase society’s awareness of the consequences of using alcohol in combination with driving are integral parts of any attempt to reduce injuries and fatalities. The CMA supports and recommends the development of awareness campaigns and education programs, particularly at the high school level where the pattern of alcohol misuse is often established. 2. Medical Assessment and Treatment Interventions CMA shares the belief of specialists in the field of addiction medicine that punishment in the form of incarceration will not solve the problem of impaired drivingv. Rather, in addition to public education campaigns and criminal law sanctions, government must create and fund appropriate assessment and treatment interventions. Impaired drivers may be occasional users of alcohol. They may also suffer from the disease of Substance Dependence. In the case of alcohol, this disease is commonly known as alcoholism. There are several assessment tools and screening tests to diagnose chronic alcoholismvi. The term “Hard Core” drinking driver has also been coined to describe impaired drivers who repeatedly drive after drinking, often with a high BAC of 150 mg% or more. They are also resistant to change despite previous actions, treatment or education effortsvii. Although roadside surveys have revealed a general decrease in the overall level of drinking-driving in Canada, drivers with very high levels of BAC (over 150 mg%) seemed immune to this trendviii. “Hard Core” drinking drivers are most likely suffering from substance dependence or alcoholism, a condition requiring significant treatment interventionix. Physicians, in their educational capacity, can assist in establishing programs in the community aimed at the recognition of the early signs of alcohol abuse or dependency. These programs should recognize the chronic, relapsing nature of alcohol addiction as a disease. There is also good evidence that physician interactions like the Alcohol Risk Assessment and Intervention program developed by the College of Family Physicians of Canada can have a positive impact on the behaviours of moderate drinkersx. Another tool to aid physicians in the assessment of patients who drive impaired is the CMA publication, The Physicians’ Guide to Driver Examination. The Physicians’ Guide to Driver Examination is a collection of guidelines and expert opinions designed to help physicians assess their patients’ medical fitness to drive. The Physicians’ Guide discusses the impact of a variety of medical conditions on driving, including alcohol use, abuse and dependency. The Physicians’ Guide underlines the fact that alcohol-induced impairment is the single greatest contributor to fatal motor vehicle accidents in Canadaxi. The Physicians Guide to Driver Examination takes a strong stance on the status of drivers with chronic alcohol problems. It recommends that a chronic alcohol abuser should not be allowed to drive any type of motor vehicle until the patient has been assessed and received treatment. The Physicians' Guide to Driver Examination is currently under revision with an anticipated distribution date in the fall of 1999 for the sixth edition. (a) Discharge for Curative Treatment The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has asked whether it is appropriate under Section 255(5) of the Criminal Code to allow the courts to discharge an impaired driver who is in need of “curative treatment” by placing that person on probation with a condition that he or she attends such treatment. Section 255(5) of the Criminal Code reads: Notwithstanding subsection 736(1), a court may, instead of convicting a person of an offence committed under section 253, after hearing medical or other evidence, if it considers that the person is in need of curative treatment in relation to his consumption of alcohol or drugs and that it would not be contrary to the public interest, by order direct that the person be discharged under section 730 on the conditions prescribed in a probation order, including a condition respecting the person’s attendance for curative treatment in relation to his consumption of alcohol or drugs. The CMA believes that Section 255(5) should remain within the Criminal Code. Section 255(5) is an important recognition within the punitive framework of the Criminal Code of the necessary medical and rehabilitative elements at stake in the issue of impaired driving. CMA believes that there are sufficient safeguards within the wording of Section 255(5) to conclude that it does not invite misuse. There are several hurdles to meet in Section 255(5) before the court may award curative treatment. First, the court hears “medical or other evidence”. In essence, the granting of the curative treatment order is not merely dependent on the pleas of the impaired driver. Second, the court must be satisfied that the discharge is not contrary to the public interest. In determining what is in the public interest, the courts look to the accused’s motivation and good faith, whether he or she was already subject to a driving prohibition, the risk of recidivism, previous convictions for impaired driving, prior curative discharges and the circumstances of the offence, including consideration of whether the accused was involved in an accident which caused death, bodily harm or significant property damagexii. Finally, it is highly unlikely that the “curative treatment” at issue in Section 255(5) would be involuntary or enforced against the wishes of the accused because his or her motivation or good will in pursuing treatment as an alternative to conviction is a key factor in the court’s decisionxiii. The CMA recommends retaining the curative treatment provision found in Section 255(5) of the Criminal Code. (b) Assessment and Rehabilitation Rehabilitation can occur through education and treatment programs designed for impaired drivers. The CMA believes it is important to provide comprehensive treatment suited to the needs of the individual person. The CMA recognizes that as an exception to the general rule that medical interventions should be voluntary, individuals repeatedly convicted of the offence of impaired driving should be considered for mandatory assessment. This mandatory assessment, followed by medical recommendations for appropriate treatment, would not only benefit those with a chronic alcohol problem but could also help to reduce the incidence of drunk driving incidents attributable to repeat offenders. Physicians have the training, knowledge and expertise to assist in developing alcohol assessment, treatment and rehabilitation programs. Currently, nine jurisdictions have some form of mandatory assessment and rehabilitation programsxiv. The CMA recommends providing comprehensive treatment suited to the needs of the individual person. Those repeatedly convicted of impaired driving should be considered for mandatory assessment. 3. Legislation (a) Impoundment On the issue of whether the current penalties provide sufficient deterrence, the CMA is in general agreement with the impoundment measures currently found in eight provincial and territorial jurisdictionsxv. CMA would encourage jurisdictions that do not have these impoundment programs to consider enacting them. Since 1989, the CMA has recommended that if an individual is charged with impaired driving while his or her licence is suspended because of a previous impaired driving conviction, the suspended driver’s vehicle should be seized or impounded for the length of the license suspension. (b) Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) In response to the question of whether the legal BAC limit should be lowered from 80 mg%, since 1988 the CMA has supported 50 mg% as the general legal limit. Studies suggest that a BAC limit of 50 mg% could translate into a 6% to 18% reduction in total motor vehicle fatalities or 185 to 555 fewer fatalities per year in Canadaxvi. A lower limit would recognize the significant detrimental effects on driving-related skills that occur below the current legal BACxvii. Finally, the CMA notes that many jurisdictions have 50 mg% as the limit for impairmentxviii. The CMA recommends lowering the legal BAC limit to 50 mg%. The CMA has also supported the 1987 recommendation of the former Standing Committee of National Health and Welfare on Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Canada that the provinces establish a probationary or graduated licence system for new drivers that would make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle during this probationary period with any measurable alcohol in the body. Several studies have remarked on the significant reduction in casualty collisions when there is a 0 BAC limit for novice drivers xix. The CMA notes that several provinces have instituted such a graduated licensing systemxx. The CMA supports probationary licence systems for new drivers that would make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle during this probationary period with any measurable alcohol in the body. (c) Police Powers On the issue of police powers to demand breath, blood or saliva samples for alcohol and/or blood testing, the CMA reiterates its earlier support for mandatory blood alcohol testing as outlined in the Criminal Code. At the request of CMA, physicians and other health care workers who take blood samples under this law are specifically protected from criminal and/or civil litigation, but it is not an offense for these health care workers to refuse to take a blood samplexxi. III. Conclusion The CMA believes that comprehensive long-term efforts that incorporate both deterrent legislation and public awareness and education campaigns constitute the most effective policy in attempting to reduce the number of lives lost and injuries suffered in crashes involving impaired drivers. It is prefererable to use countermeasures that prevent the occurrence of motor vehicle crashes involving impaired drivers rather than those that deal with the offender after the fact. The multifaceted nature of the issue of impaired driving requires multidimensional countermeasures as part of a comprehensive policy involving all levels of government, private organizations, communities and individuals. The CMA urges all Canadians to support such efforts to reduce the prevalence of drinking and driving. IV. Appendix 1 A List of Some Policy Statements and Resolutions on Impaired Driving from CMA Provincial and Territorial Divisions: * Alberta Medical Association, 1983: That the AMA recommend to the Government of Alberta that it take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that there are adequate penalties for impaired driving and that such penalties are well enforced. * New Brunswick Medical Society: February, 1988.“Statement on Driving Impairment” October, 1992. “NBMS Position Statement on Alcohol” * Northwest Territories Medical Association: Endorsed June, 1998. “Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving in the Northwest Territories: Interagency Working Group on Impaired Driving. June, 1996.” * Ontario Medical Association: November, 1994. “An OMA Position Paper on Drinking and Driving”. V. Endnotes i.Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) (1998).Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving 2001: STRID 2001 Monitoring Report: Progress in 1996 and 1997. Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation at 25, 28. ii.Canadian Medical Association (1989). Substance Abuse and Driving: A CMA Review. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association at 3. 3. Mayhew, D.R., S.W. Brown and H.M. Simpson. (1998) Alcohol Use Among Drivers and Pedestrians Fatally Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents: Canada, 1996. Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation at 19. iv.Ibid at 13-14. v. Hajela, Raju CD, MD, MPH, CCFP, CASAM, FASAM, President of the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine. Letter to CMA dated January 13, 1999. vi.American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press. vii. Beirness, D.J., H.M. Simpson, and D.R. Mayhew (1998). Programs and policies for reducing alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths and injuries. Contemporary Drug Problems 25/Fall 1998. See also the Century Council (1998) National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project. http://www.dwidata.org. viii. Beirness, D.J., Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M. and Stewart, D.E. (1995) Roadside surveys in Canada: 1974-1993. In Kloeden, C.N. and McLean, A.J. (eds). Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety-T’95.Adelaide, Australia:NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide, pp. 179-184 as cited in Mann, Robert E., Scott Macdonald, Gina Stoduto, Abdul Shaikh and Susan Bondy (1998) Assessing the Potential Impact of Lowering the Blood Alcohol Limit to 50 MG % in Canada. Ottawa: Transport Canada, TP 13321 E at 14-15. ix. Hajela, note 5 at 2. x. Brison, Robert J., MD (1997). The Accidental Patient. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157 (12) 1661-1662. xi. Canadian Medical Association (1991).Physicians' Guide to Driver Examination. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association at 51. xii. R v. Storr (1995), 14 M.V.R. (3d) 34 (Alta. C.A.). xiii. Ibid. xiv.Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF), note 1 at 12. xv.Ibid. xvi. Mann et al., note 8 at 54. xvii. Moskowitz, H. and Robinson, C.D. (1988). Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving Skills: A Review of the Evidence. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-800-599 as cited in Mann, et al., note 8 at page 12-13. xviii.Mann et al., note 8 at 24. xix.Hingson, R., Heeren, T. and Winter, M. (1994) Lower legal blood alcohol limits for young drivers. Public Health Reports, 109, 738-744 as cited in Mann et al., note 8 at 36. xx.Mann et al., note 8 at 29. xxi.Canadian Medical Association, note 2 at 3.
Documents
Less detail

Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that Works, Care that Lasts

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9837
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-07-13
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-07-13
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
Canada's prized Medicare system is facing serious challenges on two key fronts: in meeting the legitimate health care needs of Canadians and in being affordable for the public purse. The founding principles of Medicare are not being met today either in letter or in spirit. Canadians are not receiving the value they deserve from the health care system. In both 2008 and 2009, the Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index ranked Canada 30th of 30 countries (the U.S. was not included in the sample) in terms of value for money spent on health care. Canadians deserve better. Canada cannot continue on this path. The system needs to be massively transformed, a task that demands political courage and leadership, flexibility from within the health care professions and far-sightedness on the part of the public. It is a lot to demand, but nothing less than one of Canada's most cherished national institutions is at stake. Unwillingness to confront the challenges is not an option. With this report, "Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that Works, Care That Lasts" the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) declares its readiness to take a leadership position in confronting the hard choices required to make health care work better for Canadians. The focus of reform must better serve the patient. The system must adjust to changing needs for care and do so without crowding out other societal needs; many of them determinants of health themselves, such as education and sanitation, and the challenges posed by Canada's geographic, cultural, economic and emerging demographic realities. This report sets out an ambitious but realizable roadmap to ready the system for the future. Its triple aim is to improve the health of the population at large, to improve the health care experiences of patients, and to improve the value for money spent on health and health care. The CMA seeks to spark a spirited discussion among physicians, other health care providers, governments and the public at large so that an urgent effort can be undertaken to put an improved system on a path to sustainability by the time the federal-provincial/territorial Health Accord expires on March 31, 2014. By so doing, a renewed Health Accord will be enabled to maximize value for patients and sustain a strong health care system for future generations. This report is divided into three parts: The Problem; Our Vision; and The Framework for Transformation. It is in this last section that the CMA puts forth a five-pillar transformational plan, including a Charter for Patient-Centred Care, for securing Canada's public health care future. These policy directions have been influenced by our consultations with patients, patient advocacy groups and the public. These initiatives are necessary to support the important work already underway in illness prevention and health promotion, in enhancing capabilities for diagnosis and treatment, and in monitoring system performance. They also represent directions we must take towards preparing for the needs of future generations of Canadians. The CMA, our partner provincial/territorial medical associations and the physicians of Canada are committed to the changes that will allow us to fulfill our objective to provide patients with optimal care within an effective, accountable and sustainable system today and for generations to come. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Medicare has enjoyed the resounding support of Canadians for nearly half a century. But new times bring new challenges to the health care system and so it has been forced from time to time to adapt and evolve. This document is predicated on the belief of the CMA that new demands for adaptation must be addressed starting now, and in a manner consistent with the spirit and principles that have guided Medicare from the beginning. This report is divided into three Parts. The first lays out the underlying problem confronting the system; the second outlines a vision for Canada's health system by modernizing the guiding principles of Medicare, and the third provides the CMA's prescription for improving the system within and beyond the five original principles that are set out in the Canada Health Act (universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration). Following the main report, Appendix A addresses the issue of health care funding and sustainability. This is meant to inform readers regarding the complexities inherent in the challenge of sustaining health care provision and funding for current and future populations. Part 1: The Problem Canada's health care system is valued by its citizens. At the same time, it is increasingly recognized that the system is inadequate to meet 21st Century needs and is in urgent need of reform. Canadians wait too long for care. Care providers feel overworked and discouraged. There are insufficient mechanisms to monitor system performance. Technical support needs modernizing. Closer examination of how the five Medicare principles are being met reveals a number of concerns. While there is universal coverage for a narrow range of medically-necessary services, access to other essential health care services is inconsistent, both within and across jurisdictions. Exceedingly long waits for necessary medical care is prevalent. Efficiencies in the management of our health care system must also be found as Canada has recently been ranked last out of 30 countries in terms of value for money spent. Part 2: Our Vision There are numerous steps required to transform Canada's health care system so that it becomes highly effective and meets the health needs of Canadians. A first step is to re-examine the five principles of the Canada Health Act and modernize them as they are no longer sufficient to meet current and evolving needs. All Canadians must have timely access to an appropriate array of medically-necessary services across the full continuum of care, independent of their ability to pay. All health care must be patient-centred. Care must be delivered effectively and must be well-coordinated among all care providers. The health care system must be properly resourced to deliver care in a sustainable way that can accommodate our ever-changing health care needs. Part 3: The Framework for Transformation The CMA's Health Care Transformation Plan has three core goals: improving population health, improving the patient experience of health care, and improving the value for money spent on health care. The CMA has created a Framework for Transformation listing the actions needed for change - organized under five pillars: 1. Building a culture of patient-centred care * Creation of a Charter for Patient-centred Care 2. Incentives for enhancing access and improving quality of care * Changing incentives to enhance timely access * Changing incentives to support quality care 3. Enhancing patient access along the continuum of care * Universal access to prescription drugs * Continuing care outside acute care facilities 4. Helping providers help patients * Ensuring Canada has an adequate supply of health human resources * More effective adoption of health information technologies 5. Building accountability/responsibility at all levels * Need for system accountability * Need for system stewardship The CMA recognizes that none of these directions, taken separately, will transform our health care system. Nor do they represent an exhaustive list of steps, as there are many other directions that can be taken to support our vision. This framework does, however, contain the necessary directions toward the more efficient, high-functioning, patient-focused system that Canadians deserve. Summary of CMA Recommended Directions Implementation of these recommendations will require the collaboration of all levels of government and medical and other health organizations. 1. Gain government and public support for the CMA's Charter for Patient-Centred Care. 2. Implement partial activity-based funding for hospitals, whereby facilities are funded based on the number of patients they treat and the types of illnesses they have, to improve timely access to facility-based care. 3. Implement appropriate pay-for-performance systems to encourage quality of care at both the clinician and facility level. 4. Establish an approach to comprehensive prescription drug coverage to ensure that all Canadians have access to medically necessary drug therapies. 5. Begin construction immediately on additional long-term care facilities. 6. Create national standards, with input from both federal and provincial/territorial governments, for continuing care provision in terms of eligibility criteria, care delivery and accommodation expenses. 7. Develop options to facilitate pre-funding long-term care needs. 8. Initiate a national dialogue on the Canada Health Act in relation to the continuum of care. 9. Explore ways to support informal caregivers and long-term care patients. 10. Develop a long-term health human resources plan through a national body using the best available evidence to support its deliberations. Within this plan: a) Increase medical school and residency training positions. b) Invest in recruitment and retention strategies for physicians, nurses and other health care workers. c) Ease the process of integration into our health care workforce for international medical graduates and Canadian physicians returning from abroad. d) Introduce new providers such as physician assistants to the health care workforce and enhance collaborative, team-based care where appropriate. 11. Adopt the CMA's five-year plan to set out clear targets for accelerating the adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT) in Canada. 12. Accelerate the introduction of e-prescribing in Canada to make it the main method of prescribing by 2012. 13. Require public reporting on the performance of the system, including outcomes. 14. Establish an arm's-length mechanism to monitor the financing of health care programs at the federal and provincial/territorial levels. PART 1: THE PROBLEM Summary: Canada's health care system is valued by its citizens. However, not only is our Medicare system failing to meet the five principles - universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration - originally laid out in the 1984 Canada Heath Act, but those five principles, while still relevant, need to be expanded in scope to serve the current and future health needs of Canadians. Canadians believe that the relief of suffering and the promotion of health and human dignity are vitally important - for philosophical as well as pragmatic reasons. Simply stated, there is a broad recognition that health is a valued "good" allowing all Canadians to flourish as individuals and groups. Notwithstanding this fundamental belief, neither of the imperatives of our health care system - optimizing function and the compassionate relief of suffering and promotion of dignity - is being met for many people. Our population and our health providers encounter these failures on a daily basis. Polls show that most Canadians unwaveringly support the five principles laid out in the 1984 Canada Health Act - universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration.1 In fact, since Medicare was first introduced - in Saskatchewan in 1962 and throughout the rest of Canada soon afterward - the idea of universal health care has become central to our national identity. Nearly half a century after Medicare was first introduced, however, Canada's health care system is falling short of the demands being placed on it from patients and providers. Canadians well understand that universal health care requires significant public resources to maintain. While the escalating costs of health care are often perceived as the overriding problem, there are other factors contributing to the crisis. Surveys have repeatedly shown that Canadians are highly satisfied with the care they receive once it is delivered. However, the general view among most Canadians is that their health care system is not as well managed as it must be. They are increasingly concerned about the lack of timely access to see their family physician, the long wait times for diagnostic testing, a widespread lack of access to specialists and specialized treatment, and the compromised quality of care in overburdened emergency rooms, or the unavailability of nearby ER facilities altogether. With our aging population, end of life issues are becoming increasingly important, yet many do not have access to expert palliative care. The founding principles of Medicare are not being met today either in letter or in spirit. Canadians are not receiving the value they deserve from the health care system. Issues such as quality of care, accountability and sustainability are now recognized as key aspects of a high-performing health system. "Health" by today's standards is not just the assessment and treatment of illness, but also the prevention of illness, and the creation and support of social factors that contribute to health. Also missing from our current system, but vitally important to proper care, is health information technology (HIT). In this area, Canada is woefully lacking in both resources and coordinated efforts toward a plan of HIT implementation. Before addressing the missing elements in Canada's health care system, a proper diagnosis of the current system requires a closer look at how the health care system fails to deliver on all five founding principles of Medicare. 1. Universality Studies have consistently shown that poorer, marginalized populations do not access necessary care. Wealthier populations use health care services more frequently than lower-income populations despite higher illness rates in low-income populations. Poorer communities have fewer services to support good health. The most vulnerable populations are least able to access and navigate the health care system. At the same time, these are the people most likely to need health care because the essential determinants of health - housing, education and food security - are often not available to them. Canada's system of universality resonates strongly with Canadians. However, while there is universal first-dollar coverage for insured hospital and medical services, there is uneven coverage of other services also essential to health and quality of life (e.g., prescription drugs and home care). 2. Accessibility The principle of accessibility in the Canada Health Act does not define "timely access" to necessary care. For many patients, the months of waiting for necessary treatment amount to a complete lack of "accessibility." While wait times have been reduced for a limited number of surgical procedures, many Canadians are still waiting far too long to receive necessary medical care for a wide variety of conditions. For many types of treatments, Canadians wait longer than citizens in most other industrialized countries that have similar universal health systems. Approximately five million Canadians do not have a family doctor, severely restricting access to adequate primary medical care. 3. Comprehensiveness Provincial/territorial health insurance plans must insure all "medically necessary" hospital and physician services. Canadians are entitled to all medically necessary (evidence-informed) services to the greatest extent possible. However, since Medicare was established in the 1960s, care patterns have shifted dramatically - away from being primarily acute care in nature, to broader health needs including prevention, treatment and long-term management of chronic illnesses. In addition, new technologies, treatments and medications that were not foreseen by the original planners of Medicare have been developed to diagnose and treat illnesses. At the time the Canada Health Act was passed, physician and hospital services represented 57% of total health spending; this has declined to 41% in 2008.2 Notwithstanding these changes, there is significant public spending beyond services covered by the Act (in excess of 25% of total spending) for programs such as seniors' drug coverage and home care; however, these programs are not subject to the Act's program criteria and are often subject to arbitrary cutbacks. While a majority of the working-age population and their families are covered by private health insurance, those with lower incomes are less likely to enjoy such benefits. Furthermore, the proportion of Canadians working in non-standard employment conditions (e.g., part-time, temporary or contract work) is increasing and these workers are less likely to have supplementary benefits.3 In addition, while most jurisdictions provide some form of seniors' drug coverage, access to other supplementary benefits post-retirement is most likely highly variable. Some of the more severe gaps in coverage include: * the lack of access to prescription medications for those without private health insurance or who are ineligible for government drug benefit programs; this problem is particularly significant for many residents in Atlantic Canada * the lack of continuing care, including both support for people to stay in their home (home care) or appropriate residential care (e.g., facility-based long-term care) * a lack of adequate mental health services. Mental illness is one of the leading burdens of illness in Canada. Access to mental health services for both children and adults is poor. Psychiatric hospitals are not covered under the Canada Health Act. Many essential services, such as psychological services or out-of-hospital drug therapies, are not covered under provincial/territorial health insurance plans. 4. Portability Canadians should receive coverage while travelling outside of their home province or territory. Portability under the Canada Health Act does not cover citizens who seek non-urgent and non-emergency care outside their home province or territory. Canadians who obtain such care in another province or territory are not covered by their health insurance program unless they receive prior approval (usually for services not available in their home province or territory). This principle is honoured by some jurisdictions but has never been fully implemented in Québec. Québec did not sign bilateral reciprocal billing agreements with the other provinces and territories stipulating that providers would be reimbursed at host-province rates. Consequently, Québec patients who receive medical care outside of their province must often pay cash for medical services received and then apply to recoup a portion of their costs from the Québec health insurance program. 5. Public administration Health care insurance plans must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis. The principle of public administration is often misinterpreted to mean public financing of publicly delivered services. In fact, while Medicare services (medically necessary hospital and physician services) are overwhelmingly publicly financed, most services are privately delivered. Most physicians are independent contractors while most hospitals are private organizations governed by community boards. This misconception of what constitutes public administration has inhibited the development of innovative models for publicly funded, privately delivered services. While Canada's system of Medicare is administered publicly, a case can certainly be made that Canada's health care system is not delivering value for the money spent: Canada is one of the highest spenders of health care when compared to other industrialized countries that offer universal care - Canada is the fifth-highest spender per capita on health care and sixth-highest in terms of spending on health as a percentage of GDP. Canadians spent an estimated $183 billion on health care in 2009, or $5452 per person.2 Of this amount, $3829, or 70%, is spent through the publicly funded system. Health care spending in Canada has increased by 6.8 annually over the past five years and has been increasing faster than the growth in the economy and more importantly faster than revenues at the federal and provincial/territorial levels. Canada's health care system is under-performing on several key measures, such as timely access, despite the large amounts we spend on health care. Experts agree that Canada's current health care system is not delivering the level of care that other industrialized countries now enjoy. The Conference Board of Canada4, the World Health Organization5, the Commonwealth Fund6 and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy7 have all rated Canada's health care system poorly in terms of "value for money" and efficiency. New governance models should be considered to improve both system effectiveness and accountability. FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY In addition to the need for improving the performance of our health system is the issue of fiscal sustainability. In 1998, the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, was among the first to sound an alarm about sustainability with a report on the implications of the aging population. His report projected that government spending on health as a share of GDP; if increases continued apace at an annual rate of 2% of real growth; could as much as double from its 1996 level of 6.4% to 12.5% by 2031.8 According to the most recent estimates from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), government health spending as a percentage of GDP reached 8.4% in 2009i - a level which has already exceeded the 8.1% estimate for 2011 set out in the high-growth scenario of the 1998 report.2 Most recently, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has again sounded the alarm in his February 2010 Fiscal Sustainability report.9 He projects that total provincial-territorial government health expenditure could rise to over 14% of GDP by 2040-41. This report presents estimates of the fiscal gap (which is defined as the increase in taxes and/or reduction in spending, measured relative to GDP) that is required to achieve sustainability over the long term. Under their baseline scenario, the government would need to increase revenue and/or reduce spending by $15.5 billion annually, starting immediately. Given that most commentators expect the demand for health care services to increase, reduced spending seems unlikely; hence the need to increase revenue is the most likely option. If there is no political appetite or public support for increasing public revenues for health on the basis of universality and risk pooling then we will be faced with choosing among options for raising funds from private sources. A more detailed analysis of health care funding and sustainability is contained in Appendix A. PART 2: OUR VISION Summary: There are numerous steps required to transform Canada's health care system so that it becomes highly effective and meets the health needs of Canadians. A first step is to re-examine the five principles of the Canada Health Act - universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability, and public administration - and modernize them to meet current and evolving needs. MODERNIZING THE PRINCIPLES OF MEDICARE Change must be undertaken with the patients' interests at the centre. To the CMA, this means meaningful implementation and modernization of the Canada Health Act. Transformational change will refocus our system so that serves the patient - not the other way around as is so often the case today. Canada must follow the lead of other developed countries with universal health care systems that have succeeded in this fundamental objective. Below are the modernized principles for Canada's health system recommended by the CMA: 1. Universality All Canadians must have access to the full range of necessary (evidence-informed) health care services using a variety of funding options as necessary to ensure universal coverage regardless of ability to pay. This includes meeting the needs of vulnerable populations who may not be able to access services due to a variety of barriers (e.g., geographical, socio-economic and demographic). 2. Accessibility All Canadians must have timely access to the full array of health care services over their life span, from primary care (including health promotion and illness prevention) through institutionally based secondary and tertiary care, to community and home-based services that promote rehabilitation and health maintenance, and to palliation at the end of life. There should be clear, measurable wait-time targets/benchmarks for access to necessary care, with publicly funded alternatives available in situations where timely care is not locally available to patients in need. 3. Comprehensiveness All Canadians must have access to the full complement of health services, with incentives in the system to encourage the prevention of illness and to promote optimum health while addressing the complex causative pathways affecting health and disease (i.e., social determinants of health). A defined set of nationally comparable, publicly funded core services should be available to all Canadians chosen through an evidence-informed and transparent manner. There should be an ongoing monitoring of the comparability of access to a full range of medically necessary health services across the country. 4. Portability All Canadians must be eligible for coverage while travelling within Canada, outside of their home province/territory. This principle must be honored in all jurisdictions, and apply to all levels of necessary care. 5. Public administration Services must be appropriately, efficiently and effectively delivered, with providers and patients working together to determine how that is done. The system must ensure that care is integrated and coordinated among providers and services to maintain continuity of care. From the patients' perspective, care must be well-coordinated among providers and between levels (i.e., physician to hospital, hospital back to home, etc.), supported by a functional and secure electronic health information system. The system should be guided by properly structured incentives to reward efficient provision of timely, high-quality patient care. This would include incentives such as activity-based funding of hospitals (i.e., paying on the basis of services provided), and pay-for-performance measures for health care providers, with competition based on valid measures of quality and efficiency. The system would utilize both public and private service providers, and put uniform requirements and regulations in place for measuring quality.ii The system must be able to demonstrate good value for money. There must be accountability mechanisms and performance measurements in place to ensure responsibility for monitoring and managing system performance (e.g., efficiency and effectiveness) at all levels. Regular public reporting on system performance will be required. Societal health goals and targets focused on outcomes will be set and monitored. Health care providers and the community will be actively involved in system decision-making. 6. Patient-centred The system needs to be patient-centred. Patient-centred care is seamless access to the continuum of care in a timely manner, based on need and not the ability to pay, that takes into consideration the individual needs and preferences of the patient and his/her family, and treats the patient with respect and dignity. 7. Sustainability The system must be properly resourced in a sustainable manner. Funding must be sufficient to meet ongoing health care needs. The system must be resilient; that is, capable of withstanding or accommodating demand surges and fiscal pressures. It must have the capacity to innovate and improve and be able to anticipate emerging health needs. Prospective monitoring and documentation of emerging health needs and the burden of illness must be undertaken on an ongoing basis. Strategies must be developed and implemented to meet those needs properly. PART 3: THE FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSFORMATION Summary: The CMA's Health Care Transformation Plan has three core goals: improving population health, improving the patient experience of health care, and improving the value of money spent on health care. There are numerous steps required to transform Canada's health care system so that it becomes highly effective and meets the health needs of Canadians. The next steps are contained in a Framework for Transformation, organized under five pillars, with specific recommendations for action. 1. Building a culture of patient-centred care * Creation of a Charter for Patient-centred Care 2. Incentives for enhancing access and improving quality of care * Changing incentives to enhance timely access * Changing incentives to support quality care 3. Enhancing patient access along the continuum of care * Universal access to prescription drugs * Continuing care outside acute care facilities 4. Helping providers help patients * Ensuring Canada has an adequate supply of health human resources * More effective adoption of health information technologies 5. Building accountability/responsibility at all levels * Need for system accountability * Need for system stewardship The CMA recognizes that none of these directions, taken separately, will transform our health care system. Nor do they represent an exhaustive list of steps, as there are many other directions that can be taken to support our vision. This framework does, however, contain the necessary directions toward the more efficient, high-functioning, patient-focused system that Canadians deserve. For the transformation plan to succeed, the following key enablers must be in place: * leadership at all levels including strong political leadership * well-informed Canadians who understand the need for, and characteristics of, a high-performing health system * patients, physicians and other providers actively involved in the reform and management of the system * a commitment to sustainability with adequate levels of resources to ensure that services are in place * health information technology in place to improve service delivery, manage care within and between services, and monitor and evaluate organization and system performance * incentives properly aligned to support a variety of funding and delivery models that can meet system goals (e.g., to improve access, to improve quality) * co-ordinated health human resources planning at the provincial/territorial and national levels * a commitment to support continuous quality improvement and evidence-informed decision-making at both the policy and clinical levels. These five pillars contain the directions which the CMA believes are necessary to successfully transform our health care system. Many other reforms have been proposed in Canada and elsewhere but based on international experience, these should receive priority attention. 1. BUILDING A CULTURE OF PATIENT-CENTRED CARE The concept of "patient-centred care" is taking hold in other developed countries which are also in the process of reforming their health care systems. The essential principle is that health care services are provided in a manner that works best for patients. Health care providers partner with patients and their families to identify and satisfy the range of needs and preferences. Health providers, governments and patients each have their own specific roles in creating and moving toward a patient-centred system. Patients have consistently emphasized the importance of being respected, having open communication and confidentiality of personal information, in addition to quality medical care. While building a patient-centred system is clearly better for patients, it is also better for physicians and all health care providers and administrators. In a patient-centred system, physicians are provided the optimal environment to give the best possible medical care. From the perspective of health administrators, recruitment and retention of providers who are satisfied with their work and their environment can have many tangible benefits. For instance, hospitals employing patient-centred care principles have found improvements in patient outcomes in areas ranging from decreased length of stay and fewer medication errors to enhanced staff recruitment.10 It is recognized that health care providers strive to practise patient-centred care. Often the issue is that the system - intended to serve as a network of services - is where patient-centred care breaks down. CHARTER FOR PATIENT-CENTRED CARE An important first step in building a culture of patient-centred care is to establish a Charter for Patient-centred Care. As a vision statement, the Charter is built on a foundation of reasonableness and fairness, while acknowledging resource constraints. Notwithstanding resource constraints, governments have the duty to ensure availability of the resources required to provide high quality care. This Charter is a mutually reciprocal covenant among patients, physicians, other health care providers, funders and organizers of care. Dignity and respect * All persons are treated with compassion, dignity and respect. * Health care is provided in an environment that is free from discrimination and/or stigma of any kind. * Health care services respond to individual needs and give consideration to personal preferences. Access to care (timeliness, continuity, comprehensiveness) * Access to and timeliness of appropriate medical and psychiatric services is determined by health need. * Access to appropriate services is not limited by the patient's ability to pay. * Care is continuous between health care providers and across settings. Safety and appropriateness * Care is provided in accordance with the applicable professional standard of care, by appropriately qualified health care providers, regardless of the location of service. * Care is based upon the best available evidence and is provided in the safest possible environment. * The quality of all health care services is evaluated, monitored and improved proactively. * Care is informed and influenced by lessons learned from any critical incident or adverse event and by patient experiences. Privacy and security of information * Personal health information is collected, stored, accessed, used, disclosed and accessible to patients in accordance with applicable law and professional codes of ethics. * Providers and recipients of care share responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of information in personal health records. Decision-making * Patients participate actively with providers in decisions about their medical care and treatment. * Personal support and assistance with communication is available when required. * Patients may appoint another person (proxy decision-maker) to act on their behalf and to be aware of their personal health information. * Decisions for care are made with full disclosure of all relevant information. * Patients may consent to or refuse any examination, intervention or treatment, and may change or vary their decisions without prejudice. * Individuals may decline to participate in research without prejudice. Insurability and Planning of health services * All parties use health care resources appropriately. * Recipients and providers are informed and are able to be involved directly, or through representatives, in the planning, organization, delivery and evaluation of health care services. * Decisions about the provision and insurability of drugs and all other treatments or services are made in accordance with evidence and best practices. * Government decision-making with respect to the planning, regulation and delivery of health care products and services is transparent. Concerns and complaints * Patients may comment on any aspect of their personal health care and have concerns investigated and addressed without repercussions. * Patients receive timely information and an expression of regret and sympathy if there is any adverse event during their care, regardless of the reason for such event. * Providers speak publicly and advocate on behalf of Canadians for the provision of high quality care. Direction The creation of a Charter for Patient-centred Care, as presented above, is a solid foundation on which to build a culture of patient-centred care. In order for the Charter to work, it needs to have supporting mechanisms to ensure accountability. Metrics must be identified to track the elements of the Charter. The Charter needs to be accepted by governments, providers and patients to have an impact on the health system culture and care. Other examples of activities to promote a culture of patient-centred care may include: * increasing availability of programs to prevent illness * increasing involvement of patients and their families in the delivery of care when desired (e.g., if preferred by the patient, family and friends may be trained to help provide care for patients while in the hospital or community) * soliciting patients' feedback on health care services received, and readiness to make changes based on that feedback * establishing patient and family advisory councils for hospitals or health regions * establishing a process for patients or their family members to quickly and efficiently raise a concern about care * providing patients with information about how to access medical records while in the hospital or in the community Progress to date/Next steps The final report of Saskatchewan's Patient First Review, For Patients' Sake (2009),11 devoted considerable attention to the need to re-orient health care to a more patient-centred system. As Commissioner Tony Dagnone stated in his report, "patient-first must be embedded as a core value in health care and be ingrained in the 'DNA' of all health care organizations". The report recommended the adoption of a Charter of Patient Rights and Responsibilities for that province. More recently, an advisory committee to the Alberta Minister of Health has also recommended the creation of a Patient Charter for that province.12 Lessons can be learned from the effects of patient charters in other developed countries. The National Health Service in England recently adopted a constitution which establishes its principles and values: sets out the rights to which patients, public and staff are entitled; includes pledges that the National Health Service is committed to achieve; delineates the responsibilities which the public, patients and staff owe to one another to ensure that the National Health Service operates fairly and effectively.13 The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights describes seven charter rights to which patients, consumers, carers and families are entitled and the ways they can contribute to ensuring their rights are upheld.14 Those rights are: access, safety, respect, communication, participation, privacy and a right to comment on care and have concerns addressed. 2. PROVIDING INCENTIVES TO ENHANCE ACCESS AND IMPROVE QUALITY OF CARE Canadians have consistently identified timely access as Canada's most pressing health issue. Many other health systems around the world have been successful in dealing with timely access and now are examining the quality of care being delivered. This direction looks at changing incentives to accomplish two related objectives: improving timely access and supporting quality care. A. Enhance timely access Most provinces have taken steps to improve timely access to certain components of their health system. For instance, the Saskatchewan Surgical Initiative has set a target for specialty wait times to be no longer than three months within the next four years.15 At the physician level, several initiatives are underway across Canada. In late 2009, the Primary Care Wait Time Partnership involving the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) and the CMA released its final report entitled, The Wait Starts Here.16 The report identifies several strategies for improving timely access to primary care. Efforts are also underway in some jurisdictions, such as in Manitoba, to improve the referral process from family physician to specialist (i.e., the timeliness and the appropriateness of referrals). Activity-based funding - an idea raised in the Kirby Commission's final report17 - is another strategy to improve timely access at the facility level. Activity-based funding is a reimbursement mechanism that pays hospitals for each patient treated on the basis of the complexity of their case. A reimbursement level is set for each type of case then applies to all hospitals within the jurisdiction. It is also known as service-based funding, case-mix funding or patient-focused funding. As such, funding is viewed as "following the patient" since the hospital is paid only if the service is provided, resulting in increased productivity and in some instances, competition among hospitals to treat patients. Financing of hospital services in most industrialized countries involves some portion of activity-based funding. Canada, although it has been a pioneer in the methodology that underlies activity-based funding, has had limited application for funding purposes. Most hospitals in Canada receive their funding in the form of a global budget that is usually based on historical funding levels. As a result, a well-performing hospital emergency room does not receive any additional funding for seeing more patients. Direction Canada should move toward partial activity-based funding for hospitals to improve hospital productivity. It is almost impossible to decrease wait times and reward productivity without this change in funding. While some countries have implemented 100% activity-based funding, other countries have shown that productivity can increase when even 25% of hospital funding is allocated in this manner. Progress to date/Next steps A number of provinces have taken steps to introduce activity-based funding for facility-based care. The government of British Columbia announced that it will provide "patient-focused funding" for the province's 23 largest hospitals.18 Ontario already has some limited activity-based funding for its hospitals and the government has announced that it will introduce patient-based payment for hospitals on April 1, 2011 as part of a multi-year implementation plan.19 Alberta announced in 2009 that it would be adopting a form of activity-based funding for long-term care facilities that started April 1, 2010 and for hospitals the year after.20 While not yet in place in Québec, the adoption of activity-based funding was recommended in the 2008 Castonguay report.21 Much of the work involved in supporting the adoption of partial activity-based funding has already been undertaken by CIHI and its well-developed Case Mix Group program supported by case-costing data from BC, Alberta and Ontario. B. Support quality care Timely access is one dimension of quality. But there are many other dimensions of quality including safety, effectiveness, appropriateness and acceptability. More recently in Canada, attention is now focused on incentives to improve quality in the processes of care to achieve better outcomes. Incentives for providers Pay-for-performance involves the use of an incentive payment to reward a hospital or physician provider for achieving a target for the quality of patient care. This may be linked to processes or outcomes of care and could be related to the attainment of a specified threshold and/or percentage improvement. Performance incentives may also be linked to the structure of health care delivery as well as the process of that delivery. 22 It is important to note that pay-for-performance, which refers to incentive payments for achieving quality targets, is not the same as activity-based funding, which is a reimbursement mechanism that pays hospitals for each patient treated on the basis of the complexity of their case. Performance incentives can be targeted at both group output provided by a team of providers (nurses, physical therapists, physicians, etc.) as well as individual members of the team. The incentives may also be targeted at measuring the process involved in delivering the desired health care output. Canada will likely follow the lead of other countries in increasing the focus on the outputs and outcomes of the health care system. The promise of pay-for-performance programs is that they can improve access, quality and accountability. Pink et al. 23 have tried to synthesize the international experience with pay-for-performance and its implications for Canada. Based on this assessment they offer four key considerations: 1. Pay-for-performance could potentially be used to target individual providers, provider groups/organizations, or health regions. 2. The selection of quality measures should consider provincial/territorial health goals and objectives, measures included in existing report cards, evidence and the ability to risk-adjust and the extent of provider acceptance. 3. Development of pay for performance should consider factors that are within the scope of control of providers, use positive incentives over disincentives and consider size/timing and perceived fairness of awards. 4. Program evaluation should consider the impact on patients and providers, quality measurement and how payments are used to improve quality. In addition, they cite the need to address enablers/barriers including information technology, consultation, implementation costs and resistance. Direction Implement appropriate pay-for-performance systems. Adopt principles that secure equity and efficiency in pay-for-performance programs in Canada that will ensure the best outcomes for patients, physicians and the health care system at large. Progress to date/Next steps Pay-for-performance has already started in a number of provinces as seen in the table below. Examples of pay-for-performance programs already in effect in Canada [SEE PDF FOR CORRECT DISPLAY OF TABLE INFORMATION] Province Type of program Nova Scotia Family Physician Chronic Disease Management Incentive Program Ontario Cumulative Preventive Care Bonuses for achieving specified thresholds of preventive care for their patients in five areas: influenza vaccine, pap smear, mammography, childhood immunizations and colorectal cancer screening Manitoba Physician Integrated Network has a Quality Based Incentive component24 Alberta Performance and Diligence Indicator (PDI) Fund for Family Physicians: The PDI Fund provides payments to family physicians who meet specific indicators in the care of their patients. The PDI program "will provide payments to individual family physicians, in and out of primary care networks, who meet specific performance and/or diligence indicators that deliver substantive clinical value"25 British Columbia Full Service Family Practice Incentive Program: this includes an obstetrical care bonus payment and an expansion of the Full Service Family Practice Condition Payments that were introduced in 2003. The condition-based bonus payments are related to the monitoring patients' course of care according to BC Clinical Guidelines for diabetes, congestive heart failure and hypertension26 Pay-for-performance programs will continue to expand in Canada. Governments and insurance companies are introducing pay-for-performance incentive programs throughout the industrialized world with the goal of improving health care delivery efficiencies and especially to improve patient care. These are lofty goals because measuring improvements in patient care is complicated. It is vital that physicians, patients and the health care system establish principles that can guide them to make the best decisions concerning pay-for-performance. The scope of the program and what is measured will surely evolve. Full-scale adoption requires an electronic medical record (EMR) to be in place. Incentives for patients At a macro level, public policies can be instituted to encourage healthy behaviours and environmental improvements (e.g., water quality standards). At the individual level, consideration should be given to empowering patients through the use of patient incentives. A rapidly emerging dimension of pay-for-performance is the use of incentives directed at the patient for health maintenance and healthy behaviours. Hall has reported that a number of US employers are offering tangible rewards to employees such as cash, merchandise, vacation days, and reductions in health care premiums or deductibles.27 These incentives are targeted variously at: * activity (e.g., completing a health risk assessment) * achievement (e.g., quitting smoking, lowering Body Mass Index) * adherence (e.g., remaining tobacco-free for 12 months) Positive incentives are used to promote healthy behaviours by transferring funds or alternate benefits to an individual. They work by providing immediate rewards for behaviours that usually provide only long-term health gains. Positive incentives have been shown to be effective in promoting singular, discrete behaviours, such as vaccinations, screening programs, and attending follow-up appointments. An example of an existing Canadian federal government incentive is the children's fitness tax credit. This credit is intended to promote physical activity among children by off-setting some of the cost incurred by families for sports and leisure programs. In Germany, bonuses for healthy behaviours are integrated into the health system. They are offered for both primary and secondary prevention, including check-up programs, achieving healthy weights, smoking cessation, memberships in sports clubs, and other health-promoting activities. The bonuses take the form of points that can be redeemed for items, including sports equipment, health books or reduction in insurance premiums, or in some cases cash. There are also bonuses, in the form of a reduction in co-payments, for adhering to the treatment plan and participating in special care plans.28 Negative incentives or disincentives by governments largely involve the use of regulation and taxation in order to change individual behaviour. This helps to create an environment in which healthy choices are easier to make. For example, the taxation of tobacco, alcohol or unhealthy foods (such as those high in fat, salt or sugar) are commonly cited interventions. Taxes on tobacco products have been highly effective in reducing use. Studies linking cost to consumption of high-sugar content beverages demonstrate a strong link between higher prices and reduced consumption.29 3. ENHANCING PATIENT ACCESS ALONG THE CONTINUUM OF CARE The continuum of care may be defined as the array of health services, regardless of the age of the recipient, ranging from primary care (including health promotion and illness prevention), through institutionally based secondary and tertiary care for acute medical situations, to community- and home-based services that promote health maintenance and rehabilitation for people with chronic problems, and finally to palliation at the end of life. There is a strong realization that Canada's Medicare system covers a decreasing portion of this continuum. An example of where deficits exist is mental health. The CMA's 2008 annual meeting (General Council) tackled the issue of improving access to mental health services as part of a greater effort led by the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The CMA is currently working toward the several resolutions that were adopted, but there are two other areas that are in urgent need of attention. Crucial to improved care is (A) universal access to comprehensive prescription drug coverage and; (B) improving access to continuing care (long-term care, home care and palliative care/hospice). Physicians currently spend a significant amount of time assisting patients to obtain access to necessary prescription drugs. Physicians and families are also heavily engaged in time-consuming efforts to place patients in long-term care facilities or secure assistance in the home. Improving access for Canadians in these two areas would help create a more patient-centred health care system, and enhance efficiency for providers. CMA approved a new policy on Funding the Continuum of Care in December 2009 that identifies a number of overall principles to enhance the continuum of care: * optimal management of the continuum of care requires that patients take an active part in developing their care and treatment plan, and in monitoring their health status * the issue of the continuum of care must go beyond the question of financing and address questions related to the organization of the delivery of care and to the shared and joint responsibilities of individuals, communities and governments in matters of health care and promotion, prevention and rehabilitation * support systems should be established to allow elderly and disabled Canadians to optimize their ability to live in the community * strategies should be implemented to reduce wait times for accessing publicly funded home and community care services * integrated service delivery systems should be created for home and community care services * any request for expanding the public plan coverage of health services, in particular for home care services and the cost of prescription drugs, must include a comprehensive analysis of the projected cost and potential sources of financing for this expansion A. Universal access to prescription drugs Prescription drugs represent the fastest-growing item in the health budget, and the second-largest category of health expenditure. It is estimated that less than one-half of prescription drug costs were publicly paid for in 2008.2 Moreover, Canada does not have a nationally coordinated policy in the area of very costly drugs that are used to treat rare diseases. The term "catastrophic" has been used by First Ministers and in the National Pharmaceutical Strategy to describe their vision of national pharmaceutical coverage. As defined by the World Health Organization, catastrophic expenditure reflects a level of out-of-pocket health expenditures so high that households have to cut down on necessities such as food and clothing and items related to children's education. From the CMA's perspective, the goal is comprehensive coverage for the whole population, pooling risk across individuals and public and private plans in various jurisdictions. Direction Governments, in consultation with the life and health insurance industry and the public, should establish a program of comprehensive prescription drug coverage to be administered through reimbursement of provincial/territorial and private prescription drug plans to ensure that all Canadians have access to medically necessary drug therapies. Such a program should include the following elements: * a mandate for all Canadians to have either private or public coverage for prescription drugs * uniform income-based ceiling (between public and private plans and across provinces/territories) on out-of-pocket expenditures on drug plan premiums and/or prescription drugs (e.g., 5% of after-tax income) * federal/provincial/territorial cost-sharing of prescription drug expenditures above a household income ceiling, subject to capping the total federal and/or provincial/territorial contributions either by adjusting the federal/provincial/territorial sharing of reimbursement or by scaling the household income ceiling or both * group insurance plans and administrators of employee benefit plans to pool risk above a threshold linked to group size * a continued strong role for private supplementary insurance plans and public drug plans on a level playing field (i.e., premiums and co-payments to cover plan costs) Furthermore the federal government should: * establish a program for access to expensive drugs for rare diseases where those drugs have been demonstrated to be effective * assess the options for risk pooling to cover the inclusion of expensive drugs in public and private drug plan formularies * provide adequate financial compensation to the provincial and territorial governments that have developed, implemented and funded their own public prescription drug insurance plans * provide comprehensive coverage of prescription drugs and immunization for all children in Canada * mandate the CIHI and Statistics Canada to conduct a detailed study of the socio-economic profile of Canadians who have out-of-pocket prescription drug expenses, in order to assess barriers to access and to design strategies that could be built into a comprehensive prescription drug coverage program Progress to date/Next steps Provinces and territories have begun to establish public programs of income-based prescription drug coverage. Québec was the first, starting in 1997, and it remains the only province to mandate universal coverage - that is, citizens must have either public or private coverage. Alberta is the most recent to move in this direction, with a seven-point pharmaceutical strategy that was introduced in 2009.30 Overall, however, there is significant variation between the coverage levels of the various plans across Canada. For example, the Manitoba Pharmacare Program is based on adjusted total income (line 150 of the Income Tax return). For families with incomes above $75,000 the deductible is set at 6.08% of total family income.31 In Newfoundland and Labrador, the ceiling on drug costs is set at 10% of net family income (line 236 of the Income Tax return).32 There is wide variation in the burden of out-of-pocket expenditure on prescription drugs in Canada. In 2006 there was almost five-fold variation in the percentage of households spending more than 5% of net income on prescription drugs between PEI (10.1%) and Ontario (2.2%).33 There is some concern about access to cancer drugs, particularly those that are administered outside of hospital. The Canadian Cancer Society has recently reported that of the 12 cancer drugs approved since 2000 that are administered outside a hospital or clinic, three-quarters cost $20,000 or more annually.34 In 2009, Ontario Ombudsman André Morin issued a report critical of the Ministry of Health's decision to limit public funding of the colorectal cancer drug Avastin to 16 cycles.35 Subsequently the government announced that it would cover the cost beyond the 16 cycles if medical evidence from a physician indicates that there has been no disease progression.36 Most, if not all, key national health stakeholders (hospitals,37 pharmacists,38 nurses,39 brand name pharmaceuticals,40 life and health insurance industry41 plus the health charities) have adopted policy statements on catastrophic coverage. There seems to be an unprecedented consensus among health stakeholders on this issue. The most likely window of opportunity to urge the federal government to take action in this area will be the renegotiation of the Health Accord that is set to expire on March 31, 2014. B. Continuing care Continuing care includes services to the aging and to the disabled of all ages provided by long-term care, home care and home support.42 Because continuing care services are excluded from the Canada Health Act, they are, for the most part, not provided on a first-dollar coverage basis. As this kind of care moves away from hospitals and into the home, the community or into long-term care facilities, the financial burden has shifted from governments to the general public. Furthermore, there is tremendous variation across the country in the accessibility criteria for both placement in long-term care facilities and for home care services. According to Statistics Canada's most recent population projections, the proportion of seniors in the population (65+) is expected to almost double from its present level of 13% to between 23% and 25% by 2031.43 While the impact of an aging population on our health care system must not be overlooked, the continuing care needs of the disabled population at all ages must also be appropriately addressed. In the 2004 Health Accord, the provinces and territories agreed to publicly fund two weeks of acute home care after hospital discharge, two weeks of acute community mental health care and end-of-life care.44 Outside of these areas, the types of services offered and funding models vary widely. Continuing care in Canada faces three key challenges: 1. Lack of capacity and access: There is tremendous variation among regions in the levels of public funding for facility-based long-term care. Part of the reason is the lack of national standards for home care services, which results in a wide range of the types of services available, their accessibility, wait times and eligibility for funding. The widespread scarcity of long-term care facilities and home care services has had deleterious consequences: emergency departments are being used as holding stations while admitted patients wait for a bed to become available, surgeries are being postponed, and the care for Alternate Levels of Care patientsiii is compromised in areas that may not suit each patient's specific needs. Major investment is required in community and institutionally based care. 2. Lack of support for informal caregivers: Much of the burden of continuing care falls on informal (unpaid) caregivers. More than one million employed people aged 45-64 provide informal care to seniors with long-term conditions or disabilities45 and 80% of home care to seniors is provided by unpaid informal caregivers.46 3. Lack of funding for long-term care: It is impractical to expect future requirements for long-term care to be funded on the same "pay-as-you-go" basis as other health expenditures. While there is general agreement that, wherever possible, residents should contribute at least a partial payment toward the cost of accommodation at a long-term care facility, the calculation for these charges is inconsistent across the country. Direction Ensure that all Canadians have affordable and timely access to all elements of any continuing care they require. The CMA recommends the following actions: * Construction should begin immediately on additional long-term care facilities. With the senior population projected to increase to around 24% of the population by 2031, and with 3.5% of seniors currently living in these facilities, in order to simply maintain the same occupancy rates, we will need roughly 2,500 additional homes by then. The Building Canada Fund is an ideal source of initial infrastructure funding. * The federal government should work with the provinces and territories to create national standards for continuing care provision in terms of eligibility criteria, care delivery and accommodation expenses, using the Veterans Independence Plan as a starting point. * The federal government should make long-term care insurance premiums tax deductible, introduce a Registered Long-term Care Plan and/or consider adding a third special provision for the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) that is similar to the Lifelong Learning Plan and the Home Buyers' Plan, which will allow working adults to draw from their RRSP, without penalty, to pay for their long-term care or home care needs; and consider adding a third payroll tax for continuing care purposes. * Governments initiate a national dialogue on the Canada Health Act in relation to the continuum of care. * Governments should adopt a policy framework and design principles for access to publicly funded medically necessary services in the home and community setting that can become the basis of a "Canada Extended Health Services Act". * Governments and provincial/territorial medical associations review physician remuneration for home- and community-based services. * Governments undertake pilot studies to support informal caregivers and long-term care patients, including those that a) explore tax credits and/or direct compensation to compensate informal caregivers for their work b) expand relief programs for informal caregivers that provide guaranteed access to respite services in emergency situations c) expand income and asset testing for residents requiring assisted living and long-term care d) promote information on advance directives and representation agreements for patients Progress to date/Next steps Many other groups have released reports on this issue, including the Canadian Healthcare Association's 2009 reports on home care and long-term care. Among many other recommendations, both of these reports call for the introduction of national minimum standards for care and additional support for caregivers.47, 48 New Brunswick announced an ambitious long-term care strategy in early 2008 and the province has invested $167 million in long-term care facilities since 2007. There are plans to open 318 nursing home beds over the next three years, with plans to open a total of 700 in the next 10 years.49 The federal government should use New Brunswick as an example to encourage all other provinces and territories to follow suit. In its final report released in April 2009, the Special Senate Committee on Aging made 32 recommendations; eight of them specifically address health care for seniors in terms of care provision, accommodation and affordability.50 As with improving access to prescription drugs, the most likely window of opportunity to press the federal government to take action in the area of continuing care will be the renegotiation of the 2004 Health Accord that is set to expire on March 31, 2014. 4. HELPING PROVIDERS HELP PATIENTS The fourth pillar of health care transformation speaks to creating necessary resources to support patient-centred care. Two areas that are absolutely essential are: (A) an adequate supply of health human resources; and (B) health information technology at the level in which care is provided or point of care. A. Health human resources Every high-performing health system begins with a strong primary care system in place. Yet roughly 5 million Canadians do not have a regular family physician, and once Canadians do access primary care, they often face long waits to see consulting specialists, and further waits for advanced diagnostics and ultimately treatment. Part of the reason for these delays is the shortage of health care professionals in Canada. An Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study of countries with wait times shows that the availability of physicians has the strongest association with lower wait times than any other factor.51 Notably, Canada's physician supply relative to the population is far below the OECD average. Statistics indicate that in 2006 Canada had only 2.15 practising physicians per 1,000 population compared to the OECD average of 3.07.52 With the number of medical graduates similarly low in comparison to the OECD average, Canada cannot expect to make up the difference without some new sources for physicians. Nurses and other health professionals are also in short supply, in Canada and across the globe. The Canadian Nurses Association is projecting a shortage of 60,000 full-time equivalent nurses in Canada by 2022 if no new policies are adopted,53 and Western Europe is also experiencing a significant nursing shortage. The global shortage of health professionals compounds the problem - while Canadian training programs still lack sufficient seats to produce enough new providers to meet current and future demands, Canadian-educated physicians, nurses, technicians, etc, are being lured away by ample opportunities to train and work outside of Canada. Initiatives such as the Nursing Sector Study,54 Task Force Two,55 the 2004 Federal/Provincial/ Territorial 10-year Plan to Strengthen Health Care44 and the 2005 Framework for Collaborative Pan-Canadian Health Human Resources Planning56 have all yielded abundant information and recommendations, yet Canada still seems unable to maintain a stable supply of physicians, nurses, technicians or other health care professionals to provide the care and treatment patients need. In its 2008 election platform, the federal government announced that it would contribute funds to the provinces and territories to create 50 new residency positions ($10 million/year for four years), ease repatriation of Canadian physicians living abroad ($5 million/year for four years) and help fund the development of nursing recruitment and retention pilot projects ($5 million over three years). On May 10, 2010, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced funding of $6.9 million for 15 additional family medicine residents in the University of Manitoba's Northern and Remote Family Medicine Program. This is a promising start.57 Collaborative care models - whereby health professionals work together with, and in the best interests of, the patient - can help address some of the gaps in health human resources. Over the past decade there have been three key trends pertinent to collaboration in health care: * the contention/recognition that collaboration is an important element of quality patient-centred care * the growing interest in inter-professional education among health professions * the sustained efforts by governments to foster multidisciplinary teams by creating competitive conditions in primary care through expanding the scope of other non-physician providers Physicians recognize the value of collaboration. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC), the CFPC and the CMA have all released policy documents that identified collaboration with other health professionals as a key role of the physician.58,59,60 The RCPSC has since been working to incorporate these roles and competencies in postgraduate medical training programs across Canada. In 2006, the national boards of ten health professional organizations including CMA and CFPC each ratified the principles and framework for interdisciplinary collaboration in primary health care that were developed by a consortium of staff of these organizations, sponsored by the federal Primary Health Care Transition Fund.61 In an effort to find ways to better distribute the workload and improve access to care, much attention has been turned to the role of physician extenders such as physician assistants. Physician assistants can be trained to work autonomously to evaluate, diagnose and treat patients in a partnership and with the supervision of a licensed physician. In Canada, four programs exist to train physician assistants. The Canadian Forces Medical Services School at the Canadian Forces Base Borden in Ontario trains Canadian Forces members while civilian physician assistants can train at McMaster University, the University of Toronto and the University of Manitoba. After the CMA Board approved the inclusion of the physician assistant profession as a designated health science profession within the accreditation process in 2003, its Conjoint Accreditation Services accredited the Canadian Forces' Physician Assistant Program in 2004. Although this program is currently the only one accredited, the other three schools are undergoing the process. Working smarter, Canada needs to be more systematic about innovations and adoption of health sector resources. There is no national body in Canada equivalent to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in the US, or the National Health Service's Institute for Innovation and Improvement in England, that is charged with promoting innovation in the delivery of health services. In Canada, the $800-million 2000 Primary Health Care Transition Fund and its fore-runner the $150-million 1997 Health Transition Fund were intended to buy transformation in areas linked to primary care. For the most part, this resulted in short-term pilot demonstration projects that ended when the money ran out. Arguably only Ontario and Alberta have achieved lasting results through the development and proliferation of new models of primary care delivery. Direction Ensure Canada's health care system has an adequate supply of human resources. Addressing health human resource shortages is critical to ensuring a sustainable, accessible and patient-centred health care system. The evaluation of and long-term planning for health human resources needs to be performed by a national body using the best available evidence to support its deliberations. Based on the defined need, there are four main mechanisms to address the shortage of health human resources in the Canadian health care system. These are: 1. increase medical school and residency positions to replenish and increase our physician supply for the future 2. invest in recruitment and retention strategies for physicians, nurses and other health care workers 3. ease the process of integration into our health care workforce for international medical graduates and Canadian physicians returning from abroad 4. introduce new providers such as physician assistants to the health care workforce Progress to date/Next steps Immediate specific steps for increasing Canada's supply of health human resources are as follows: 1. Urge the federal government to honour the remainder of its 2008 commitment to fund residency positions, repatriation of Canadian physicians abroad and pilot projects to recruit and retain nurses. 2. Secure comprehensive funding plans for physician assistant compensation. 3. Continue to work with the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada and provincial/territorial medical associations to monitor the impact of the new labour mobility provision of the Agreement on Internal Trade on the distribution and mobility of physicians. 4. Work with provincial/territorial medical associations to carry out an inventory and assessment of the payment arrangements across Canada that foster the emergence of new practice models based on an interdisciplinary approach and the use of new information technologies. 5. Work with other stakeholders to promote the idea of a national locus for innovation in the delivery of health care. Since it can take ten years or longer to train a new physician depending on specialty, the results of increasing medical school placements and residency positions will not be immediate. However, this plan would ultimately increase the future supply of physicians, and serve as a step toward becoming more self-sufficient in the future. As medical education and postgraduate training extend beyond academic health science centres to the community, and as inter-professional education takes on greater emphasis, educational programs need to ensure quality training experiences. Physicians-in-training require adequate human, clinical and physical resources to train appropriately. Programs must ensure that all new teaching sites are properly equipped to take learners. Training new providers, such as physician assistants, is a medium-term option since it takes fewer years (as few as two depending on the program) to train them. Increasing their numbers within the health workforce and permitting them to share some tasks will allow physicians to devote more one-on-one time with patients. Similarly, integrating international medical graduates and repatriating Canadian physicians currently practising outside the country could be a quicker method of increasing physician numbers than training new physicians, provided that appropriate immigration policies and licensure processes are in place. Removing certain constrains, such as limited operating room times, and providing support for collaborative models of care would allow the health human resources currently available to optimize their ability to practise. These options could see results in the shorter term. B. More effective adoption of health information technologies (HIT) Over the past decade, Canada's ministers and deputy ministers of health have been developing strategies to relieve mounting pressures within the health care sector. In all of these strategies, HIT has been viewed as a foundational component. Five main reasons for implementing HIT have been identified: improved health outcomes (patient safety, wait time reduction), increased accessibility, better integration of health care "silos," cost efficiencies and improved patient-provider satisfaction. Multi-billion dollar investments made in Canada on HIT, however, have not yet resulted in significant benefits to providers or patients. In large measure this is due to the fact that all jurisdictions have taken a top-down approach to their HIT strategies and focused their investment on large-scale HIT systems and architecture, with very little investment being made at the points of care where the actual benefits of HIT will be realized. The majority of health care occurs at the local level. Some 400 million patient encounters take place in Canada each year with most occurring in primary care settings with physicians, clinical teams, in home care and long-term care facilities.62 Patient-physician office interactions outnumber patient-hospital interactions by a ratio of 18 to 1. In Ontario (Diagram 1), just 3,000 out of an average of 247,000 patient visits per day - or 1.2% - are made in hospitals. Diagram 1. Patient visits per day in Ontario (Canada Health Infoway) Compared to a select group of other industrialized countries, Canada ranks last in terms of "health information practice capacity" (i.e., the use of EMRs in primary care practice). According to the most recent Commonwealth Fund study (Figure 1) conducted in 2009, only 37% of Canadian primary care physicians use some form of EMR. That compares to 99% in the Netherlands, 97% in New Zealand, 96% in the UK and 95% in Australia. 63 Direction We need to move from a top-down approach to one that gives all providers, and in particular physicians, the lead role in determining how best to use HIT to improve care, improve safety, improve access and help alleviate our growing health human resource issue. HIT adoption needs to be accelerated, but in a way that focuses on the individual patient and where he or she interacts with the health care delivery system, with the intent of improving quality of care and patient safety. An important priority must be a clear, target-driven plan that meets the needs of Canadian physicians and their patients. The CMA and provincial/territorial medical associations will develop a five-year plan with clear targets for accelerating the adoption of HIT in Canada. This includes working with governments to accelerate the introduction of e-prescribing in Canada to make it the main method of prescribing by 2012. Progress to date/Next steps In February 2009, the federal government announced a $500 million investment in HIT, with specific focus on EMRs and point of care integration, as part of their Economic Stimulus package. Transfer of these funds to Canada Health Infoway was delayed due to concerns over accountability and lack of progress on the electronic health record (EHR) agenda on the part of Infoway and most jurisdictions. The Office of the Auditor General's report on Infoway, and six provincial audits on jurisdictional EHR progress addressed these concerns and the funds were finally transferred in spring 2010. CMA is working to ensure that the bulk of this investment is allocated to physician EMRs, as well as local interoperability solutions and applied research on EMR use and patient tools. How to achieve this goal will be described in detail in the CMA's upcoming five-year strategy for HIT investment in Canada, a plan to connect the delivery points at the front lines of care. Provincially, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia have established EMR funding programs and are the most likely to meet targets and realize the value of HIT. The addition of $500 million federal stimulus funding to this environment will allow the remaining provinces and territories to implement similar programs. The key will be to focus HIT efforts and investment directly at the point of care. The CMA five-year HIT plan takes a grassroots, bottom-up approach and identifies ways to quickly implement local and regional solutions that will deliver short-term, tangible benefits without building un-scalable, expensive point-to-point solutions. The five-year HIT plan in and of itself is not the goal of this undertaking. The key to effectiveness lies in ensuring any HIT plan sets clear benchmarks and targets for reporting progress and demonstrating value of accelerated HIT adoption in terms of patient care - access, quality and safety. The CMA five-year HIT strategy will set out clear targets and metrics for benchmarking progress and demonstrating value. Tracking and reporting on progress against these targets would occur over the following three to five years, with a final report card to be released at the end of this period. 5. BUILDING ACCOUNTABILITY/RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL LEVELS Two key issues confronting the Canadian health care system are (A) the lack of accountability for system quality of care and performance, and (B) the lack of stewardship for the integrity of the public health insurance program and its long-term financial sustainability. A. Need for system accountability The past decade has seen growing demand for accountability for performance and outcomes at all levels of the health care system, which has been impossible to deliver due to a lack of direction, resources or accountability. As a result, Canada's ability to report publicly on the performance of the Canadian health care system has been piecemeal at best. A main stumbling block is the federal/provincial/territorial dynamic, with provinces and territories being primarily responsible for health care. In 2000, First Ministers made a commitment to develop common indicators to report to their citizens and in 2003 they set out some 40 indicators in the areas of timely access, quality, sustainability and health status and wellness. Subsequently, the Health Council of Canada was set up to monitor the 2003 Health Accord, but since 2004 only the federal government has honoured its commitment to produce indicators, and Québec and Alberta do not participate on the Health Council. The December 2008 report of the federal Auditor General criticized Health Canada for a lack of interpretation in its report and on the limited number of indicators specific to the First Nations and Inuit Health, for which Health Canada is responsible.64 Some national organizations and private organizations are reporting on health system performance at the macro level. CIHI has been producing annual wait time reports in the past years. Think tanks that have also reported on health system performance include: the Commonwealth Fund, the Conference Board of Canada (which has ranked Canada as a middle-of-the-pack performer) and the Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index, which has ranked Canada 30th out of 30 countries in terms of value for money spent on health care in both 2008 and 2009 (the US was not included).7 The Wait Time Alliance65 has produced five report cards on wait times, assessing national and provincial/territorial performance on access to elective care. The CMA has been releasing an annual report card as part of the General Council meetings for the past nine years. At the provincial/territorial level, reporting on health system performance varies widely. All provinces and territories have been reporting wait times, albeit in varying degrees and quality, for some elective surgical care. Several provinces have quality health councils which are producing reports on the quality of care being received. The Ontario Health Quality Council has released several reports on the performance of Ontario's health system, reporting on nine attributes of a high-performing health system.66 Many of these reports call for the need to accelerate the adoption of electronic health records to acquire better data and properly assess health system performance. Ontario has been a leader in health care reporting within Canada. Since the early 1990s, the Ontario Cardiac Care Network has been the gold standard for the comparison of cardiac centres on the basis of wait time and crude and risk adjusted mortality and length of stay data.67 In 1997, a research team at the University of Toronto, funded by the Ontario Hospital Association, began developing a hospital report that focused on key areas of hospital activity including patient perceptions of hospitals.68 In 2007, CIHI released Canada-wide Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratios (HSMR) for the first time. The HSMR is the ratio of actual (observed) deaths to expected deaths, and is adjusted for several factors that affect in-hospital mortality.69 Most recently, the Saskatchewan Health Quality Council issued its first Quality Insight report which reports at the health region (and, in some cases, hospital) level on 121 indicators in the areas of chronic diseases (asthma, diabetes, post heart attack), drug management and patient experience.70 The quest to improve quality of care is a dominant issue in European health systems. The UK, Denmark and the Netherlands have all implemented mechanisms to monitor the performance of their health system. Accountability and monitoring instruments in place in these three countries include: ratings of hospitals, ratings of doctors and system performance reports. In addition, the UK has organizations devoted to monitoring and improving the quality of its health care system. Public reporting on health system performance enjoys high public acceptability. This was the finding of CMA's consultation process for its health care transformation project. Seventy percent of the public surveyed by Ipsos Reid supported independent reviews of hospitals on quality and performance. National Health Goals were developed by the Government of Canada and approved in a broad consensus by all of the provinces and territories in 2005.71 While there was universal acceptance of these goals at the time, there has been limited action on developing a framework and indicators for monitoring achievements. Comprehensive approaches to population health require coordinated action across governments, supported by a common vision, such as national health goals. The CMA strongly supports the advancement of the National Health Goals agenda and believes that public reporting of supporting indicators reflecting the determinants of health as well as health services and outcomes are an important component of improving the health status of Canadians.72 Direction Improve the accountability of the Canadian health care system by reporting publicly on the performance of the system including outcomes. What is needed is a systemic approach to public reporting that shifts the focus from "blame and shame" to quality improvement. Progress to date/Next steps Based on the foregoing, the most likely opportunity for advancing the idea of increased public reporting in the short term will be to work with existing national and provincial/territorial organizations involved in acquiring and analyzing data related to health system performance. At the federal level, the renegotiation of the Health Accord in the lead-up to March 31, 2014 is the best opportunity to see a heightened commitment to improve public reporting at a coordinated federal-provincial-territorial level. Provincially, Québec's recent budget devoted considerable attention to the issue of system accountability. That government announced the annual publication of health accounts to improve transparency and public awareness on health care spending. The accounts, released with the budget, list health and social services spending and revenues. It also includes a breakdown of health sector resources including the number of physicians and nurses and hospitalization days. B. Need for system stewardship To ensure accountability and responsibility, it will be necessary to establish an arm's-length, independent body to monitor, in a transparent manner, the medium to longer-term prospects of the comparability and financing of health care programs for Canada and the provinces and territories. Since its establishment, Canada's national Medicare program has been a funding partnership between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. Since the mid-1990s, this partnership has been beset by problems, due in part to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces/territories to administer health programs and to the federal government's unilateral cut to cash transfers of some $6 billion with the implementation of the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1996. Three broad concerns have been expressed: 1. Lack of accountability of the provincial/territorial governments for use of health transfer funds: at the provincial level, the reports of both the Ménard (2005)73 and Castonguay (2008)21 commissions in Québec called for the establishment of a health account which would provide accountability for how revenues collected for health are used and to inform the public about issues such as financial sustainability of health programs. 2. Canada is a "patchwork quilt" in terms of the continuum of care: there is increasing concern about the wide variation in the level of services provided across the country. The Canada Health Act program criteria only apply to hospital and medical services, and those represent just 41% of total health spending. There is roughly a further 25% of health spending that is public but there is wide variability across jurisdictions with respect to coverage of broader continuum care, such as home care and prescription drugs. For example, Statistics Canada estimates that there was almost five-fold variation in the proportion of households spending more than 5% of net income on prescription drugs in 2006, ranging from 2.2% in Ontario to 10.1% in PEI.33 3. Canada may not be able to sustain Medicare on a "pay-as-you-go" basis: in 1998 the Auditor General of Canada published a report on the implications of the aging population which projected that government spending on health as a share of GDP could as much as double from its 1996 level of 6.4% to 12.5% by 2031 if it increased at an annual rate of 2% real growth.8 In 1998 the Auditor General recommended that the government produce long range financial projections on the basis of status quo policies and alternatives that would be presented to Parliament. In its response, the government indicated that it would continue its fiscal planning on the basis of setting and meeting short-run targets. Clearly we need to be able to look beyond year-over-year budgeting and reporting. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has recently published a report on Canada's emerging "structural deficit" that estimated this shortfall will reach a level of $19 billion in 2013-14.74 The Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate does not extend to the provincial/territorial governments. While a number of agencies and organizations are doing work related to long-term system sustainability, each is constrained in some manner from carrying out the forward looking cross-jurisdictional analyses that are required. Direction Establish an arm's-length mechanism to monitor the financing of health care programs for the federal and provincial/territorial levels, to assess the comparability of coverage across jurisdictions, to assess value for money and to make recommendations to governments on the sustainability of the current Medicare program and mechanisms to fund additional programs that cover the continuum of care. Progress to date/Next steps At the federal level, the renegotiation of the Health Accord in the lead-up to March 31, 2014 is the best opportunity to see if such a concept could be acceptable at the federal/provincial/territorial level. The CMA met with federal and provincial auditors general on March 16, 2010 to discuss system accountability and sustainability. The auditors general were very interested in this issue and some anticipate examining the matter in the coming months. PART 4: AN ACTION PLAN FOR 2010-2014 With the CMA's ambitious triple aim of improving the health of the population at large, patients' health care experience and value for money spent, the transformation of health care will inevitably be a multi-year and multi-pronged initiative. The first priority has been the release of this document, with its emphasis on adopting a Charter for Patient-centred Care. The final goal is to ensure that the First Ministers' Agreement in 2014 addresses longer-term fundamental issues, such as providing appropriate access to comprehensive pharmaceuticals and continuing care for all Canadians, and implementing a proper accountability framework. As a multi-year initiative, the CMA will pursue the actions described under the health care transformation directions between now and 2013, in time for the negotiation of the next potential Health Accord expected to take effect after the current 2004 agreement expires. As previously mentioned, the directions listed do not represent an exhaustive list. Rather, they are intended to serve as a foundation for change that will build momentum for health care transformation leading to better care. It will be important to demonstrate tangible results - early wins - so that the public, health care providers and system funders can sense the move toward a more patient-focused system and become energized to implement subsequent actions. Summary timeline of key health care transformation deliverables Release of Framework and Charter for Patient-centred Care Summer 2010 IT: Federal support for EMRs 2010 Partial Activity-Based Funding Beginning 2010 Interoperability/e-prescribing 2011-2012 Health human resources - new funding models (physician assistants) 2011 Comprehensive pharmacare/long-term care 2014 Accord Accountability Framework 2014 Accord PART 5: CONCLUSION The policy directions contained in this document, while fundamental, do not represent the entire array of possible choices. This document focuses on the "what" of health care transformation. The "how to" of implementation will require considerable further work, tailored to the needs and circumstances of the various jurisdictions and their populations. Some of the directions in this document are meant to be carried out by government, some by providers, and some by patients. Many, but not all, of the ideas set out in this document will require additional investment by governments. It will not be possible to implement all of these policy directions at the same time. Much of what is outlined here will be put in place at the provincial/territorial level and will be phased in as each jurisdiction deems fit. Provinces and territories must be encouraged to share the lessons they learn as changes are made so that other jurisdictions can build on their successes. Provision must be made for evaluation and mid-course correction to ensure that the proposed directions achieve their intended objectives. The CMA, our partner provincial/territorial medical associations and the physicians of Canada are committed to inspiring change, for the benefit of the patients we serve and in the interests of our members. The aspirations embodied in this document will foster transformation that allows us to accomplish our goals as physicians - to serve the public, provide for our patients' health needs optimally, and to make our health care system more effective, accountable and sustainable now and for the generations to come. APPENDIX A - HEALTH CARE FUNDING AND THE SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE Highlights: The ability to pay for health care, which is in competition with all the other legitimate uses for public funds, and the ability to maintain a health workforce are both central to the concept of sustainability. While there is ample evidence that health spending continues to outpace other areas of public expenditure and the growth of government revenue, there is no consensus that we need to act on it. The section notes the necessity of raising funds from private sources if there is no political appetite or public support for increasing public revenues for health. Other key points in this section: * Appropriate investments in health care result in improved health, which reduces health care demand in the future by decreasing the burden of illness in the population. Better health and the resultant improved productivity of the population pays economic dividends for the country. * Given our changing population demographics, governments in Canada will face challenges finding new revenue streams to fund appropriate initiatives such as long-term care, home care or enhanced pharmaceutical coverage over the next two decades. * A large unfunded liability will be created as a consequence of the need to address our growing, aging population that is increasingly burdened with multiple chronic illnesses. Only recently have a few jurisdictions recognized the unfairness of saddling this economic burden on future generations. * Overall health spending is consuming a rising proportion of total government program spending. It also is rising faster than the growth in our GDP, so our ability to pay for health care is increasingly in question. Other important societal programs will be increasingly jeopardized in order to pay for health care programs. * Methods to manage the gap between current levels of expenditure and what will be required to maintain and respond to future health care demands include, a) reducing services and therefore reducing expenditures, b) raising taxes and c) developing new sources of revenue (such as patient co-payments, population health premiums and private insurance). * Our system and culture relies on the principle of collective risk-pooling so as to lessen individual burden. To sustain health care for current and future Canadians and to expand the basket of required coverage, given our changing demographic reality, creative approaches to managing and funding our health system are necessary. The ability to pay for health care is increasingly in question. The challenge of sustaining our health care system is what makes it imperative to move forward now with health care transformation. Sustainability in health care may be defined as the ability to deliver universal publicly funded health care services without compromising other government programs or the ability of future generations to pay. In 2001 the Honourable Roy Romanow was tasked by the federal government to study and make recommendations in order to "ensure over the long-term the sustainability of a universally accessible, publicly funded health system." The Romanow Commission put forward 47 recommendations in 2002 with a view to "buying change".75 Similarly, the Kirby Commission in its review of the Canadian health care system recommended an additional $5 billion of federal funding per year to restructure and renew Medicare.17 These reports were followed by additional federal funding in the amounts of $34.8 billion and $41.3 billion in the 200376 and 200444 First Ministers' Accords respectively. Eight years later it is evident that, for the most part, these Accords bought time, not change. The directions set out in Part 3 of this report rest on two critical assumptions with respect to sustainability. The first is that there is a business case for quality. That is to say, investments in quality today will pay off in improved health that, in turn, will reduce health care demand and expenditures down the road. The resultant improved productivity from the reduction of illness in the population will generate economic dividends for the country. A second assumption is that timely and appropriate interventions will relieve access bottlenecks currently generating unproductive costs. A study conducted for the CMA in 2008 makes the case: it estimated the cost of excess waiting for four procedures at almost $15 billion.77 Hence, the introduction of activity-based funding for hospitals might not reduce hospital costs in total, but if it increases throughput and timely access there will be offsets in improved quality of life and productivity of the population. Clearly, the gains resulting from these assumptions will not be realized in the short term. All the numbers on sustainability, including the projections by Desautels and Page (highlighted in Part 1), assume the status quo in terms of publicly funded programs. But the current system is hardly sustainable on a quality of care basis, particularly given the demographic changes that will see fewer working-age Canadians supporting more and more elderly citizens weighed down by drug costs and the need, over time, for nursing home care. Given our changing population demographics, governments in Canada cannot avoid the challenge of finding new revenue streams to fund appropriate initiatives, such as long-term care, home care or enhanced pharmaceutical coverage over the next two decades. Since the 1990s, there have been repeated recommendations for expanded public coverage of prescription drugs and home care. Health ministers have estimated it would cost $5 billion for governments to provide "catastrophic" pharmaceutical coverage, meaning no household has to spend more than 5% of net income on prescription drugs.78 In contrast, there has been no national policy discussion about the funding of long-term care. Alberta made an exploratory move in this direction in 2005 when it commissioned Aon Consulting to develop health insurance models for continuing care.79 Aon estimated that in order to pre-fund projected costs to 2050, a flat dollar charge of $779 per capita, indexed at 4% per year, would be required for all Albertans aged 16 or over.80 Similarly, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated that long-term care accounted for 1.2% GDP in Canada in 2005 and that, at a minimum, the burden will double to 2.4% by 2050.81 A significant amount of this share will almost certainly be publicly funded. Canada will soon have to grapple with how to finance a more comprehensive - and expensive - system of health and continuing care. This, in turn, raises issues about intergenerational equity, that is to say the fairness with which the costs of the system are distributed between generations. If these escalating costs are not addressed now, future generations will be unfairly, and possibly untenably, saddled with the burden flowing from today's growing elderly population. Academics have developed a technique called generational accounting to measure this effect.82 Hagist has applied generational accounting to estimate the revenue gap for health expenditures in six countries. The revenue gap is the percentage increase in taxes that would have to be applied immediately for both living and future generations to bring current fiscal policy on a sustainable track. The same study also estimated a delayed revenue gap, which is the percentage increase that will be required if increases are postponed until 2050. The results for the six countries are shown in Table 1. [SEE PDF FOR CORRECT DISPLAY OF TABLE INFORMATION] Table 1 Estimates of current and delayed revenue gap for health expenditures Selected countries (% increase) Country Switzerland Austria France Germany UK US Revenue Gap 27.1 13.2 9.0 25.9 23.6 27.0 Delayed Revenue Gap 63.1 28.0 17.4 60.7 47.7 46.9 Source: Hagist, C. Demography and Social Health Insurance. Baden-Baden:Nomos, 2008. As one can see, significant immediate increases in revenues are required in all six countries and much more drastic increases will be required if action is delayed. Klumpes and Tang have also applied generational accounting to the funding of the UK National Health Service. They found that under the base assumption of a 2% real interest rate, future tax payers will need to contribute about ten-fold what 2005 new tax payers did.83 In Canada, Robson has applied similar methods to estimate the "unfunded liability" that will result from an aging population. He estimates that between 2007 and 2050, provincial and territorial health budgets will experience an aggregate liability of almost $1.9 trillion if things continue along as they are.84 Total health spending in Canada reached an historic high of 11.9% of GDP in 2009. While this reflects, in part, the effect of the recession in lowering GDP, health spending grew by 5.5% in nominal terms and 3.3% in real terms over 2008. Table 2 shows the average percentage increases in health and total program spending from 1999 to 2008 and the most recent experience of the provinces and territories as presented in their 2010-11 budgets. Table 2? Health and Program Spending 1999-2008 and Selected Indicators 2010 Provincial Territorial Budgets Province / Territory 1999-2008 Average Annual % Increase in Health Spendinga 1999-2008 Average Annual % Increase in Program Spendinga Health as % Program Spending 2010-11 % Increase in Health Spending 2010-11 over 2009-10 % Increase in Program Spending 2010-11 over 2009-10 % Increase in Revenue 2010-11 over 2009-10 NL 6.2 6.9 37.8 12.4 8.4 3.8 PE 8.4 5.9 37.3 3.9 0.3 2.9 NS 7.2 5.9 46.4 6.8 -0.3 3.5 NB 7.0 4.5 36.7 3.5 1.2 1.8 QC 6.4 5.4 44.7 3.7 2.9 2.9 ONb 7.7 6.0 39.8 6.0 6.5 10.8 MB 6.7 5.4 45.1 5.0 0.8 1.8 SK 7.2 6.6 43.4 6.4 0.6 -0.8 AB 10.2 10.2 44.7 16.6 5.6 1.3 BCc 6.4 3.6 45.6 5.1 4.8 5.8 NT 5.2 4.9 25.2 0.3 5.7 5.0 YT 8.1 7.4 21.9 -7.6 -0.8 8.0 NU 9.3 9.1 24.3 -3.7 1.9 5.9 Average 7.4 6.3 37.9 4.5 2.9 4.1 Data sources available upon request a Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information b Note the budget also contains an estimate that health is 45% of program spending in 2010-11 c Total health spending by function is estimated at 42.1% of all government spending The evidence is incontrovertible that health spending has continuously outpaced other areas of public expenditure. All provinces are expecting further health spending increases in 2010-11 - ranging from 3.7% in Québec to 16.6% in Alberta. In eight out of ten provinces, increases in health spending exceed increases in both total program spending and provincial/territorial revenue. As a percentage of program spending, health stands near or just over 45% in six provinces. Aside from Québec (which is discussed below), few measures have been taken to address the problem. It may well require a province or territory to exceed the psychological barrier of 50% to incite a concerted response. This is suggested by a February 2010 poll done for CMA by Ipsos Reid in which respondents were also asked to estimate the actual, appropriate and maximum proportions of their provincial/territorial budget that are or should be devoted to health. The averages estimated by the public are as follows: * actual current percentage - 38% * appropriate percentage - 47% * maximum percentage - 52%. The prospect of going beyond the 50% threshold of the share of government program spending on health might be likened to the proverbial "crossing the Rubicon," which means following a course of action on which there is no turning back. To follow the 50%+ trajectory under the current parameters of Medicare, taxes will surely have to increase, either through general taxation or a dedicated health premium or some variant thereof. Another option that would still pool risk would be the establishment of a contributory social insurance fund. If, however, there is no political appetite or public support for increasing public revenues for health on the basis of universality and risk pooling then we will be faced with options for raising funds from private sources. These could include co-payments for publicly insured services, private insurance or out-of-pocket payment for uninsured/deinsured services, and deductibles linked to utilization. Québec has been the first among the provinces and territories to acknowledge that the current approach to funding health care is neither sustainable in the long term nor fair to future generations - and to announce measures to address the problem. It has taken three major task forces over the past decade to get to this point. In 2001 the Clair Commission recommended a capitalized (pre-funded) insurance plan to cover loss of autonomy.85 Clair also put forward the idea of the creation of a provincial health insurance corporation apart from the Health Ministry. In 2005 the Ménard Committee again recommended the establishment of an insurance scheme for persons experiencing loss of autonomy, as well as the creation of a health and social services account that would provide transparency and accountability for the sources and uses of funds.73 In 2008 the Castonguay Task Force recommended a dedicated "health stabilization fund" that would be funded in part by a deductible linked to medical visits that would be collected at year-end through the income tax system. Castonguay also recommended a health account.21 In response to these studies, the 2010-11 Québec budget contained the following measures: * starting July 1, 2010 a health contribution (premium) will be introduced, to be collected through the tax system; starting at $25 per adult, this will increase to $200 by 2012 at which time it is expected to raise $945 million * further study of the introduction of a health deductible as proposed by Castonguay * the introduction of an annual health account86 Other jurisdictions will also need to give consideration to options for at least partially pre-funding future health care expenditures. The findings of the February 2010 survey conducted for CMA by Ipsos Reid suggest that Canadians would prefer an option that would assure that funds raised would be dedicated to health care over an option that would simply add additional funds to the consolidated revenue account (Figure 2). In considering such options, however, one must be mindful of the current experience with existing mechanisms that are available to Canadians to accumulate savings. According to Canada Revenue Agency Statistics for the 2007 tax year, one in four (26.4%) Canadians with a taxable return reported making a RRSP contribution.87 The likelihood of making RRSP contributions was strongly correlated with income - 15% or fewer with those with incomes less than $25,000 reported one, rising to greater then 60% among those with incomes of $80,000 or greater. There may be greater uptake with the Tax-free Savings Account (TFSA) that was introduced in 2009. A poll done by Ipsos Reid in June 2009 found that 21% of households had opened a TFSA.88 No research has been done on the salience of saving for future health needs as compared to RRSPs and TFSAs. The CMA's 2006 discussion paper It's About Access: Informing the Debate on Public and Private Health Care provides a comprehensive overview and discussion of the international application and pros and cons of a range of public and private funding options. It also sets out ten policy principles to guide policy decision-making related to the public-private interface. In brief, these are: 1. Timely Access 6. Quality 2. Equity 7. Professional Responsibility 3. Choice 8. Transparency 4. Comprehensiveness 9. Accountability 5. Clinical Autonomy 10. Efficiency89 We believe that these principles will serve to guide a national debate. REFERENCES i Derived as the .7023 public share of the estimate of 11.9% of GDP going to total health expenditure. ii The CMA's 2007 policy statement 'It's still about access! Medicare Plus' sets out comprehensive recommendations for the public-private interface in the delivery and funding of health care. iii Patients who remain in hospital while waiting for placement in long-term care facilities or for home care arrangements to be made. 1 Department of Justice Canada. Canada Health Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-6). www.laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-6.pdf. Accessed 06/28/2010. 2 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure trends 1975 to 2009. Ottawa, 2009. 3 Bowlby G. Studies in "non-standard" employment in Canada. www.wiego.org/reports/statistics/nov-2008/bowlby_presentation_2008.pdf. Accessed 06/28/2010. 4 Conference Board of Canada. How Canada performs 2009: A report card on Canada. www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Health.aspx. Accessed 06/27/2010. 5 World Health Organization. World health report 2000. Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva, 2000. 6 Commonwealth Fund. Mirror, mirror on the wall. How the performance of the U.S. health care system compares internationally. 2010 update. www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf 7 Eriksson D, Björnberg A. Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index 2009. Winnipeg: Frontier Centre for Public Policy, 2009. 8 Auditor General of Canada. April 1998 Report. Chapter 6 population aging and information for Parliament: understanding the choices. www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199804_06_e_9312.html. Accessed 01/26/10. 9 Parliamentary Budget Officer. Fiscal sustainability report. February 18, 2020. www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/pbo-dpb/documents/FSR_2010.pdf. Accessed 04/27/10. 10 Stone S. A Retrospective Evaluation of the Planetree Patient-Centred Model of Care on Inpatient Quality Outcomes. Health Environments Research and Design Journal. 2008;1(4):55-69. 11 Dagnone T. For patients' sake. www.health.gov.sk.ca/patient-first-commissioners-report. Accessed 06/28/2010. 12 Minister's Advisory Committee on Health. A foundation for Alberta's health system. www.health.alberta.ca/documents/MACH-Final-Report-2010-01-20.pdf. Accessed 06/28/2010. 13 Department of Health. The NHS Constitution. www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_113645.pdf. Accessed 06/28/2010. 14 Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Australian charter of healthcare rights. www.health.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/content/com-pubs_ACHR-roles/$file/17537-charter.pdf. Accessed 06/28/2010. 15 Saskatchewan Health. Sooner, safer, smarter: A plan to transform the surgical patient experience. www.health.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=545d9e1d-6cfe-447d-ac42-3b35f0dc8f5d&l=English. Accessed 06/28/2010. 16 Canadian Medical Association, College of Family Physicians of Canada. The wait starts here. The Primary Care Wait Time Partnership. 2 Dec 2009. www.cfpc.ca/.../PCWTP%20FINAL%20-%20FINAL%20ENGLISH%20(DEC%202009).pdf 17 Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The health of Canadians - the federal role. Volume six: Recommendations for reform. Ottawa, 2002. 18 British Columbia Ministry of Health Services. B.C. launches patient-focused funding provincewide. News release April 12, 2010. www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010HSERV0020-000403.pdf. Accessed 06/28/2010. 19 Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Patient-based payment for hospitals. Backgrounder May 3,2010. www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/release/2010/may/bg_20100503.pdf.Accesed 06/06/2010 20 Duckett S. "Thinking Economically in the health Sector". Presented to the Economics Society of Northern Alberta. 13 Nov 2009. 21 Task Force on the Funding of the Health System. Getting our money's worth. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, 2008. 22 Donabedian A.Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Quarterly 1966; 44:166-203. 23 Pink GH, Brown AD, Studer ML, Reiter KL, Leatt P. Pay-for-Performance in publicly financed healthcare: Some international experience and considerations for Canada. Healthcare Papers 2006; 6(4):8-26. 24 PIN is a Manitoba Health and Healthy Living primary care renewal initiative that focuses on fee-for-service (FFS) physician groups. Its goal is to facilitate systemic improvements in the delivery of primary care. See: www.gov.mb.ca/health/phc/pin/index.html 25 Alberta Medical Association President's Letter September 16, 2009. See: www.albertadoctors.org/bcm/ama/ama-website.nsf/AllDoc/4C2E247349659BD58725763300532A11/$File/preslet_sept16_09.pdf 26 British Columbia Medical Association. Full service family practice incentive program: frequently asked questions. Vancouver, 2006. 27 Hall B. Health incentives: the science and art of motivating healthy behaviours. Benefits Quarterly 2008; 24(2):12-22. 28 Schmidt H. Bonuses as incentives and rewards for healthy responsibility: A good thing? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2008; 33: 198-220. 29 Andreyeva T, Long M, Brownell K. The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. Am J Public Health. 2010 Feb; 100(2):216-22. 30 Alberta Health and Wellness. Alberta Pharmaceutical Strategy. www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Pharmaceutical-Strategy-2009.pdf Accessed 11/02/09. 31 Manitoba Health. Manitoba Pharmacare Program. www.gov.mb.ca/health/pharmacare/index.html Accessed 11/02/09. 32 Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services. Enhancements to program make drugs more affordable. April 23, 2007. www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2007/health/0423n01.htm Accessed 11/02/09. 33 Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 109-5012 Household spending on prescription drugs as a percentage of after-tax income, Canada and provinces. 2008. 34 Canadian Cancer Society. Cancer drug access for Canadians. Toronto, 2009. 35 Marin A. A vast injustice. Toronto, 2009. 36 Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario expands access to cancer drug. News release November 29, 2009. www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/release/2009/nov/nr_20091129.pdf. Accessed 06/06/2010. 37 Canadian Healthcare Association. Catastrophic pharmaceutical coverage. Ottawa, 2006. 38 Canadian Pharmacists Association. Catastrophic drug coverage - CphA position statement. Ottawa, 2008. 39 Canadian Nurses Association. CNA Presentation to House of Commons Standing Committee on Health Study on Prescription Drugs. September, 2003. 40 Canada's Research Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). Catastrophic drug coverage. Ottawa, 2006. 41 Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Towards a sustainable, accessible, quality public health care system. Ottawa, 2009. 42 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Development of National Indicators and a Reporting System for Continuing Care (Long Term Care Facilities). Ottawa, 2000. 43 Statistics Canada. Population projections: Canada, the province and territories, 2009 to 2036. The Daily, Wednesday, May 26, 2010. 44 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. A 10-year plan to strengthen health care. Available from: scics.gc.ca/cinfo04/800042005_e.pdf Accessed 06/07/2010. 45 Pyper W. Balancing career and care. Perspectives on Labour and Income 2006;7(11):5-15. 46 National Advisory Council on Aging. 1999 and beyond: Challenges of an aging Canadian society. Ottawa, 1999. dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H88-3-28-1999E.pdf. Accessed 02/29/2010. 47 Canadian Healthcare Association. Home Care in Canada: From the margins to the mainstream. Available from: www.cha.ca/documents/Home_Care_in_Canada_From_the_Margins_to_the_Mainstream_web.pdf. Accessed 06/04/2010 48 Canadian Healthcare Association. New Directions for Facility-Based Long Term Care. Available from: www.cha.ca/documents/CHA_LTC_9-22-09_eng.pdf. Accessed 06/04/2010. 49 Smith L. There is nothing for nothing any longer, especially for seniors. The Daily Gleaner. 21 Oct 2009. Available from: dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/rss/article/830881. Accessed 11/10/2009. 50 Special Senate Committee on Aging. Is Canada ready for an aging population? Senate Special Committee on Aging Identifies Serious Gaps for Older Canadians in Canada's Aging Population: Seizing the Opportunity. Available from: www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/agei-e/subsite-e/Aging_Report_Home-e.htm. Accessed 06/07/2010 51 Siciliani L, Hurst J. Explaining waiting times for elective surgery across OECD countries. OECD Health Working Papers No 7. Paris, 2003. 52 OECD Health Data 2009, June 2009. 53 Canadian Nurses Association. Tested solutions for eliminating Canada's registered nursing shortage. Ottawa, 2009 54 Nursing Sector Study Corporation (May 2006). Building the Future: An integrated strategy for nursing human resources in Canada, retrieved from www.cna-aiic.ca/CNA/documents/pdf/publications/Phase_II_Final_Report_e.pdf. Accessed 06/09/09. 55 Task Force Two. A physician human resource strategy for Canada: final report. Ottawa, 2006 56 Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee on Health Delivery and Human Resources (2005, revised 2007). Framework for Collaborative Pan-Canadian Health Human Resources Planning, retrieved from www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/hhr/2007-frame-cadre/2007-frame-cadre-eng.pdf. Accessed 06/04/2010 57 Health Canada. Government of Canada announces funding to support 15 new family medicine positions for Canada's north. News release. May 10, 2009. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2010/2010_72-eng.php. Accessed 06/29/2010. 58 Frank J (ed.) The CanMEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 59 College of Family Physicians of Canada. Four principles of family medicine. www.cfpc.ca/English/cfpc/about%20us/principles/default.asp?s=1. Accessed 06/07/2010 60 Canadian Medical Association. CMA Policy on Scopes of Practice. Ottawa, 2001. 61 Enhancing Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Primary Health Care. The principles and framework for interdisciplinary collaboration in primary health care. www.eicp.ca/en/principles/march/EICP-Principles-and-Framework-March.pdf. Accessed 04/28/10. 62 Sources: CIHI Reports for Physician visits: Physicians in Canada: Fee-for-Service Utilization 2005-2006. Table 1-21. Hospital contacts: Trends in Acute Inpatient Hospitalizations and Day surgery Visits in Canada 1995-1996 to 2005-2006 and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System: Visit Disposition by Triage Level for All Emergency Visits - 2005-2006. 63 Schoen C, Osborn R, Doty MM, Squires D, Peugh J, Applebaum S. A survey of primary care physicians in eleven countries, 2009: Perspectives on care, costs and experiences. Health Affairs 2009; 28(6):1179-83. 64 Auditor General of Canada. 2008 December report of the Auditor General of Canada. Chapter 8 - reporting on health indicators - Health Canada. www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_200812_08_e.pdf. Accessed 06/27/2010. 65 www.waittimealliance.ca 66 www.ohqc.ca 67 www.ccn.on.ca 68 www.hospitalreport.ca 69 Canadian Institute for Health Information. HSMR: A New Approach for Measuring Hospital Mortality Trends in Canada. secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/HSMR_hospital_mortality_trends_in_canada.pdf. Accessed 06/09/09. 70 Saskatchewan Health Quality Council. Quality Insight, 2008. www.hqc.sk.ca/download.jsp?oLYnotVGsC60FgKBEcq12DBIzBf0QfLQkUwK4QBZaJtXhmSAKqZibA==. Accessed 06/07/10 71 Public Health Agency of Canada. Health goals for Canada. www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hgc-osc/pdf/goals-e.pdf. Accessed 06/20/2010. 72 Canadian Medical Association. National Health Goals for Canada: A Review of Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for the Canadian Medical Association. Ottawa 2010 73 Comité de travail sur la pérennité du système de santé et des services sociaux du Québec. Pour sortir de l'impasse : la solidarité entre nos générations. Québec : Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, 2005. 74 Parliamentary Budget Officer. Estimating potential GDP and the government's structural budget balance. www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/PBO-DPB/documents/Potential_CABB_EN.pdf. Accessed 01/26/10. 75 Romanow, R. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada. Ottawa: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, 2002. 76 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. 2003 First Ministers' Accord on Health Care Renewal. February 5, 2003. www.scics.gc.ca/pdf/800039001_e.pdf. Accessed 04/27/10. 77 The Centre for Spatial Economics. The economic cost of wait times in Canada 2008. www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Media_Release/pdf/2008/EconomicReport.pdf Accessed 07/06/2010. 78 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. National Pharmaceutical Strategy decision points. http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo08/860556005_e.html. Accessed 04/27/10. 79 Aon Consulting. Health benefit design options for Alberta Health & Wellness: Executive summary 29 March 2006. http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Options-Aon-2006-summary.pdf. Accessed 04/27/10. 80 Aon Consulting. Continuing care. http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Options-Aon-2006-Care.pdf. Accessed 04/27/10. 81 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Projecting OECD health and long-term care expenditures: what are the main drivers? Economics Department Working Papers No. 477. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/7/36085940.pdf. Accessed 04/28/10 82 Auerbach A., Gokhale J., Kotlikoff L. Generational accounts: a meaningful alternative to deficit acccounting. Tax Policy and the Economy 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and the NBER, 1991. 83 Klumpes P, Tang L. The cost incidence of the UK's National Health Service system. Geneva Papers 2008;33:744-67. 84 Robson W. Boomer bulge: dealing with the stress of demographic change on government budgets in Canada. www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_71.pdf. Accessed 04/28/10. 85 Commission d'étude sur les services de santé et les services sociaux. Emerging solutions : report and recommendations. Québec : Gouvernement du Québec, 2001. 86 Finances Québec. For a more efficient and better funded health-care system. www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/Budget/2010-2011/en/documents/MoreEfficient.pdf. Accessed 04/27/10. 87 Canada Revenue Agency. Income Statistics 2009 - 2007 tax year. Interim Table 2 - Universe data. www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/stts/gb07/pst/ntrm/pdf/table2-eng.pdf. Accessed 04/28/10. 88 Ipsos Reid. Canadians embracing tax-free savings accounts. October 20, 2009. www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4557. Accessed 04/28/10. 89 Canadian Medical Association. It's about access: informing the debate on public and private health care. Ottawa, 2006.
Documents
Less detail

Lessons from the frontlines: A collaborative report on Pandemic H1N1

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9840
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-08-26
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-08-26
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Lessons from the frontlines: A report on Pandemic H1N1 from Canadian Medical Association, The College of Family Physicians of Canada, National Specialty Society for Community Medicine One year ago, a novel influenza virus claimed its first victim in Mexico, and soon the world was plunged into its first influenza pandemic in 40 years. Although pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) swept across the globe, we were fortunate this time as the virus was far less virulent than first feared. Now that pH1N1 has peaked and faded, it is time to look at what we learned and how it will help us plan for the next national public health emergency. The College of Family Physicians of Canada, the National Specialty Society for Community Medicine and the Canadian Medical Association have joined together to present a picture of lessons learned from the front lines of the pandemic. Together we represent over 80,000 physicians, of whom almost 50,000 are family physicians, engaged in all aspects of Canada's health care and public health systems. Canada's experience with SARS in 2003 was a "wake-up call"; much changed in its aftermath. The creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada led by a chief public health officer and the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network increased Canada's ability to respond to a public health emergency like pH1N1. The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector, as well as complementary provincial and territorial plans, provides a framework and approach to responding to a pandemic. In many ways, this planning paid off. Canada mobilized quickly in response to the pH1N1 threat. Morbidity and mortality were lower than feared, and 45% of the population was vaccinated. But this response can also be seen as a "dress rehearsal" for a more severe influenza pandemic or some other national public health emergency: a test of our plans and an opportunity to learn from experience, with the time to incorporate these lessons into our strategic planning. Those on the front lines of response understand how health emergencies test our entire system - public health, acute and primary care and the community-based family physician. The success of our response depends on planning and practice, the effectiveness of public health and clinical countermeasures, our health human resources, the surge capacity within our health care and public health systems and our ability to reach the public. One of our greatest challenges in Canada is also to establish a coherent national and provincial/territorial strategy that can be implemented at a local level. Although we believe that Canada's overall response to pH1N1 produced many success stories, there were circumstances that challenged us as health professionals. Both health care and public health need further strengthening, and their separate infrastructures and the interdependence between these structures need attention and bolstering. The following comments focus on two overarching areas that influenced our ability to respond to the pandemic: communications and health system integration. Communications Communication was a consistent source of concern. Channels of communication among the various levels of public health providers were stronger than those for primary care providers, especially family physicians. On 9 Aug. 2009, following the first wave of pH1N1, our leaders wrote to chief public health officer of Canada Dr. David Butler-Jones on behalf of our members to share their thoughts and recommendations on how to improve communications with physicians. Family physicians in particular, but also other front-line health care providers, needed communication that was tailored to the practice setting, resources that were easy to access, and clear messages written in a manner that allowed rapid implementation into clinical practice during health emergencies because the timing of clinical response was critical. We recommended that front-line clinical practitioners be involved in the development of guidelines and the strategies for their dissemination, so that the content could be linked directly to the clinical setting. Family physicians are part of our first line of defence during infectious disease outbreaks. To ensure optimum patient care, they need clinical guidance quickly. Many physicians felt that the urgent need to provide consistent, clinically relevant information was not well recognized by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the Public Health Network and, in some cases, provincial, territorial, regional or local levels. It took three months after recognition of the emerging pandemic to publish Interim Guidance for Ambulatory Care of Influenza-like Illness in the Context of H1N1. The current Public Health Network process of federal/provincial/territorial (FPT) consultation and consensus building seemed ill-suited to the acute national need for clinical information on issues such as the use and prescription of anti-viral medications. As provincial authorities and professional medical organizations moved to fill the void, different approaches and recommendations arose independent from one another. Better integration of primary care response by a national organization such as PHAC and the provincial/territorial health ministries could address the needs of clinical practitioners in concert with public health responses. This would also ensure that care directives are translated into user-friendly formats appropriate to clinical settings. We were pleased to be able to work with PHAC in fall 2009 to produce Pandemic H1N1: Fast Facts for Front-line Clinicians. This resource was highly valued by many of our members, and the collaboration demonstrated how health organizations can work effectively with government to contribute their expertise to the development and distribution of appropriate, clinically relevant information. Nevertheless, our critics declared that it was too little, too late. In situations where scientific evidence is rapidly changing, the processes used to distribute information to both front-line public health and clinical professionals must be designed to avoid confusion. Coordinated, unified communication strategies are needed at the national, provincial/territorial and local levels. Regardless of the official source, the information must be consistent. During the pandemic, many physicians and public health workers complained that multiple levels of government provided similar, but not the same advice. The differences led to skepticism, and the inundation of messages led to overload. The bottom line is that clinically relevant and trustworthy information should be provided on a timely basis, even if levels of certainty are fluctuating. Jurisdictions with effective communication to the primary care sector were characterized by cooperation and consultation between the medical community and the provincial, territorial and regional health authorities, both before and during the crisis. We recommend: 1. That the Public Health Agency of Canada, with the provinces and territories, evaluate the effectiveness of pH1N1 communications between public health and physicians and other front-line primary health care providers, and use the finding of this evaluation to research options for future response to a public health crisis. 2. That federal, provincial/territorial public health authorities and health care professionals and their associations work together in the inter-pandemic period to develop a pan-Canadian communication strategy to be used during health emergencies. 3. The establishment of a pan-Canadian centre within the Public Health Agency of Canada - similar to the Centre for Effective Practice - to undertake timely knowledge translation of clinical management guidelines for clinicians during public health crises. Surveillance and electronic communications The national response to infectious disease would have been greatly facilitated if system-wide communicable disease surveillance had been in place to support the sharing of data between public health and the rest of the health care system, particularly at the regional and local levels of pandemic response. Clinicians' practices are highly influenced by illness patterns that develop regionally and locally within their practice populations; thus, surveillance data are useful in determining appropriate treatment. Real-time data were not available to most physicians and when data did become available, they were already several weeks old. Delayed clinical guidelines were not a suitable substitute for timely surveillance information. Expansion of the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) in primary care, with bi-directional links to public health electronic health records (EHRs), could have facilitated surveillance and communications. Family practice clinics with EMRs were able to quickly identify high-risk patients, communicate with them to schedule vaccination appointments and collect the required data for public health. The varied levels of success of public pH1N1 vaccination clinics were further proof of the need to move to standard use of EMRs and EHRs in the health system. Communications can be enhanced through the sharing of data between the public health and primary care systems. EMRs may help resolve the challenge of collecting data from primary care sites. Collaboration among the PHAC, the Canadian Medical Association and the Information Technology Association of Canada's Health Division led to development of a pilot project to demonstrate the use of primary care EMRs as real-time sentinel surveillance tools for public health action to supplement existing surveillance mechanisms. In addition, after a successful two-year pilot project, the College of Family Physicians of Canada is working with the PHAC, in association with the Canadian Institute for Health Information, to conduct surveillance for five chronic diseases using EMRs, local networks across Canada and a national central repository for standardized data. These studies represent the increasingly important role of electronic information in surveillance and the value of collaboration between public health and primary care. We recommend: 4. That the federal and provincial/territorial governments provide EMR funding to enable clinical care and public health authorities to build interconnectedness and allow real-time information collection and analysis. System issues FPT responsibilities The division of responsibility between federal and provincial/territorial authorities for health care and emergency response influences how we respond to public health emergencies. Provincial/territorial governments have a primary role to play in regulating health matters within their boundaries. At the same time, the federal government has responsibilities related to national public safety and health protection. There can be no disputing the legitimacy of federal involvement in public health matters of an interprovincial/territorial nature. Under International Health Regulations, the federal government also has a responsibility to report and monitor public health emergencies of potential harm to other countries. Since Canada's SARS experience, there has been much progress in building FPT cooperation and increasing consultation on public health matters. However, the division of responsibility has led us to a situation where public health and clinical guidance in each province and territory was similar, yet different. Although the Pandemic Influenza Committee and the Special FPT Advisory Committee on H1N1 Influenza strove for consensus at the national level, individual provinces and territories were under no obligation to implement the guidance agreed to at the FPT level. Consultative and collaborative processes at the FPT level created delays in decision-making and directly interfered with the capacity of front-line professionals to respond to the urgent health needs of their patients. This led to a sense of confusion in the media and a loss of trust among the public and health professionals regarding Canada's capacity to respond to pH1N1. System capacity Canada's health system lacks surge capacity and can be sorely tested during a public health emergency, such as the recent experience with pH1N1. The underdeveloped public health infrastructure also means that it is a challenge to handle more than one national crisis at a time. To mount a response to pH1N1, public health units pulled human resources from other programs and many critical ones were delayed, suspended or cancelled altogether. During the first wave of pH1N1, Manitoba experienced a severe outbreak that stretched the resources of its critical care infrastructure to its limits. Front-line health care providers were inundated with telephone calls from the worried well and an increase in visits from those with flu symptoms. If pH1N1 had been the severe pandemic that was expected and for which Canada had been preparing, our health system would have been brought to its knees. In 2008, the Canadian Coalition for Public Health in the 21st Century noted that Canada remains vulnerable to the risks presented by epidemics and pandemics. This vulnerability remains today, and a long-range plan to build our public health capacity and workforce and to address the lack of surge capacity in our health system must become a priority if we are to be prepared for the next emergency. We recommend: 5. That the federal government increase infrastructure funding to provinces/territories to assist local health emergency preparedness planning and response, to reduce variation across the country and to integrate clinical care structures into public health structures at the local level. 6. That the Public Health Agency of Canada review the recommendations of the 2003 report of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health (Naylor report) in light of the pH1N1 experience and develop a national action plan to address the persistent gaps. Public health/primary care partnership Family physicians, in particular, understand that primary health care happens at the local level. In fact, so does all public health. During times of public health crisis, it is crucial for public health and primary care to work together, each respecting, supporting and bolstering the efforts of the other. Strengthening local public health and primary care structures and the interface between them would have resulted in improved, shared understanding of each sector's roles and responsibilities during the pH1N1 epidemic, better communications, improved data sharing and, most important, better served populations. Public health measures are directed toward the mitigation of disease through surveillance, research and outbreak management activities, while physicians provide information, education and clinical treatment to their patients. A commitment from both sectors at the local and provincial levels - and the professionals within each sector - to work together in the inter-pandemic period to build on processes that allow sharing of perspectives and information is essential. It is crucial that local public health authorities receive financial resources to increase their ability to collaborate effectively with family physicians, specialist physicians and other front-line providers. A number of the challenges faced by front-line public health workers and front-line physicians during the pH1N1 outbreak could have been lessened if there had been stronger links within the health system. We recommend: 7. That the Public Health Agency of Canada develop a focus on improving the interrelationship between primary care and public health to support collaboration during public health crises. Vaccination A key measure to combat pandemic influenza is mass vaccination. On the whole, Canada mounted an effective campaign: 45% of Canadians were vaccinated, and the proportion was even higher in First Nations communities - a first in Canadian history. Canada was one of the first countries with sufficient vaccine for the population and, with one domestic vaccine supplier, Canada avoided the confusion of multiple formulations as seen in the United States. The outcome was positive, but many public health units were stretched as expectations exceeded the pre-existing constrained resources. Although we recognize that the provinces and territories have quite different approaches to the delivery of their routine immunization programs, there is agreement that the pandemic immunization process did not adequately engage physicians in planning and delivery. A number of difficulties, such as the impact of bulk packaging, manufacturing delays that affected the agreed "sequencing" of patients and the logistics of inventory management, led to friction between front-line public health practitioners and family physicians. These could have been avoided with strengthened interdependence and mutual understanding before this crisis. The great variation in mass vaccination programs between provinces/territories, and even between local public health units, led to public confusion. Recognition of the diversity of primary care settings in which physicians work and bilateral planning in advance of the event is essential, because it is simply not feasible to tailor responses to myriad settings in the heat of the moment. Television broadcasts of long lines of people waiting to be vaccinated contributed to a loss of confidence in the system at a time when public confidence was sorely needed to encourage vaccination. Nationally promulgated clinical practice guidelines had great potential to create consistent clinical responses across the country. Instead, the variation and lack of coordination in providing important clinical information during this crisis eroded the public's confidence in the federal, provincial and territorial response. Ensuring future consistency in clinical approaches will require examination of ethical principles for the allocation of resources, such as anti-virals, vaccines and hospital treatment. Public engagement in the discussion of ethical principles is essential and, as much as possible, the consultative process should be transparent and undertaken in advance. We recommend: 8. That the Public Health Network seek advanced pan-Canadian commitment to a harmonized and singular national response to clinical practice guidelines, including mass vaccination programs, during times of potential public health crisis. Conclusion In 2003, in its submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS, the Canadian Medical Association noted that the uptake of new information is influenced by many qualitative factors, and that research is needed to determine how best to communicate with individual physicians and other health care providers in emergency situations. Communication processes should be based on sound research and build on existing communication networks and relationships. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has recommended that information networks be strengthened to promote the sharing of the most relevant information among family physicians, other primary care providers and public health at the local level. We believe that PHAC is well positioned to undertake research on how health professionals can best receive information and to catalogue existing communication networks to build them into a well-coordinated national emergency response communication system. We must work together to translate pandemic information into practical messages relevant to front-line providers and employ trusted channels to deliver key messages to our patients and the public. Broad consensus is developing that our experience with the pH1N1 outbreak has shown that one of our greatest needs in preparing for the next public health emergency is for a national communications strategy that involves all levels of government, targets all sectors of our health system and uses the channels with which these targets are most familiar. An effective response to infectious disease outbreaks depends on effective surveillance, data collection and sharing and tracking of clinical interventions. The absence of a national communicable disease/immunization monitoring system is an ongoing problem. In 2003, the report of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health recommended that "the [Public Health] Agency [of Canada] should facilitate the long term development of a comprehensive and national public health surveillance system that will collect, analyze, and disseminate laboratory and health care facility data on infectious diseases... to relevant stakeholders." In 2010, Canada still does not have a comprehensive national surveillance and epidemiological system. A pan-Canadian electronic health information system is urgently needed and must become a priority during the inter-pandemic phase, with adequate federal funding and provincial/territorial collaboration. Greater adoption of the EMR in primary care and better public health EHRs with the ability to link systems will augment existing surveillance capacity and should be considered essential to a pan-Canadian system. Many of the challenges front-line health practitioners faced during the pH1N1 were also challenges during the SARS outbreak in 2003. The Naylor report proposed a number of measures to improve Canada's readiness and strengthen public health. Although a great deal of work and effort has gone into building links with and between provinces/territories and the federal government within the public health and the health emergency management system, little has trickled down to the front lines. This is not to devalue the much-improved spirit of FPT cooperation and the important achievements that have been made. Rather it is to suggest that, as the roof is no longer leaking, it is time to focus attention on the foundation - the response at the local level. Embedding primary care expertise in public health planning within the PHAC and at provincial/territorial and local levels will help circumvent problems and improve the effectiveness of our health system to respond to public health emergencies. A dialogue between primary care and the emergency management structures will help the response team understand and value the capabilities within primary care and build them into their planning and response systems. At the end of the day, we need to nurture collaborative relations between public health and primary care. Our shared objective is protecting the health of Canadians, recognizing that, in reality, neither system can be successful in isolation. It is essential that we trust each other's professionalism and expertise and work together to ensure that a strong foundation is in place to protect Canadians from future health threats. We have the will and expertise. We need the resources and a firm commitment to move forward. We have had two "wake-up calls" - SARS and pH1N1. Let's not wait for a third to find that we are not yet prepared. Recommendations 1. That the Public Health Agency of Canada, with the provinces and territories, evaluate the effectiveness of pH1N1 communications between public health and physicians and other front-line primary health care providers, and use the finding of this evaluation to research options for future response to a public health crisis. 2. That federal, provincial/territorial public health authorities and health care professionals and their associations work together in the inter-pandemic period to develop a pan-Canadian communication strategy to be used during health emergencies. 3. The establishment of a pan-Canadian centre within the Public Health Agency of Canada - similar to the Centre for Effective Practice - to undertake timely knowledge translation of clinical management guidelines for clinicians during public health crises. 4. That the federal and provincial/territorial governments provide EMR funding to enable clinical care and public health authorities to build interconnectedness and allow real-time information collection and analysis. 5. That the federal government increase infrastructure funding to provinces/territories to assist local health emergency preparedness planning and response, to reduce variation across the country and to integrate clinical care structures into public health structures at the local level. 6. That the Public Health Agency of Canada review the recommendations of the 2003 report of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health (Naylor report) in light of the pH1N1 experience and develop a national action plan to address the persistent gaps. 7. That the Public Health Agency of Canada develop a focus on improving the interrelationship between primary care and public health to support collaboration during public health crises. 8. That the Public Health Network seek advanced pan-Canadian commitment to a harmonized and singular national response to clinical practice guidelines, including mass vaccination programs, during times of potential public health crisis.
Documents
Less detail

CMA statement on emerging therapies

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10352
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
26-08-2010
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
26-08-2010
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
CMA Statement on Emerging Therapies The CMA is keenly aware of the heart-rending suffering experienced by MS patients and the devastating impact it has on families and we recognize how desperately they are seeking treatments to alleviate their symptoms. Physicians and researchers dedicate their lives to finding new treatments to prevent and ease the suffering of patients while supporting those battling disease. Along with the physician's care and compassion, clinical research is a key weapon in the battle to manage and treat disease. The CMA believes that all medical decisions must be based upon scientific evidence. That is at the heart of our commitment to patient-centred care. 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-based. This principle is highly relevant in the case of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) recent recommendations. The CMA concurs with the CIHR's position on the need for an evidence-based approach to the development of clinical trials of the recently proposed condition called "chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency" (CCSVI). We would hope that the findings of the seven diagnostic studies that are underway will be shared and analyzed as soon as they become available, and that clinical intervention trials would be supported as indicated by the evidence and if researchers come forward with scientifically sound ethical protocols. If additional Canadian funding bodies initiate clinical research in the area, we would encourage CIHR to provide advice if requested.
Documents
Less detail

CMA Patient Safety Policy Framework (Update 2010)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9747
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-02-27
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-02-27
Replaces
CMA Patient Safety Policy Framework (2001)
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
CMA PATIENT SAFETY POLICY FRAMEWORK (Update 2010) BACKGROUND The CMA’s mission is to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians. This means, among other things, ensuring that the health care system is safe for patients and providers and effective in achieving good health outcomes for individuals and society. Unfortunately, studies published in recent years have raised concern that health care is not as safe as it could be; data collected by researchers in various countries has shown that there are unacceptably high levels of preventable adverse events, as high as 16% in one study of adverse events associated with hospital admissions. A study conducted by G. R. Baker, P.G. Norton et al, “The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada” showed an adverse event rate of 7.5 per 100 hospital admissions. (1) This suggests that of the nearly 2.5 million hospital admissions yearly in Canada, approximately 185,000 are associated with an adverse event and 70,000 of those possibly preventable. These studies have focused attention on health care error and adverse events, but patient safety requires that participants in the health care system are constantly aware of the risks present in the system, and that risks are addressed proactively - preferably before an adverse event occurs. If a preventable adverse event does occur, it provides an opportunity to learn about and correct sources of error. The CMA considers that a national patient safety strategy, aimed at building a culture of safety, is a priority. This Policy Framework has been developed to provide a clear statement of the CMA’s views on the principles that should underpin a patient safety strategy and to ensure clear support and direction for CMA members and staff involved in patient safety initiatives. PRINCIPLES The Health Care System Outcomes Errors and adverse events are inevitable in any complex system and more complex systems are more prone to errors. Nevertheless, studies have demonstrated an unacceptably high level of preventable adverse events associated with management of health care. 1. Patient safety initiatives should aim to improve health outcomes for patients by minimizing the rate of preventable adverse events and improving the management of events when they occur. Quality 2. Patient safety is one aspect of quality health care; activities relating to patient safety should result in a net increase in the quality of health care. Systemic factors 3. Patient safety initiatives should recognize that error and adverse events occur because of qualities of the system within which individuals operate. A primary concern of initiatives should be to prevent future errors by addressing the system rather than blaming and punishing individuals. Accountability The Canadian public has a reasonable expectation that health care will not result in avoidable injury. 4. Patient safety initiatives should support the accountability of the health sector, including providers, funders and regulators, to patients and the wider public for the safety of health care. Participants in Health Care Patients as partners 5. Patient safety initiatives should promote the role of patients as partners in the provision of safe care, including the prevention and management of adverse events. 6. Patient safety initiatives should encourage and anticipate the full and appropriate disclosure to patients of relevant information that is material to their health and healthcare, including information about adverse events or effects. Professional responsibility and support With a very few exceptions, health care is delivered by competent, caring professionals who are striving to achieve a good outcome for patients. 7. Patient safety initiatives should recognize the responsibility of professionals for achieving and maintaining the standard of their own practice. 8. Patient safety initiatives, while responding appropriately to adverse events, should be sensitive to the professional role and personal well being of individual physicians and other health care providers. Learning and Collaboration 9. Patient safety initiatives should promote and reflect teamwork, communication and collaboration at all levels. 10. Patient safety initiatives should support learning from one’s own experience and the sharing of knowledge so that it is possible to learn from the experience of others. Legal and Regulatory Environment 11. Patient Safety initiatives should promote a legal and regulatory environment that supports open communication and effective management of adverse events. 12. The protection afforded to the opinions expressed within quality assurance committees must be upheld Evidence Base and Evaluation Patient safety initiatives should be based on sound evidence. Patient safety initiatives should contain provision for appropriate evaluation. Patient safety initiatives should contain provision for broad dissemination of findings. PATIENT SAFETY INITIATIVE AREAS Building a culture of safety in Canadian health care will require the collaboration of many different groups and organizations. The CMA can play a leadership role within this larger group and within its own constituency of over 70,000 physicians. In some instances, it will be the CMA’s role to advocate for initiatives that can be delivered only by another provider or through a consortium; in other instances, CMA can assume sole responsibility for taking action. The CMA has identified that, as priorities, it will support: Advocacy for changes to legislation and regulation that would remove disincentives for health care providers to share information about adverse events. Raising awareness of patient safety and changing attitudes towards risk, error and adverse events within the health care community. Developing and providing resources such as clinical practice guidelines and information technology systems that have been shown to standardize practice and reduce adverse events. Reporting systems that collect and aggregate data on risks so that good practices can be developed and shared. Education and training for health care professionals and managers to provide them with the conceptual and practical tools to introduce change into their practice and organizations. Advocacy for, and development of, an agenda for patient safety research in Canada. The involvement of government at all levels in supporting and committing resources to initiatives for improved patient safety. GLOSSARY Adverse event – any unintended injury or complication that is caused by health care management rather than the patient’s disease and that leads to prolonged hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Adverse events do not necessarily result from error, for example a toxic reaction to a drug in a patient without apparent risk factors for the reaction. Error – the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (“error of execution”) or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (“error of planning”). An error may not result in an adverse event if the error does not result in harm or is intercepted. Risk – the chance of injury or loss as defined as a measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to health, property, the environment or other things of value. (1) G. Ross Baker, Peter G. Norton, Virginia Flintoft, Régis Blais, Adalsteinn Brown, Jafna Cox, Ed Etchells, William A. Ghali, Philip Hébert, Sumit R. Majumdar, Maeve O'Beirne, Luz Palacios-Derflingher, Robert J. Reid, Sam Sheps, and Robyn Tamblyn. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 2004; 170: 1678 - 1686.
Documents
Less detail

Climate Change and Human Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9809
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-06-09
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-06-09
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Climate Change and Human Health Background Climate change is increasingly recognized as a significant threat facing society and has the potential to be one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st Century1. While the damage is being done now, many of the health effects may arise only decades in the future2. Possible impacts could include some or all of the following: * Increased mortality, disease and injuries from heat waves and other extreme weather events; * Continued change in the range of some infectious disease vectors (i.e. 260-320 million more cases of malaria predicted by 2080, with six billion more at risk for dengue fever); * Effects on food yields- increased malnutrition; * Increased flooding in some areas and increased droughts in others, along with other impacts on freshwater supply; * Increases in foodborne and waterborne illnesses; * Warming and rising sea levels adding to displacement and also impacting water supply through salination; * Impaired functioning of ecosystems; * Negative effects on air quality associated with ground level ozone, including increases in cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality, asthma, and allergens; * Displacement of vulnerable populations (especially in coastal areas)1; and * Loss of livelihoods3. Most of the impacts of climate change will result from amplifying the existing health hazards found in populations4. How susceptible a population is to the effects of climate change is dependent on their existing vulnerabilities (i.e. disease burden, resources etc.) as well as their adaptive capacity5. The World Health Organization has projected that countries that have, and will likely continue to suffer the greatest effects, are those who have contributed the smallest amount to the causes of climate change.6 While the vast majority of climate change deaths will occur in developing countries with systemic vulnerabilities, a recent Health Canada report has noted that Canada is likely to experience higher rates of warming in this century than most other countries in the world. Climate change scenarios predict an increased risk of extreme weather and other climate events for all regions of Canada, with the exception of extreme cold7. Canadians most vulnerable to climate change include seniors, children and infants, socially disadvantaged individuals, and those with pre-existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease8. Those living in cities could be especially vulnerable due to the impact of the heat island effect. However, given their greater access to emergency, health, social, and financial resources, they might also have the greatest adaptive capacity9. The health consequences of climate change have the potential to be more severe in far northern regions. Populations in Canada's north including aboriginals have already begun to see differences in their hunting practices as a result of changing ice patterns10, and the melting of permanent snowpacks11. Changes in ice patterns have also led to increased injuries12. In some places in the North, climate changes have led to greater risks from avalanches, landslides and other hazards13. Further problems are related to the infrastructure in Northern Canada, with some communities already noticing degradation of structures due to the thawing of the permafrost14. Given that much of the Northern infrastructure is already in disrepair, this represents a considerable problem. Geographic isolation, and a lack of resources may further exacerbate the situation15. What CMA has done? Physicians have a critical role to play in advancing public understanding of the potential impact of climate change on health and promoting health protecting responses. The CMA has been working on the issue of climate change and human health for a number of years. CMA was supportive of Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and urged the Government of Canada to commit to choosing a climate change strategy that satisfied Canada's international commitments while also maximizing the clean air co-benefits and smog-reduction potential of any greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. In 2007, a number of resolutions were passed at General Council calling on government to properly plan for the health impacts of climate change and put in place measures to mitigate the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations in Canada's north. In that same year, CMA and the Canadian Nurses Association updated a joint position statement first entered into in 1994 calling for environmentally responsible activity in the health-care sector. Most recently, the CMA has been an integral part of the drafting of the World Medical Association (WMA) policies on health and climate change. The WMA Declaration of Delhi on Health and Climate Change was adopted at its annual General Assembly in New Delhi, India in October 2009, The declaration calls for action in five main areas; advocacy to combat global warming; leadership-help people be healthy enough to adapt to climate change; education and capacity building; surveillance and research; and collaboration to prepare for climate emergencies. This policy is written to complement the WMA declaration. What needs to be done? Climate change may lead to significant impacts on human health. While it is unlikely that these outcomes can be avoided, there are some strategies that can be employed to help limit the negative consequences. Education and Capacity Building There is a need for greater public and health professional awareness and education about climate change in order to gain understanding of the health consequences and support for strategies to reduce green house gases and mitigate climate change effects. CMA recommends: 1. A national public awareness program on the importance of the environment and global climate change to personal health; 2. Encouraging health sciences schools to enhance their provision of educational programs on environmental health; and fostering the development of continuing education modules on environmental health and environmental health practices. Surveillance and Research There are important gaps in our knowledge on the health impacts of climate change as well as the effectiveness of various mitigation and adaptation strategies. Surveillance and reporting functions need to be strengthened to allow for greater accuracy in modeling of future impacts. CMA recommends: 3. That the federal government must address the gaps in research regarding climate change and health by undertaking studies to - quantify and model the burden of disease that will be caused by global climate change - identify the most vulnerable populations, the particular health impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations, and possible new protections for such populations; - increase the collection and accuracy of health data, particularly for vulnerable and underserved populations; - report diseases that emerge in conjunction with global climate change, and participate in field investigations, as with outbreaks of infectious diseases; and - develop and expand surveillance systems to include diseases caused by global climate change. Reducing the Burden of Disease to Mitigate Climate Change Impacts How susceptible a population is to the effects of climate change is dependent on their existing vulnerabilities. Therefore, work needs to be done to reduce the burden of diseases and improve upon the social determinants of health for vulnerable populations in Canada and globally. CMA recommends: 4. That the federal and provincial/territorial governments work together to improve the ability of the public to adapt to climate change and catastrophic weather events by - Encouraging behaviours that improve overall health, - Creating targeted programs designed to address specific exposures, - Providing health promotion information and education on self-management of the symptoms of climate-associated illness, - Ensuring physical infrastructure that allows for adaptation; 5. That the federal government develop concrete actions to reduce the health impact of climate-related emissions, in particular those initiatives which will also improve the general health of the population; 6. That the federal government support the Millennium Development Goals and support the principles outlined in the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health report; and Preparing for Climate Emergencies To deal with the future burden of climate change related health issues there is a need to ensure adequate health capacity and infrastructure. Rebuilding of public health capacity globally is seen as the most important, cost-effective, and urgently needed response to climate change16. Domestically, there is a need to ensure adequate surge capacity within the health care system to be prepared for an increase in illness related to climate change effects. There is also a need to strengthen not only the health systems, but the infrastructure (i.e. housing) for vulnerable populations including Aboriginals and those in the North. CMA recommends that the federal and provincial /territorial governments work together to: 7. Strengthen the public health system both domestically and internationally in order to improve the capacity of communities to adapt to climate change; 8. Ensure adequate surge capacity within Canada's health system to handle the increase in climate change related illness; 9. Ensure the health of vulnerable populations is adequate to handle climate change related situations; 10. Develop knowledge about the best ways to adapt to and mitigate the health effects of climate change; 11. Integrate health professionals into the emergency preparedness plans of government and public health authorities so that front-line providers are adequately informed and prepared to properly manage any health emergencies. Advocacy to Combat Climate Change Finally, there is a need to take action to reduce the damaging effects of climate change. The global community needs to come together to reduce the levels of green house gases being released in the atmosphere, and focus on safer more environmentally friendly energy sources. Investments in cuts to greenhouse gas emissions would greatly outweigh their costs, and could help to reduce the future burden of climate change related illness17. CMA recommends: 12. That the government of Canada become a global leader in promoting equitable, carbon neutral economic, industrial, and social policies, and practices that fight global warming and adopt specific green house gas reduction targets as determined by the evolving science of climate change. 13. That health care professionals act within their professional settings to reduce the environmental impact of medical activities and to develop environmentally sustainable professional settings; 14. That all Canadians act to minimize individual impacts on the environment, and encourage others to do so, as well. Conclusions The CMA believes that Canada must prepare now for the potential health threat that climate change poses to its population. While many of these effects will take decades to materialize, certain populations, such as those in Canada's north, or those in low lying coastal areas, are already starting to experience the impact of climate change. A focus on education and health promotion, as well as advocacy for improved public policy and primary health care resources will be a good start in dealing with this issue. Additionally, further research and data collection is necessary to improve our understanding of climate change and the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies. Finally, the global community needs to act together to address the health and environmental impacts of climate change. By working together, in an international response, strategies can be implemented to mitigate any negative health effects of climate change. Canada's physicians believe that: What is good for the environment is also good for human health. It is past time for those of us in the health sector in Canada to engage fully in the debate and discussions within our own house, as well as in the broader body politic to ensure that protecting human health is the bottom line of environmental and climate change strategies. Bibliography 1 Currently a third of the world's population lives within 60 miles of the shoreline and 13 of 20 biggest world cities located on the coast- more than a billion people could be displaced (Costello et.al., 2009) 1 Costello, Anthony et.al. "Managing the health effects of climate change.' The Lancet Volume 373 May 16, 2009. pp.1693-1733. 2 World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization & United Nations Environment Programme (2003) Climate Change and Human Health- Risks and Responses, Summary. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/ccSCREEN.pdf 3 Confalonieri et.al., (2007) Human Health. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter8.pdf ; Epstein, Paul R. "Climate Change and Human Health." The New England Journal of Medicine 353 (14) October 6, 2005.; Friel, Sharon; Marmot, Michael; McMichael, Anthony J.; Kjellstrom, Tord & Denny Vagero. "Global health equity and climate stabilization: a common agenda." The Lancet Volume 372 November 8, 2008. pp.1677-1683. 4Confalonieri et.al., (2007) Human Health. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter8.pdf; World Health Organization (2009) Protecting Health From Climate Change: Global research priorities. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241598187_eng.pdf 5 Health Canada (2001) Climate Change and Health & Well-being: A Policy Primer Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/climat/policy_primer-abecedaire_en_matiere/index-eng.php 6 Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid; Corvalan, Carlos & Maria Neira "Global climate change: implications for international public health policy." Bulletin of the World Health Organization. March 2007, 85 (3) pp.235-237 7 Seguin, Jacinthe & Peter Berry (2008) "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity, Synthesis Report." Health Canada Available at: http://www.nbhub.org/hubfiles/pdf/HealthinChangingClimate_Synthesis_english_low.pdf 8 Health Canada (2002) Climate Change And Health & Well-Being: A Policy Primer for Canada's North. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-02-290E.pdf 9 Seguin, Jacinthe & Peter Berry (2008) "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity, Synthesis Report." Health Canada Available at: http://www.nbhub.org/hubfiles/pdf/HealthinChangingClimate_Synthesis_english_low.pdf 10 Ibid 11 Health Canada (2002) Climate Change And Health & Well-Being: A Policy Primer for Canada's North. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-02-290E.pdf 12 Epstein, Paul R. "Climate Change and Human Health." The New England Journal of Medicine 353 (14) October 6, 2005. 13 Seguin, Jacinthe & Peter Berry (2008) "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity, Synthesis Report." Health Canada Available at: http://www.nbhub.org/hubfiles/pdf/HealthinChangingClimate_Synthesis_english_low.pdf 14 Field, Christopher B. et.al. (2007) North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf 15 Health Canada (2002) Climate Change And Health & Well-Being: A Policy Primer for Canada's North. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-02-290E.pdf 16 World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization & United Nations Environment Programme (2003) Climate Change and Human Health- Risks and Responses, Summary. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/ccSCREEN.pdf 17 Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid; Corvalan, Carlos & Maria Neira "Global climate change: implications for international public health policy." Bulletin of the World Health Organization. March 2007, 85 (3) pp.235-237
Documents
Less detail

Patient-focused funding

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9843
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC10-11
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations and governments to ensure that patient-focused funding initiatives are based on data that are scientifically valid, accurate and publicly available.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC10-11
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations and governments to ensure that patient-focused funding initiatives are based on data that are scientifically valid, accurate and publicly available.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations and governments to ensure that patient-focused funding initiatives are based on data that are scientifically valid, accurate and publicly available.
Less detail

Collaborative development of patient-focused funding initiatives

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9844
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC10-12
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations to ensure meaningful consultations by governments with physicians who are accountable to the medical profession in the collaborative development of patient-focused funding initiatives.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC10-12
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations to ensure meaningful consultations by governments with physicians who are accountable to the medical profession in the collaborative development of patient-focused funding initiatives.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations to ensure meaningful consultations by governments with physicians who are accountable to the medical profession in the collaborative development of patient-focused funding initiatives.
Less detail

71 records – page 1 of 4.