Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


16 records – page 1 of 2.

CMA Letter to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9110
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-02-19
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-02-19
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes the opportunity to provide comments to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs concerning its study of Bill C-2 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts). We will confine our comments to the portion of the proposed legislation that relates to impaired driving. Canada's physicians support measures aimed at reducing the incidence of drug-impaired driving. We believe impaired driving, whether by alcohol or another drug, to be an important public health issue for Canadians that requires action by all governments and other concerned groups. Published reports indicate that the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis is on the rise in Canada. We note that: * Results from the Canadian Addictions Survey suggest that 4% of the population have driven under the influence of cannabis in the past year, an increase from the 1.5% in 2003 and that rates are higher among young people.1 * It was estimated that in 2003, 27.45% of traffic fatalities involved alcohol, 9.15% involved alcohol and drugs, and 3.66% involved drugs alone while 13.71% of crash injuries involved only alcohol, 4.57% involved alcohol and drugs, and 1.83% involved drugs alone.2 * In a 2002 survey, 17.7% of drivers reported driving within 2 hours of using a prescribed medication, over-the-counter remedy, marijuana, or other illicit drug during the past 12 months. * These results suggest that an estimated 3.7 million Canadians drove after taking some medication or drug that could potentially affect their ability to drive safely. * The most common drugs used were over-the-counter medications (15.9%), prescription drugs (2.3%), marijuana (1.5%), and other illegal drugs (0.9%). * Young males were most likely to report using marijuana and other illegal drugs. * While 86% of the drivers were aware that a conviction for impaired driving results in a criminal record, 66% erroneously believed that the penalties for drug-impaired driving were less severe than those for alcohol-impaired driving. In fact, the penalties are identical. * Over 80% of drivers agreed that drivers suspected of being under the influence of drugs should be required to participate in physical coordination testing for drug impairment. However, only about 70% of drivers agreed that all drivers involved in a serious collision or suspected of drug impairment should be required to provide a blood sample.3 The CMA has, on several occasions, provided detailed recommendations on legislative changes concerning impaired driving. In 1999, the CMA presented a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its review of the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code. While our 1999 brief focused primarily on driving under the influence of alcohol, many of the recommendations are also relevant to the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. In June 2007, the CMA provided comments to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Commons during their study of Bill C-32 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts) which was later incorporated in the omnibus Bill now before your Committee. Last year, the CMA published the 7th edition of its guide, Determining Medical Fitness to Operate Motor Vehicles. It includes chapters on the importance of screening for alcohol or drug dependency and states that the abuse of such substances is incompatible with the safe operation of a vehicle. This publication is widely viewed by clinical and medical-legal practitioners as the authoritative Canadian source on the topic of driver competence. While changing the Criminal Code is an important step, the CMA believes further actions are also warranted. In our 2002 presentation to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, the CMA put forth our long standing position regarding the need for a comprehensive long-term effort that incorporates both deterrent legislation and public awareness and education campaigns. We believe such an approach, together with comprehensive treatment and cessation programs, constitutes the most effective policy in attempting to reduce the number of lives lost and injuries suffered in crashes involving impaired drivers. Drug-impaired drivers may be occasional users of drugs or they may also suffer from substance dependence, a well-recognized form of disease. Physicians should be assisted to screen for drug dependency, when indicated, using validated instruments. Government must create and fund appropriate assessment and treatment interventions. Physicians can assist in establishing programs in the community aimed at the recognition of the early signs of dependency. These programs should recognize the chronic, relapsing nature of drug addiction as a disease, as opposed to simply viewing it as criminal behaviour. While supporting the intent of the proposed legislation, the CMA urges caution on several significant issues, with regard to Clause 20 that amends the act as follows: 254.1 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting the qualifications and training of evaluating officers; (b) prescribing the physical coordination tests to be conducted under paragraph 254(2)(a); and (c) prescribing the tests to be conducted and procedures to be followed during an evaluation under subsection 254(3.1). CMA contends that it is important that medical professionals and addiction medicine specialists in particular, should be consulted regarding the training offered to officers to conduct roadside assessment and sample collection. Provisions in the Act conferring upon police the power to compel roadside examination raises the important issue of security of the person and the privacy of health information. As well, information obtained at the roadside is personal medical information and regulations must ensure that it be treated with the same degree of confidentiality as any other element of an individual's medical record. Thus, the CMA would respectfully submit that Clause 25 of Bill-C2 on the issue of unauthorized use or disclosure of the results needs to be strengthened because the wording is too broad, unduly infringes privacy and shows insufficient respect for the health information privacy interests at stake. For instance, clause 25(2) would permit the use, or allow the disclosure of the results "for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the law of a province". This latter phrase needs to be narrowed in its scope so that it would not, on its face, encompass such a broad category of laws. Moreover, clause 25(4) would allow the disclosure of the results "to any other person, if the results are made anonymous and the disclosure is made for statistical or other research purposes" CMA would expect the federal government to exercise great caution in this instance, particularly since the results could concern individuals who are not actually convicted of an offence. One should query whether the Clause 25(4) should even exist in a Criminal Code as it would not appear to be a matter required to be addressed. If it is, then CMA would ask the government to conduct a rigorous privacy impact assessment on these components of the Bill, studying in particular, such matters as sample size, degree of anonymity, and other privacy related issues, especially given the highly sensitive nature of the material. CMA would ask whether clause 25(5) should specify that the offence for improper use or disclosure should be more serious than a summary conviction. Finally, it is important to base any roadside testing methods and threshold decisions on robust biological and clinical research. CMA also notes with interest Clause 21, specifically the creation of a new offence of being "over 80" (referring to 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, or a .08 blood alcohol concentration level or BAC) and causing an accident that results in bodily harm which will carry a maximum sentence of 10 years and life imprisonment for causing an accident resulting in death. (Clause 21) We would also urge the Committee to take the opportunity that the review of this proposed legislation provides to recommend to Parliament a lower BAC level. 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 Canada.4 A lower limit would recognize the significant detrimental effects on driving-related skills that occur below the current legal BAC.5 In our 1999 response to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' issue paper on impaired driving6 and again in 2002 when we joined forces with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), CMA has consistently called for the federal government to reduce Canada's legal BAC to .05. Canada continues to lag behind countries such as Austria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany, which have set a lower legal limit. 7 CMA expressed the opinion that injuries and deaths resulting from impaired driving must be recognized as a major public health concern. Therefore we once again recommend lowering the legal BAC limit to 50 mg%. or .05%. We also wanted to note our support for Clause 23 which addresses the issue of liability by extending the existing umbrella of immunity for qualified medical practitioners to the new provision under 254(3.4) 23. Subsection 257(2) of the Act is replaced by the following: (2) No qualified medical practitioner by whom or under whose direction a sample of blood is taken from a person under subsection 254(3) or (3.4) or section 256, and no qualified technician acting under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner, incurs any criminal or civil liability for anything necessarily done with reasonable care and skill when taking the sample. Finally, CMA believes that comprehensive long-term efforts that incorporate deterrent legislation, such as Bill C-2, must be accompanied by a public awareness and education strategy. This constitutes the most effective long-term approach to reducing the number of lives lost and injuries suffered in crashes involving impaired drivers. The CMA supports this multidimensional approach to the issue of the operation of a motor vehicle regardless of whether impairment is caused by alcohol or drugs. Again, the CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the legislative proposal on drug-impaired driving. We stress that these legislative changes alone would not adequately address the issue of reducing injuries and fatalities due to drug-impaired driving, but support their intent as a partial, but important measure. Yours sincerely, Brian Day, MD President 1 Bedard, M, Dubois S, Weaver, B. The impact of cannabis on driving, Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol 98, 6-11, 2006 2 G. Mercer, Estimating the Presence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment in Traffic Crashes and their Costs to Canadians: 1999 to 2003 (Vancouver: Applied Research and Evaluation Services, 2005). 3 D. Beirness, H. Simpson and K. Desmond, The Road Safety Monitor 2002: Drugs and Driving (Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2003). Online: www.trafficinjuryResearch.com/whatNew/newsItemPDFs/RSM_02_Drugs_and_ Driving.pdf 4 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. 5 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 6 Proposed Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada (Impaired Driving): Response to Issue Paper of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. March 5, 1999 7 Mann et al
Documents
Less detail

CMA Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health : Statutory review of the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9135
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-05-27
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-05-27
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The CMA appreciates the opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Health today. My presentation will focus on: 1. Wait Times 2. Health Human Resources; and 3. Patient Focused Care Wait Times In regard to the issue of wait times, I would echo the two main points of my colleagues from the Wait Time Alliance: * First, while progress is being made on wait times, that progress is limited and not consistent across the country; and second, * Health workforce and infrastructure capacity shortages remain the primary barriers to effectively addressing wait times. Wait times don't only exact a heavy human toll - they also carry severe economic costs. A CMA-commissioned report released earlier this year found that the economic cost of having patients wait longer than medically recommended was $14.8 billion in 2007. That stunning total was for just four of the five procedures identified as priorities in the 10-year plan - joint replacement, diagnostic imagining and cataract and bypass surgery - and it was only for one year. Over a million Canadians continue to suffer on wait lists because of deficiencies in our system. This is unacceptable. We need to "break the back" of wait times for the sake of our patients and for the economic health of Canada. This will require: * More federal leadership, not less; * A revolutionary change in the "focus" of our health care system; and * Substantial investments. Health Human Resources The 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care acknowledged the need to increase the supply of health care professionals in Canada. However, not enough progress has been made. Canada is 26,000 doctors short of the average of developed countries, and we now rank a lowly 24th among OECD countries in doctors per population. A poll released today by the CMA found that Canada's doctor shortage ranked second only to the economy as a top public issue. In this same poll, 91% of Canadians say having a plan to address the doctor shortage will influence their vote in the next federal election. Federal political parties who ignore this issue in the next election could pay a price at the polls. In the 10-year plan to strengthen health care, $1-billion was set aside for the last four years (2010-2014) of the agreement. We can't afford to wait that long. This funding should be immediately fast-tracked to focus on the three priority areas in the CMA's "More Doctors. More Care" Campaign: * One, expanding health professional education and training capacity; * Two, ensuring self sufficiency in health human resources by investing in long-term health human resource planning; and. * Three, investing in health information technology to make our health care system more responsive and efficient. In terms of IT, we should be ashamed that we only spend a third of the OECD average on IT in our hospitals. Canada's poor record in avoidable adverse effects is, in part, due to our system's inability to share available information in a timely manner. Patient Focused Care Many countries have systems that provide universal care, have no wait lists and cost the same or less to run as our system does. Wait lists can and must be eliminated in Canada. The momentum to do just that depends simply on making the system work for patients, not on forcing patients to work the system. We must reposition patients to the centre of our health-care system, which requires that we move beyond block funding or global budgets for health institutions. We need a system where funds follow the patient - patient-focused funding. Block funding blocks access. Patient-focused funding will increase productivity, lead to greater efficiencies and reduce wait lists. A patient will become a value to an institution, not a cost. Canada remains the last country in the developed world to fund hospitals with block funding. In England, patient-focused funding helped eliminate wait lists in less than four years. Conclusion So, my question to the Committee is why do we wait? Why do we continue to keep patients on wait lists when research shows it costs a lot less to cut wait times then it does to have them? Why do we not make the necessary reforms and investments to provide Canadians with timely access to quality care? Thank you.
Documents
Less detail

CMA's letter to Mr. James Rajotte, MP Chair, Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology: Review of the service sector in Canada

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9114
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-02-23
Topics
Health human resources
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-02-23
Topics
Health human resources
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
On behalf of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide the following information to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology during its review of the service sector in Canada. The committee's study of the strengths and challenges facing this sector, overall employment percentage, overall average of salaries across the sector its impact on Canada's overall economy and the role of the Government of Canada in strengthening this sector comes at an opportune time. CANADA'S HEALTH SERVICES SECTOR Canada's health services sector is facing a critical shortage of physicians and other health care professionals and the CMA and our over 67,000 physician members are pleased to have the opportunity to present practical solutions within the jurisdiction of the federal government - working collaboratively with provincial/territorial governments and other health system stakeholders. Health care delivery in Canada is a $160 billion industry, representing over 10% of our country's gross domestic product (GDP).1 The 30,120 physicians' offices across Canada make important contributions to our economy. In 2003, the latest year for which data are available, offices of physicians employed 142,000 Canadians and contributed $11.6 billion to the Canadian economy.2 This represents almost 39 per cent of all Health Service Delivery establishments, and almost 11% of all HSD employees. As a standard measure of economic productivity, physician offices report the highest levels of GDP per employee within the Health Service Delivery sector. On this measure, they are approximately twice as productive as other components of Health Service Delivery. THE CHALLENGE There are simply not enough physicians to continue providing the quality health care that Canadians expect and deserve. Here are the facts: - Almost 5 million Canadians do not have access to a family physician; - By 2018 an additional 4.5 million Canadians could be without a doctor; - Canada ranks 24th in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations in terms of physicians-per-population ratio. Canada would need 26,000 more doctors right now to meet the OECD average; - Canada spends only a third of the OECD average on information technology (IT) and diagnostic equipment in our hospitals; and - Canada has the highest hospital occupancy rate of all OECD countries and among the highest waits for access to specialty care services. The lack of physicians and other health care providers has resulted in restricted access to health care services and the growth of wait times for necessary medical procedures. In January 2008, CMA released new research by the Centre for Spatial Economics that proved that, in addition to the human health cost, waiting for care results in dramatic and excessive costs to our economy. Researchers addressed just four priority areas targeted in the 2004 First Ministers Health Accord. They used government and other data to determine how many Canadians were waiting longer than the maximum medical consensus established by the Wait Time Alliance. Selected for analysis were: joint replacement, cataract surgery, heart bypass grafts, and MRI scans. Costs, as calculated for all provinces varied from $2,900 to over $26,000 per patient. The cumulative cost of waiting in 2007, for treatment in just 4 areas, was $14.8 billion. This reduced economic activity lowered government revenues in 2007 by $4.4 billion. That is equivalent to over 1/3rd of the total Ontario health budget. The reduction in economic activity included the impact of the patient's inability to work while waiting, and direct losses from decreased production of goods and services, reduced income, and lowered discretionary spending. It is important to note that the figure of 14.8 billion dollars is based only on patients that exceed designated maximum waiting times in just 4 clinical areas. In the example of hip replacements, the research only factored in costs for waits that exceed 6 months. Of those waiting longer than the maximum recommended time, average waits were 1 year for hip and knee replacement surgery, 7 months for cataract surgery, and twice maximum for heart bypass surgery. Those who didn't make the MRI target waited an average of 12 weeks. Reduced economic activity included informal caregiver costs. These costs are generated when caregivers reduce work hours to care for family members on wait lists, or attend appointments with family members. Patients languishing on wait lists also incur additional costs for drug and other treatments that timely care would eliminate. Estimates in this study are extremely conservative. They address only the wait time to treatment after a specialist's consultation and recommendation. And exclude the growing, and significant costs of waiting to see the GP or specialist. They do not include anyone who is not working. They do not include the costs, short and long term, of the deterioration that occurs while waiting. THE SOLUTIONS To solve Canada's doctor shortage, the CMA believes governments must: - Adopt a long-term policy of self-sufficiency to provide Canadians with the health care professionals they need when and where they need them; - Establish a dedicated health human resource renewal fund to educate, retain and enhance the lives of health care professionals; and - Invest in health technology, infrastructure and innovation to make our health care system more responsive and efficient. SELF-SUFFICIENCY Over the past decade, there have been increasing concerns that Canada is not producing an adequate number of health providers to meet the growing demand for health services - now and into the future. These concerns have been consistently registered by physicians, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, in addition to other groups that represent other providers and the institutional and heath facilities community. Furthermore, the policy challenges related to health human resources (HHR) have been identified in several seminal reports - including the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science & Technology, and the Health Council of Canada.3 A growing number of health providers are looking to retire over the next decade (or leave the health system all together) relative to the number of trainees who are entering the health system, and at a time where a growing number of Canadians will be turning to the health system for diagnosis and treatment. Over 6% of physicians who responded to the National Physician Survey 20074 said they plan to retire from clinical practice and 1% plan to permanently leave practice for other reasons in the next 2 years. The effect of these changes could mean that, as the baby boom generation gets older, over 4,000 physicians will cease their medical practice within the next 2 years, making it even more difficult for Canadians to find a family physician. At the same time, the HHR challenges facing Canada's health care system are not unique to our country - over the next decade all western developed countries can expect intensified global competition for talent when it comes to health providers.5 While there are, no doubt, other provider groups who are also concerned about the future supply of health providers, there is a growing national consensus that, in addition to the primary role that the provinces and territories play in supporting the training of health providers across the country, there is a significant, catalytic and strong complementary role for the federal government in the area of health human resources. CMA, like many health care organizations, is of the view that there is a legitimate role for the federal government to strengthen its working relationship with the provinces and territories, and health providers through the creation of a time-limited, issue-specific and strategically-targeted fund to accelerate training capacity in the health system. The World Medical Association's ethical guidelines for international recruitment of physicians16 (2003), fully supported by the CMA, recommend that every country "should do its utmost to educate an adequate number of physicians, taking into account its needs and resources. A country should not rely on immigration from other countries to meet its need for physicians."7 However, in reality Canada continues to rely heavily on recruitment of internationally educated health professionals. Approximately one-third of the increase in physician supply each year is due to International Medical Graduates (IMGs) who are either recruited directly to practice or who have taken significant postgraduate medical training in Canada. In nursing, the number of internationally educated nurses applying for licensure is increasing rapidly, almost tripling from 1999 to 2003. Previous recommendations of the CMA to the House of Commons included improved medium- to longer-term supply projection models; sufficient opportunities for Canadians to train for health professional careers in Canada; and integration of international graduates, who are permanent residents or citizens of Canada, into practice. The CMA recognizes that professionals are working in an increasingly global world in terms of the exchange of scientific information, mutual recognition of qualifications between countries and the movement of people. The greatest barrier to enhancing Canada's ability to become more self-sufficient, in terms of physician resources, is the capacity of our medical schools. Despite recent increases in enrolment, Canada continues to turn away approximately 3 equally qualified students for every 1 that is accepted into an undergraduate medical program. This has resulted in over 1500 Canadian students, with the financial means to do so, who are training in medical schools outside of Canada. INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GRADUATES In the larger context, Canada's current fertility rate is not sufficient to support self-sufficiency in general in relation to any professions. And, while self-sufficiency in the production of physicians is a desirable goal, it is also important to promote the international exchange of teaching and research, particularly in an increasingly global society. In this regard, IMGs should be considered as a planning component for a sustainable Canadian physician workforce. Historically IMGs have entered the practice of medicine through a variety of routes, which most typically include a recognized period of post-MD training in Canada. CMA's best estimate is that there are about 400 IMGs newly licensed to practice in Canada each year who have not completed postgraduate training in Canada. In addition, there are another 300 or so who are exiting Canadian postgraduate training programs and heading into practice. In fact, for the past few years, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has licensed more IMGs than new Ontario medical graduates. In recent years, there have been an increasing number of opportunities for IMGs already living in Canada to achieve the required credentials for licensure. The number of ministry-funded IMG postgraduate residents has more than tripled in the past seven years from 294 to 1065 trainees. In 2007, there were almost 1500 IMGs who were qualified to compete in the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) match. By the end of the second round, close to 300 had matched and about 60 were placed through other provincial programs. Recommendation The federal government should make a clear policy commitment to increasing self-sufficiency in the education and training of health professionals in Canada that would incorporate the following. - Short term - increase number of community preceptors to train Canadian graduates and assess internationally educated health professionals already living in Canada. Recognition of the time and value of community teaching is needed. - Medium term - support increased capacity for academic health science centres and other institutions that train health professionals. - Long term - creation of new academic health science centres to increase capacity for self-sufficiency. REPATRIATING CANADIAN DOCTORS WORKING ABROAD It is known that there are thousands of Canadian-trained health professionals practising in the United States and abroad. Between 1991 and 2004, almost 8,000 physicians left Canada (although some 4,000 returned for a net loss of 4,000).8 Of this number, roughly 80% went to the US.9 During the 1990s, approximately 27,000 nurses migrated from Canada to the US.1011 A more recent indicator of nursing outmigration is that in 2006, 943 Canadian-trained Registered Nurses and Licensed Practical Nurses wrote the US licensing board examination for the first time.12 Data for other health professional disciplines are not readily available. In 2007, with the assistance of the American Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) surveyed all (n=5,156) Canadian-trained physicians practicing in the US who were age 55 or under, with regard to the likelihood of their return to Canada and the importance of various factors that might be incentives to return. A 32% response rate was achieved with a single mailing with no follow-up - this is considered exceptionally high. While only 13% of respondents indicated that they were likely or very likely to return to Canada, a further 25% were neutral in their opinion. What is more telling is that more than one-half of respondents indicated that they would be willing to be contacted by CMA to explore practice opportunities and provided their contact information for this purpose. When asked about a range of potential incentives to return to Canada, 57% agreed that a relocation allowance would be somewhat or very important.13 It must be stressed, however, that it is clear from the results that a number of factors would need to be taken into consideration, such as practice opportunities. This would also be true of other disciplines; in the case of nursing, nurses will only come back for full-time jobs and healthy work environments.14 Nonetheless, expatriate Canadian medical graduates should be good candidates for recruitment on the basis of the greater likelihood that they will meet Canadian standards for full medical licensure, and it is expected that this would also apply to nursing and other disciplines. As well, significant progress has been made in restoring and adding capacity to our medical schools but, to achieve self-sufficiency, much more needs to be done. For example, we must try and repatriate Canadian medical students and doctors who are studying and working abroad. There are currently some 1500 Canadian medical students and residents training abroad, we must act now, before things get worse. During that past few years there have been efforts to enhance national coordination in the health human resources arena. One area of national focus has been the integration of International Medical Graduates, since extended to nursing and other disciplines. There have been several initiatives undertaken in this area such as the establishment of the Canadian Information Centre for International Medical Graduates15 which provides a clearinghouse of information and links to provincial/territorial jurisdictions. Relocation grants, from $10,000 up to $20,000 could be offered to Canadian-trained physicians practising in the US. It is suggested that advertising be concentrated in and around US cities where Canada maintains a consulate/office (in states with a significant concentration with recruitment candidates) and in major national and selected state health professional journals. The cost of a repatriation secretariat is estimated at $162,500 per year. Assuming that 1,500 health professionals are recruited back over the 3-year period, the total cost would range from $21.5 million to $36.5 million. This would further translate to a per recruit cost that ranges from $14,325 to $24,325. Even at the high end of the range this would be cost-effective as compared to the total cost of training a practice-entry level graduate of any licensed health professional discipline in Canada. Recommendation In light of the foregoing, the CMA has recommended that the federal government should establish a Health Professional Repatriation Program in the amount of $30 million over 3 years that would include the following: - secretariat within Health Canada that would include a clearinghouse function on issues associated with returning to Canada such as licensure, citizenship and taxation; - An advertising campaign in the US to encourage health professionals practicing south of the border to return home; and - A program of one-time relocation grants for health professionals returning to active practice in Canada. NATIONAL HEALTH HUMAN RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE FUND The implementation of Medicare in Canada in the 1960s required a major investment in the capacity to train more health professionals. The 1966 Health Resources Fund Act played a key role in enabling a significant expansion in training capacity across the provinces for a range of health professionals. Forty years later, Canada faces growing shortages across most health disciplines. Clearly another giant step up is required in the human and physical infrastructure needed to train health professionals if Canadians are to have timely access to care. During the years of fiscal famine of the 1990s, health professional enrolment was either reduced (e.g., 10% in the case of medicine) or flat-lined. While there have been increases since 2000, we are about to face the double impact of both an aging population as the first of the baby boomers reach 65 in 2011 and aging health professions. For example, more than 1 out of 3 physicians (35%) are aged 55 or older. As mentioned, as many as 4,000 physicians are expected to retire in the next 2 years. If we are going to have sufficient numbers of health providers to meet the needs of the next few decades, it is imperative to expand the human and physician infrastructure capacity of our health professional education and training system. The federal investments in health human resources over 2003-2005 of some $200 million have been welcome, but fall far short of what is needed. It is proposed that the federal government implement a National Health Human Resources Infrastructure Fund in the amount of $1 billion over 5 years that would be made available to the provinces/territories on an equal per capita basis, and awarded through a competitive process that would include federal/ provincial/territorial representation with consultation/engagement of health professional organizations. The fund would address the following elements: 1. The direct costs of training providers and developing leaders (e.g., cost of recruiting and supporting more community- based teachers/preceptors). 2. The indirect or infrastructure costs associated with the educational enterprise (e.g., physical plant [housekeeping, maintenance]; support for departments [information systems, library resources, occupational health, etc.]; education offices, and the materials and equipment necessary for clinical practice and practical training. 3. Resources that improve the country's overall data management capacity when it comes to health human resources, and in particular, facilitate the ability to model and forecast health human resource requirements in the face of the changing demand for health services. Clearly it would be necessary to develop guidelines around the types of expenditures that would be eligible as was done for the 1966 Health Resources Fund, and more recently for the Medical Equipment Fund II. CMA Recommendation The federal government should establish a National Health Human Resources Fund in the amount of $1 billion over 5 years to expand health professional education and training capacity by providing funding to support the: - direct costs of training providers - indirect or infrastructure costs associated with the educational enterprise - resources that improve Canada's data collection and management capacity in the area of health human resources. HEALTH INNOVATION More than 85% of the health care delivered in Canada occurs within the community. This is the most under-invested segment of the health care delivery system in terms of information technology. Dr. Brian Postl in his June 2006 wait-time report16 to the federal government noted health information technology is essential in improving wait times. He quantified the investment needed at $2.4 billion with the largest portion of this investment ($1.9 billion) targeted to automating physician offices, which are located at the front line of care in community settings and are key to managing and resolving the wait time issue in Canada. Why invest in physician office automation? Because it will lead to improved productivity from the provider community through more efficient resource usage and through improved coordination in the delivery of care; it will enable labour mobility of health care workers through portability of records; it will support the wait time agenda by improving the flow of timely information; it will build an electronic infrastructure platform to enhance patient care and health research and will provide a direct financing vehicle for the federal government to influence and shape the health care sector. The federal government has made similar types of infrastructure investment. The CFI Program was established to fund research infrastructure, which consists of the state-of-the-art equipment, buildings, laboratories and databases required to conduct research. Investing in EMR infrastructure will lead to the creation of state of the art clinical environments across Canada, electronic data base of health information and the foundational underpinnings of a health information network to support enhanced population health and health research. Under this scenario the federal contribution would provide a direct benefit to physicians without any need for provincial or territorial involvement. Second, the federal government could use existing government machinery to manage the program. Third, the federal contribution to infrastructure would only flow after a physician has introduced an EMR into his/her clinic ensuring that the funding is directly tied to building the EMR infrastructure platform. The recent National Physician Survey notes that some progress is being made across the country to automate community clinics. However without incentives the adoption trend will be incremental and extend over a further 20-year time frame. Financial incentives can shorten the timelines since it addresses one of the main adoption barriers physicians identify.17 Diffusion theory18 of new technologies into any sector of the economy demonstrates that without appropriate incentives it will take approximately 25 years the technology to reach the saturation point of integration. It is estimated that a financial incentive can shorten this timeline by 15 years. Recommendation The federal government, over a 5-year time frame, should provide a full tax credit to any physician who takes the steps to automate his or her clinical office. The tax credit would only apply to 1-time costs to establish a state of the art clinical environment. It is estimated, on average, 1-time costs would be $22,000. Total costs of the program if fully subscribed would amount to $880 million. CONCLUSION The health services sector makes significant contributions to the Canadian economy, both in terms of direct stimulus and by keeping Canadians healthy and productive. However, Canada's health services sector is facing a critical shortage of physicians and other health care professionals. By: - Adopting a long-term policy of self-sufficiency to provide Canadians with the health care professionals they need when and where they need them; - Establishing a dedicated health human resource renewal fund to educate, retain and enhance the lives of health care professionals; - Investing in health technology, infrastructure and innovation to make our health care system more responsive and efficient; the federal government, in partnership with provincial/territorial governments and other health system stakeholders can strengthen this sector. A strong health services sector means healthy Canadians and a vibrant Canadian economy. Again, on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association, Canada's doctors appreciate the opportunity to provide information to the Committee. Sincerely, Brian Day, MD President, Canadian Medical Association 1 National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975-2007. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2007 2 Source: Business Register (STC 2003) and TIM (Informetrica Limited) 3 The Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, November 2002. Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science & Technology, October 2002. The Health Council of Canada "Modernizing the Management of Health Human Resources in Canada: Identifying Areas for Accelerated Change: November 2005. 4 The National Physician Survey is a major ongoing research project conducted by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, Canadian Medical Association and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada that gathers the opinions of all physicians, 2nd year medical residents and medical students from across the country. It is the largest census survey of its kind and is an important barometer of where the country's present and future doctors are on a wide range of critical issues. 5 The Economist, The Battle for BrainPower - A Survey of Talent, October 7, 2006. 7 World Medical Association. The World Medical Association Statement on Ethical Guidelines for the International Recruitment of Physicians. Geneva: The World Medical Association; 2003. Available: www.wma.net/e/policy/e14.htm 8 Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 10 Zaho J, Drew D, Murray T. Barin drain and brain gain: the migration of knowledge workers from and to Canada. Education Quarterly Review 2000;6(3):8-35. 12 Little L, Canadian Nurses Association, personal communication, January 8, 2008. 13 Buske L. Analysis of the survey of Canadian graduates practicing in the United States. October 2007. http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Policy_Advocacy/Policy_Research/US_survey_ver_4.pdf. Accessed 02/04/08. 14 Little L, Canadian Nurses Association, personal communication, January 28, 2008. 15 www.img-canada.ca 16 Postl, B. Final Report of the Federal Advisor on Wait Times. Ottawa: Minister of Health Canada, Health Council of Canada; 2005. 17 Canadian Medical Association/Canada Infoway. Physician Technology Usage and Attitudes Survey. Ottawa: CMA/CanadaInfoway; 2005. Available: www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/49044/la_id/1.htm (accessed 8 Jan 2008). 18 Bower, Anthony. The Diffusion and Value of Healthcare Information Technology. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 2005
Documents
Less detail

Disability Tax Credit Program : CMA Submission to the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities (House of Commons)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1972
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2002-01-29
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2002-01-29
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes the opportunity to appear before the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities to discuss issues related to the Disability Tax Credit (DTC). This tax measure, which is recognition by the federal government that persons with a severe disability may be affected by having reduced incomes, increased expenses or both, compared to those who are not disabled i, helps to account for the intangible costs associated with a severe and prolonged impairment. It also takes into account disability-related expenses that are not listed in the medical expense deduction or which are excluded by the 3% threshold in the Medical Expense Tax Credit. Physicians are a key point of contact for applicants of the DTC and, given the way the program is structured, a vital participant in its administration. It is for these reasons that we come before you today to address specific concerns related to the program’s performance. In addition, we would like to discuss the broader issue of developing a coherent set of tax policies in support of health and social policy. The Integration of Tax Policy with Health Policy and Social Policy The federal government, through a variety of policy levers such as taxation, spending, regulation and information, has played a key role in the development of our health care and social systems. To date however, discussion about the federal role in these areas has centered largely on federal transfers to the provinces and territories and the Canada Health Act. However, in looking at how to renew Canada’s health and social programs, we should not limit ourselves to these traditional instruments. Today we have a health system that is facing a number of pressures that will challenge its sustainability. These pressures range from an aging and more demanding population in terms of the specialty care services and technology they will seek; the cry for expanding the scope of medicare coverage to include homecare and pharmacare; and a shortage of health personnel. These are only some of the more immediate reasons alternative avenues of funding health care, and thus ensuring the health and well-being of our citizens, must be explored. In our pre-budget consultation document to the Standing Committee on Finance ii, the CMA recommended that the federal government establish a blue ribbon National Task Force to study the development of innovative tax-based mechanisms to synchronize tax policy with health policy. Such a review has not been undertaken in over 25 years since the Royal Commission on Taxation in 1966 (Carter Commission). The CMA is echoing its call for a National Task Force to develop new and innovative ways to synchronize tax policy with health policy and social policy. A study of this nature would look at all aspects of the taxation system, including the personal income tax system, in which the DTC is a component. The remainder of our brief addresses issues specific to the DTC. Physician Involvement in the DTC Program The CMA has in the past provided input with respect to the DTC program. Our working relationship on the DTC program with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) has been issue-specific, time-limited and constructive. Our first substantive contact in regard to the DTC program was in 1993 when the CMA provided Revenue Canada with a brief review of the program and the T2201form. It is interesting to note what our observations were in 1993 with regard to this program because many of them still hold true today. Here are just some of the issues raised by the CMA in 1993 during our initial review of the program: * The tax credit program may not address the needs of the disabled, it is too hit and miss. The DTC program should be evaluated in a comprehensive way to measure its overall effectiveness in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities. * The program should be called the “Severe Disability Tax Credit Program” – or something equivalent to indicate that not everyone with a disability is eligible. * The program puts physicians in a potential conflict with patients—the responsibility of the physician to advocate for the patient vs. gate-keeper need for Revenue Canada. The physician role should be to attest to legitimate claims on the patients’ behalf. * Revenue Canada should clarify the multiplicity of programs. There are numerous different federal programs and all appear to have varying processes and forms. These overlapping efforts are difficult for patients and professionals. * A major education effort for potential claimants, tax advisers and physicians should be introduced. * A suitable evaluation of claimant and medical components of the process should be undertaken. The CMA does not have a standardized consultative relationship with the CCRA in regard to this program. An example of this spotty relationship is the recent letter sent by the CCRA Minister asking current DTC recipients to re-qualify for the credit. The CMA was not advised or consulted about this letter. If we had been advised we would have highlighted the financial and time implications of sending 75 to 100 thousand individuals to their family physician for re-certification. We also would have worked with the CCRA on alternative options for updating DTC records. Unfortunately, we cannot change what has happened, but we can learn from it. This clearly speaks to the need to establish open and ongoing dialogue between our two organizations. Policy Measure: The CMA would like established a senior level advisory group to continually monitor and appraise the performance of the DTC program to ensure it is meeting its stated purpose and objectives. Representation on this advisory group would include, at a minimum, senior program officials preferably at the ADM level; those professional groups qualified to complete the T2201 Certificate; various disability organizations; and patients’ advocacy groups. We would now like to draw the Sub-committee’s attention to three areas that, at present, negatively impact on the medical profession participation in the program, namely program integrity, program standardization (e.g., consistency in terminology and out-of-pocket costs faced by persons with disabilities) and tax advisor referrals to health care providers. Program Integrity A primary concern and irritation for physicians working with this program is that it puts an undue strain on the patient-physician relationship. This strain may also have another possible side effect, a failure in the integrity of the DTC program process. Under the current structure of the DTC program, physicians evaluate the patient, provide this evaluation back to the patient and then ask the patient for remuneration. This process is problematic for two reasons. First, since the patient will receive the form back immediately following the evaluation, physicians might receive the blame for denying their patient the tax credit—not the DTC program adjudicators. Second, physicians do not feel comfortable asking for payment when he or she knows the applicant will not qualify for the tax credit. For the integrity of the DTC program, physicians need to be free to reach independent assessment of the patient’s condition. However, due to the pressure placed by this program on the patient-physician relationship, the physician’s moral and legal obligation to provide an objective assessment may conflict with the physician’s ethical duty to “Consider first the well-being of the patient. There is a solution to this problem it’s a model already in use by government, the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) Disability Program. Under the CPP Disability Program, the evaluation from the physician is not given to the patient but, it is sent to the government and the cost to have the eligibility form completed by a physician is subsumed under the program itself. Under this system, the integrity of patient-physician relationship is maintained and the integrity of the program is not compromised. Policy Measure: The CMA recommends that the CCRA take the necessary steps to separate the evaluation process from the determination process. The CMA recommends the CPP Disability Program model to achieve this result. Fairness and Equity The federal government has several programs for people with disabilities. Some deal with income security (e.g., Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits), some with employment issues (e.g., Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities), and some through tax measures (e.g., Disability Tax Credit). These government transfers and tax benefits help to provide the means for persons with disabilities to become active members in Canadian society. However, these programs are not consistent in terms of their terminology, eligibility criteria, reimbursement protocols, benefits, etc. CMA recommends that standards of fairness and equity be applied across federal disability benefit programs, particularly in two areas: the definition of the concept of “disability”, and standards for remuneration to the physician. These are discussed in greater detail below. 1) Defining “disability” One of the problems with assessing disability is that the concept itself is difficult to define. In most standard definitions the word “disability” is defined in very general and subjective terms. One widely used definition comes from the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) which defines disability as “any restriction or inability (resulting from an impairment) to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.” The DTC and other disability program application forms do not use a standard definition of “disability”. In addition to the inconsistency in terminology, the criteria for qualification for these programs differ because they are targeted to meet the different needs of those persons with disabilities. To qualify for DTC, a disability must be “prolonged” (over a period of at least 12 months) and “severe” i.e. “markedly (restrict) any of the basic activities of daily living” which are defined. Though CPP criteria use the same words “severe” and “prolonged” they are defined differently (i.e., “severe” means “prevents applicant from working regularly at any job” and “prolonged” means “long term or may result in death”). Other programs, such as the Veterans Affairs Canada, have entirely different criteria. This is confusing for physicians, patients and others (e.g., tax preparers/advisors) involved in the application process. This can lead to physicians spending more time than is necessary completing the form because of the need to verify terms. As a result if the terms, criteria and the information about the programs are not as clear as possible this could result in errors on the part of physicians when completing the forms. This could then inadvertently disadvantage those who, in fact, qualify for benefits. Policy Measures: The CMA would like to see some consistency in definitions across the various government programs. This does not mean that eligibility criteria must become uniform. In addition, the CMA would like to see the development of a comprehensive information package for health care providers that provides a description of each program, its eligibility criteria, the full range of benefits available, copies of sample forms, physical assessment and form completion payment information, etc. 2) Remuneration The remuneration for assessment and form completion is another area where standardization among the various government programs would eliminate the difficulties that some individuals with disabilities currently face. For example, applicants who present the DTC Certificate Form T2201 to their physicians must bear any costs associated with its completion out of their own pockets. On the other hand, if an individual is applying to the CPP Disability Program, the cost to have the eligibility form completed by a physician is subsumed under the program itself. Assessing a patient’s disabilities is a complex and time-consuming endeavour on the part of any health professional. Our members tell us that the DTC Certificate Form T2201 can take as much time and effort to complete as the information requested for CPP Disability Program forms depending, of course, on the patient and the nature of the disability. In spite of this fact, some programs acknowledge the time and expertise needed to conduct a proper assessment while other programs do not. Although physicians have the option of approaching the applicant for remuneration for the completion of the DTC form, they are reluctant to do so because these individuals are usually of limited means and in very complex cases, the cost for a physician’s time for completing the DTC Form T2201 can reach as much as $150. In addition, physicians do not feel comfortable asking for payment when he/she knows the applicant will not qualify for the tax credit. Synchronizing funding between all programs would be of substantial benefit to all persons with disabilities, those professionals completing the forms and the programs’ administrators. Policy Measure: We strongly urge the federal government to place disability tax credit programs on the same footing when it comes to reimbursement of the examining health care provider. Tax Advisor Referrals With the complexity of the income tax system today, many individuals seek out the assistance of professional tax advisors to ensure the forms are properly completed and they have received all the benefits they are entitled to. Tax advisors will very often refer individuals to health professionals so that they can be assessed for potential eligibility for the DTC. The intention of the tax advisors may be laudable, but often, inappropriate referrals are made to health professionals. This not only wastes the valuable time of health care professionals, already in short supply, but may create unrealistic expectations on the part of the patient seeking the tax credit. The first principle of the CMA’s Code of Ethics is “consider first the well-being of the patient.” One of the key roles of the physician is to act as a patient’s advocate and support within the health care system. The DTC application form makes the physician a mediator between the patient and a third party with whom the patient is applying for financial support. This “policing” role can place a strain on the physician-patient relationship – particularly if the patient is denied a disability tax credit as a result a third-party adjudicator’s interpretation of the physician’s recommendations contained within the medical report. Physicians and other health professionals are not only left with having to tell the patient that they are not eligible but in addition advising the patient that there may be a personal financial cost for the physician providing this assessment. Policy Measure: Better preparation of tax advisors would be a benefit to both patients and their health care providers. The CMA would like CCRA to develop, in co-operation with the community of health care providers, a detailed guide for tax preparers and their clients outlining program eligibility criteria and preliminary steps towards undertaking a personal assessment of disability. This would provide some guidance as to whether it is worth the time, effort and expense to see a health professional for a professional assessment. As raised in a previous meeting with CCRA, the CMA is once again making available a physician representative to accompany DTC representatives when they meet the various tax preparation agencies, prior to each tax season, to review the detailed guide on program eligibility criteria and initial assessment, and to highlight the implications of inappropriate referral. Conclusion The DTC is a deserving benefit to those Canadians living with a disability. However, there needs to be some standardization among the various programs to ensure that they are effective and meet their stated purpose. Namely, the CMA would like to make the following suggestions: 1. The CMA would like established a senior level advisory group to continually monitor and appraise the performance of the DTC program to ensure it is meeting its stated purpose and objectives. Representation on this advisory group would include, at a minimum, senior program officials preferably at the ADM level; those professional groups qualified to complete the T2201 Certificate; various disability organizations; and patient advocacy groups. 2. The CMA recommends that the CCRA take the necessary steps to separate the evaluation process from the determination process. The CMA recommends the CPP Disability Program model to achieve this result. 3. That there be some consistency in definitions across the various government programs. This does not circumvent differences in eligibility criteria. 4. That a comprehensive information package be developed, for health care providers, that provides a description of each program, its eligibility criteria, the full range of benefits available, copies of sample forms, physical assessment and form completion payment information, etc. 5. That the federal government applies these social programs on the same footing when it comes to their funding and administration. 6. That CCRA develop, in co-operation with the community of health care providers, a detailed guide for tax advisors and their clients outlining program eligibility criteria and preliminary steps towards undertaking a personal assessment of disability. 7. That CCRA employ health care providers to accompany CCRA representatives when they meet the various tax preparation agencies to review the detailed guide on program eligibility criteria and personal assessment of disability, and to highlight the implications of inappropriate referral. These recommendations would certainly be helpful to all involved - the patient, health care providers and the programs’ administrators, in the short term. However what would be truly beneficial in the longer term would be an overall review of the taxation system from a health care perspective. This could provide tangible benefits not only for persons with disabilities but for all Canadians as well as demonstrating the federal government’s leadership towards ensuring the health and well being of our population. i Health Canada, The Role for the Tax System in Advancing the Health Agenda, Applied Research and Analysis Directorate, Analysis and Connectivity Branch, September 21, 2001 ii Canadian Medical Association, Securing Our Future… Balancing Urgent Health Care Needs of Today With The Important Challenges of Tomorrow”, Presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance Pre-Budget Consultations, November 1, 2001.
Documents
Less detail

The impact of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on Canadian physicians : Brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy2023
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
1997-01-21
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
1997-01-21
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) commends the federal government for its clear and open process, and for encouraging a dialogue in areas of tax policy and economics. Canadians from all walks of life look to the government for strong and constructive leadership in this area. The CMA therefore appreciates the opportunity to present its views to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance as it considers Bill C-70 "An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related Acts." The CMA has appeared before the Committee on several occasions when it has considered matters pertaining to federal tax policy in Canada. In addition to our submissions, as part of the government's pre-budget consultation process, the CMA appeared before the Committee when it examined a number of tax policy alternatives to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1994. 1 At that time, the CMA clearly articulated the medical profession's concerns about the need to implement a federal sales tax system that is simplified, fair and equitable for all. The CMA remains strongly committed to the principles that underpin an efficient and effective sales tax system. However, it is of the strong view that there is, on the one hand, a need to review the relationship between sales tax policy and health care policy in Canada, and between the sales tax policy and the physicians as providers of services, on the other. Canada's health care system is a defining characteristic of what makes Canada special. It is no secret that funding for the health care system is under stress and all providers, including physicians, are being asked to shoulder their responsibility in controlling costs and responding to this fiscal challenge. However, physicians have had their costs of providing medical services increased by the federal government through the introduction of the GST. Specifically, the introduction of the GST as it applies to physicians serves as a constant reminder that there still remain some tax policy anomalies - that, without amendment, their consequences will be significantly magnified with the introduction of a proposed harmonized sales tax (HST) on April 1, 1997, as was the case with the introduction of the Quebec Sales Tax (QST) on July 1, 1992. The tax anomaly is a result of the current categorization of medical services as "tax exempt" under the Excise Tax Act. As a consequence, physicians are, on the one hand, in the unenviable position of being denied the ability to claim a GST tax refund (that is, denied the ability to claim input tax credits - ITCs), on the medical supplies (such as medical equipment, medical supplies, rent, utilities) necessary to deliver quality health care, and on the other, cannot pass the tax onto those who purchase such services (i.e., the provincial and territorial governments). Physicians, from coast to coast, are understandably angry that they have been singled out for unfair treatment under the GST, QST and the soon to be implemented HST. II. BACKGROUND The GST was designed to be a " consumer-based tax" where the tax charged for purchases during the "production process" would be refunded - with the consumer, not producer of a good or a service, bearing the full burden of the tax. As a result, self-employed individuals and small businesses are eligible to claim a tax refund of the GST from the federal government on purchases that are required in most commercial activities. It is important to understand that those who can claim a tax refund under the GST in most commercial activities will still be able to do so with the proposed introduction of a harmonized sales tax in Atlantic Canada. The rate is proposed to be set at 15% (7% federal tax, 8% provincial tax). In the case of medical services, the consumer (i.e., the one who purchases such services) is almost always the provincial and territorial governments. Since the provincial and territorial governments do not pay GST (due to their Constitutional exemption), one would have expected the cost of providing medical services to be free of GST. However, this is not the case. It is difficult to reconcile federal health care policies to preserve and protect publicly funded health care with tax policy which singles out and taxes the costs of medical services. Regrettably, physicians find themselves in an untenable situation of "double jeopardy". This is patently unfair and on the basis of the fundamental principles of administering a fair and equitable tax system should be amended accordingly. In an effort to document the impact of the federal government's decision to designate medical services as tax exempt, an independent study by the accounting firm KPMG estimated that physicians' costs increased by $60 million of GST per year. 2 Since 1991, this total is now in excess of $360 million. The recent agreement between the federal government and Atlantic provinces (except Prince Edward Island) to harmonize their sales taxes will make matters significantly worse for physicians as the HST broadens the provincial tax base to essentially that of the GST in those provinces. With no ability to claim a tax refund on the GST they currently pay (and the proposed HST effective April 1, 1997), physicians once again will have to absorb the additional costs associated with the practice of medicine. In assessing the impact of the proposed HST, KPMG has estimated that physicians in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland will be out-of-pocket an additional $4.7 million each year because they are not eligible for a tax refund for their purchases. 3 The medical profession, is not looking for special treatment. What we are asking for is to be treated no differently than other self-employed Canadians and small businesses who have the opportunity to claim ITCs, and to be placed on the same footing with other health care providers who have the ability to recoup GST costs. Physicians, as self-employed individuals are considered small businesses for tax purposes, therefore, it seems entirely reasonable that they should have the same tax rules that apply to other small businesses. This is a question of fundamental fairness. III. POLICY CONTEXT Prior to the introduction of the GST, the federal sales tax (FST) was included in the price of most goods (not services) that were produced in, or imported to, Canada. Therefore, when goods were purchased by consumers, the FST was built into the price. At that time, physicians, and other self-employed Canadians and small businesses, were essentially on a level sales tax playing field. Since 1991, however, the introduction of the GST has tilted the table against physicians. Unless this situation is rectified, with the introduction of the HST, physicians in Atlantic Canada will join those in Quebec who experience additional costs due to the GST and their provincial sales tax using the same rules. (i). The Impact of the GST on Good Tax Policy and Good Health Care Policy When it reviews Bill C-70, the Standing Committee on Finance should look for opportunities where tax policy and health care policy go hand-in-hand. The principle of aligning good health policy with sound tax policy is critical to managing change while serving to lay down a strong foundation for future growth and prosperity. Unfortunately, the current GST policy introduces a series of distortions that have tax policy and health policy working against one another. Tax policies that do not reinforce health policy are bad tax policies. Consider, for example: 1. Under the current system, hospitals (under the "MUSH" formula - Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals) have been afforded an 83% rebate on GST paid for purchases made while physicians must absorb the full GST cost on their supplies. At a time when health policy initiatives across Canada are attempting to expand community-based practices, the current GST policy (and now harmonized sales tax policy) which taxes supplies in a private clinic setting while rebating much of the tax in a hospital setting acts to discourage the shift in emphasis; 2. Prescription drugs are zero-rated. The objective was to ensure that pharmaceutical firms are no worse off than under the previous federal sales tax regime. Recognizing that medical services can play an equally important role as drugs, it appears inconsistent that the government would choose to have drugs as tax free, and medical services absorbing GST; 3. In the current fiscal climate, the current GST policy, and now the proposed harmonized sales tax in Atlantic Canada, is threatening to harm the important role when it comes to recruitment and retention of physicians across Canada, and in particular, the Atlantic provinces - where they are already experiencing difficulty; and, 4. It is estimated that the 55,000 physicians employ up to 100,000 Canadians. Physicians play an important role in job creation. The disproportionate effects of the GST policy could have an adverse effect on the number of individuals employed by physicians. With these issues at hand, it is apparent that good tax policy and good health policy are themselves not synchronized and are working at cross purposes. At this point, when the Standing Committee is reviewing Bill C-70, it is the time to address this situation based on the fundamental principle of fairness in the tax system, while ensuring that good tax policy reinforces good health care policy. (ii). Not All Health Care Services Are Created Equal under the GST/HST Physicians are not the only group of health care providers whose services are placed under the category of "tax exempt", with the result that they incur increased GST costs. For example, the services of dentists, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and chiropractors are categorized as "tax exempt". However, there is an important distinction between whether the services are government funded or not. Health care providers who deliver services privately and which are not publicly funded do have the opportunity to pass along the GST in their costs through their fee structures. For these services that are government funded there are no opportunities for physicians to recover the tax paid for purchases unless a specific rebate has been provided (e.g., hospitals). To date, in negotiations with the medical profession, no provincial/territorial government has agreed to provide funding to reflect the additional costs associated with the introduction of the GST. Their position has been that this is a "federal" matter. This becomes important when one considers that under the Canadian Constitution one level of government cannot tax another, and the provincial governments are not prepared to absorb the cost of the GST. It is critical to point out that since doctors receive 99% of their professional earnings from the government health insurance plans, 4 they have absolutely no other option when it comes to recovering the GST - they must absorb it! In summary, while a number of health care services are categorized as tax exempt, it must be emphasized that some providers "are more equal than others" under the GST - contrary to other health care providers, physicians do not have the ability to claim ITCs. This distinction becomes readily apparent when one considers the sources of (private and/or public) funding for such services. IV. THE SEARCH FOR A SOLUTION Like many others in Canadian society, physicians work hard to provide quality health care to their patients within what is almost exclusively a publicly-financed system for medical services. Physicians are no different from Canadians in that they, too, are consumers (and purchasers). As consumers, physicians pay their fair share of taxes to support the wide range of valued government services. By the same token, as providers of health care, physicians have not accepted, nor should they accept, a perpetuation of the fundamental injustices built into the current GST, QST and proposed HST arrangements. To date, the CMA has made representations to two Ministers of Finance and their Department Officials. We have discussed several ways to address a situation that is not sustainable, with no resolution to date. We look to this Committee and the federal government for a fair solution to this unresolved issue. V. RECOMMENDATION This unfair and discriminatory situation can be resolved. There is a solution that can serve to reinforce good economic policy with good health care policy in Canada. An amendment to the Excise Tax Act, the legislation which governs the GST (and proposed HST) can make an unfair situation fair to all Canadian physicians. In its recent submission to the Standing Committee as part of the 1997 pre-budget consultation process, the CMA recommended "that medical services be zero-rated, in order to achieve a fair and equitable GST policy for physicians." In order to achieve this objective all health care services, including medical services, funded by the provinces could be zero-rated. This recommendation serves to place physicians on a level playing field with other self-employed Canadians and small businesses. In addition, from a health care perspective, this would treat medical services in the same manner as that of prescription drugs. This is a reasonable proposition, as in many instances, medical treatments and drug regimens go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, this recommendation would ensure that medical services under the GST and proposed HST would be no worse off than other goods or services that provincial governments' purchase and where suppliers can claim a tax refund (i.e., ITCs). While the recommendation is an important statement in principle of what is required to address the current inequities under the GST, and soon to be HST, the CMA offers a more specific recommendation to the Standing Committee as to how the principles can be operationalized within the context of Bill C-70 and the Excise Tax Act. The CMA respectfully recommends the following: 1. "THAT HEALTH CARE SERVICES FUNDED BY THE PROVINCES BE ZERO-RATED." CMA has been advised that this would be accomplished by amending Bill C-70 as follows: (1). Section 5 of Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act is replaced by the following: 5. "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 of 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. VI. SUMMARY By adopting the recommendation above, the federal government would fulfil, at least two over-arching policy objectives, they are: 1. Strengthening the relationship between good economic policy and good health policy in Canada; and, 2. Applying the fundamental principles that underpin our taxation system (fairness, efficiency, effectiveness), in all cases. ________________________ 1 the Goods and Services Tax: Fairness for Physicians, Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 1994. The Canadian Medical Association. 2 Review of the Impact of the Goods and Services Tax on Canadian Physicians, KPMG, June, 1992. 3 Review of the Impact of a Provincial Value Added Tax on Physicians in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, KPMG, August, 1996. 4 National Health Expenditures, 1975-1994, Health Canada, January 1996.
Documents
Less detail

Improving access to world-class health care by accelerating health information technology investments: CMA's 2009 pre-budget brief to the Standing Committee on Finance

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9399
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-08-15
Topics
Health human resources
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-08-15
Topics
Health human resources
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
By many measures Canada's health care system is underperforming. One symptom of this weak performance are exceedingly long wait times that have an impact on care and cost patients, the system and governments money1. There are a number of responses to this poor performance including increasing the supply of health human resources2. Another response is to maximize the resources we have on the front lines and work smarter through information technology. This productivity approach is aligned with the assumptions set out in the federal government's Advantage Canada strategy. This strategy involves principally a 'knowledge advantage' and an 'infrastructure advantage'. Consequently, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is recommending that the federal government make a strategic "strings attached" $570-million investment to create an interconnected health information technology network3 through a Health Information System Transition Fund and time-limited accelerated IT tax incentives. This investment aims to integrate all Canadian patient health care records, an effort that will take time. However, there are foundations upon which to build thanks to federal government investments - most recently in providing $400 million for wait-time related health information systems. But for these investments to bear fruit further connectivity and integration is vital. In other words, our current system is like having an ATM card that only works at the bank's head office. We believe that additional investments must concentrate on connecting patient records in physician offices with hospitals and medical laboratories. Physicians also believe in accountability, and suggest investments should not be made unless the clinical community confirms a high level of system integration. The CMA recommends that the federal government should invest $570 million over five years in an interconnected pan-Canadian health information system that includes: => A $225 million, 5-year Health Information System Transition Fund aimed at change management training and support to convert 26-million patient records in 36,000 physician offices and community care facilities into interoperable electronic records across Canada. => $305 million for a 3-year time-limited and accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for software and hardware costs related to health information technologies that connect patient records from physician offices to laboratories and hospitals. => $10 million to sponsor a cross-country education campaign to inform Canadians of the health and system benefits of e-health connectivityi. => $2 million annually for Canada Research Chairs to promote and demonstrate the value of interconnectivity in health information between the faculties of Medicine, Management and Engineering. The federal government must also encourage provinces to increase their support of these initiatives and work to reduce the barriers to health information system interfacing, by ensuring patient record systems use similar codes in labs, hospitals and physician offices. Federal government guidance, encouragement and cooperation with the provinces is integral to making these connectivity investments a success. It is time that the federal government helped finish the job of health information system connectivity. A health information network will improve patient outcomes, system efficiency, increase accountability and save billions of dollars. 1. Why advance e-health interconnectivity now? Our health system e-performance is poor Both national and international studies confirm that Canada lags behind nearly every major industrial country when it comes to health information technology (Figure 8). The impact of this underinvestment is longer wait times, poorer quality, and a severe lack of financial accountability especially of federal dollars. Investments in connectivity are needed now because Canada's health care system compares poorly in both value and efficiency compared to other countries. The Conference Board of Canadaii, the OECDiii, the World Health Organizationiv, the Commonwealth Fundv, and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy all rate Canada's health care system poorly in terms of "value for money" as well as efficiency. Benchmarking health information connectivity-where we stand, where we must go According to the 2007 National Physician Survey, just 30% of physicians have an electronic interface with a medical laboratory or diagnostic imaging facility, while fewer than 5% have such an interface with a pharmacy/pharmacistvi. Imagine if just 30% of Canadian banks had ATMs throughout the country? This is a difference of not only convenience, but quality and cost savings. In comparison, Denmark and New Zealand have near 100% use of electronic medical records (EMRs) in ambulatory care. According to Dr. Allan Brookstonevii an EMR expert, "If most physicians in a health region or geographic area implemented an EMR system, the incentive for a local hospital or region to connect to those physicians would be significantly enhanced". In an emergency situation right now in Canada it is easier to access critical financial information than critical health information. This reality is not a matter of technology but the lack of will to put it in place. 2. Why the federal government should be interested in e-health interconnectivity. -Health information technology connectivity yields returns on investment: 8:1 International strategy and technology consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton found that viii the benefits of an interconnected Electronic Health Record (EHR) in Canada could provide annual system-wide savings of $6.1 billion. These savings would come from reduced duplicate testing, transcription savings, fewer chart pulls and filing time, reductions in office supplies and reduced expenditures due to fewer adverse drug reactions. The study went on to state that the benefits to health care outcomes would equal or surpass these annual savings, thus providing a possible combined annual savings of $12.2 billion. In addition, a comprehensive literature reviewix comparing health IT productivity gains to similar industries in the U.S. concludes that effective EMR implementation and networking could eventually save more than $81 billion annually by improving health care efficiency and safety. Similarly, health information technology-enabled prevention and management of chronic disease could eventually double those savings while increasing health and other social benefits. Assuming that the Canadian health system is one-tenth the size of US system, savings would range from $8 to $16 billion annually. Connected health information technology - increasing performance and accountability A fundamental question the Standing Committee on Finance may ask is where $22 billion (growing at 6 % annually) in federal health care transfers to the provinces is going and what are the results of this support? Right now, we do not know exactly. Health care in Canada represents 10% of our economy ($160 billion annually and growing at 6% per year) and is larger than the total agricultural sector. The question Canadians are asking is not whether tax dollars should be spent on health care, but whether the money being spent is worth the services receivedx. Moreover, in health care, there are legitimate questions as to whether improvements to date have justified the associated costs. The public institutions and organizations that deliver health care in Canada could deliver more value than they do at present. With a national health information (management) system in place they could work to reduce variations in the quality of service and in the way services are used across the system. However at a national level, we do not have an accounting systemxi in place to uniformly measure quality across the country. 3. Who: Canadians - our patients - want and need e-health interconnectivity. Health information technology is critical to managing wait times Quality of care is an important concern for Canadians, but first they must be able to get the care they need. But waiting for health care is the principal concern for Canadiansxii. Excessive wait times result in mental anguish for patients and their families and also cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars each year. In 2007 a study commissioned by the CMAxiii conservatively calculated that excessive wait times in just four procedures (joint replacements, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass grafts and MRIs) cost the economy over $14 billion in lost output and government revenues. It is important to note that beyond these hospital procedures there is potential to reduce wait times and cost in physician offices through information technology. This is why we have suggested accelerating the capital cost allowance tax for EMR related software and hardware purchases and that they go to community care and physician offices where most patient visits occur every day. Figure 1 below shows that in Ontario for example, just 3,000 out of an average of 247,000 patient visits per day or 1.2% of the total are made in hospitals. That is why this submission is aimed at (the circle area in the chart) increasing connectivity and tying investments to the 99% of the places where patients visit most. Figure 1 Patient visits per day in Ontario, Source: Canada Health Infoway Most of the emphasis on connectivity in Canadian health care to date has not focused on the point of care -even though the number of patient interactions with hospitals is greatly exceeded by the number of visits to physicians' officesxiv. Thus patient-physician office interactions outnumber patient-hospital interactions by a ratio of 18 to 1. It is also important that patients understand the value of electronic health records, which is why we are recommending a $10 million cross-country educational campaign to impact the demand side of this critical health and industrial equation. 4. Why physicians are involved in e-health interconnectivity The physician community can play a pivotal role in helping the federal governments make a connected health care system a realizable goal in the years to come. Through a multi-stakeholder process encompassing the entire health care team, the CMA will work toward achieving cooperation and buy-in. This will require a true partnership between provincial medical associations, provincial and territorial governments and Canada Health Infoway (CHI). Accelerating Advantage Canada through health information technologies The CMA's pre-budget submission, related to health system connectivity, incorporates the five tenets of Advantage Canadaxv. This submission principally addresses the infrastructure and knowledge advantages that are involved in investing in an interconnected network that is useless unless the 'knowledge' advantage to provide stewardship of the Electronic Health Record through our physicians' is in place. That is why we recommend that the federal government help support research, development and knowledge transfer at our major universities in health information technology by supporting 10 Canada Research Chairs in the faculties of Medicine, Management and Engineering. In addition, a pan-Canadian health information technology network will provide the kind of infrastructure that supports labour mobility where for example a migrant worker from Atlantic Canada can access his health records in Fort McMurray Alberta. 5. How to speed-up health information technology connectivity -a green tax incentive approach Thus far the strategy applied to health information connectivity in Canada has been focused on a top-down approach that has produced limited success. That is why the CMA is suggesting that the federal government accelerate the Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) on EMR-related software and hardware equipment over the next three years - an early-bird special or incentive. The CMA does not pretend to be tax policy experts however we do appreciate the federal governments' recent increase in the CCA rates for software and hardware. Our recommendation would mean changing the current software CCA (Class 12xvi) from 100% over two years to 100% in the first year specifically for EMR related investments. And for EMR hardware (Class 50xvii) accelerate the CCA to 100% in the first year from the current 55% rate for a limited time only of three years. These accelerated CCA rate proposals are also consistent with the governments' environmentally friendly CCA initiative as EMRs would save tonnes of paper for years. Mixed results for Canada Health Infoway => Health Information System Transition Fund The CMA lauds the federal government's 2008 Budget for making a $400-million investment in Canada Health Infoway (CHI) to support early movement toward patient wait time guarantees through the development of health information systems and electronic health records. At the same time the physician community believes that CHI has had mixed results, especially when it comes to digitizing and integrating patient records at the places where most patients contact the health care system: physician offices, laboratories and emergency rooms. However, we believe with targeted, conditional policies CHI can be an effective vehicle to accelerate the transition of current health centre paper practices into electronic operations through a time limited five-years Health Information Transition Fund. We also believe that federal transition funds should be matched at a fifty-fifty rate by the provinces. Although this may not be easy, there are other non-monetary policy levers (e.g. regulatory) that the federal government could and should use to persuade the provinces of the value of investing in electronic health record system integration. This is particularly true since the provinces will yield most of the return on the investment. It is imperative that the current health information technology gap be closed and be set at levels for similar service-intensive industries (see Figure 2 in the Appendix 1). That is why; beyond the figures outlined in this submission, the CMA recommends continued federal health information technology support for the next 10 years. Conclusion - Big investments. but big payoffs too As the Health Council of Canada stated in their 2008 annual reportxviii, "Change is underway, but too slowly". The OECD, WHO, The Commonwealth Fund and the Conference Board of Canada's research all strongly suggest that Canada lags behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of health information technology investments and system integration. The investments made so far may seem large but they will be wasted if a second effort in connecting the entire system is not made now. It is time that the federal government finishes the job of health information system connectivity at the point of care. A Pan-Canadian network of health information will improve patient outcomes, health system efficiency and dramatically increase system accountability. The Health Council of Canada also said that, "These [health information technology] are big investments but the payoff is big too". Accordingly we suggest that over the next five years the following investments will improve the running of Medicare as well as the Canadian economy. The CMA recommends that the federal government should invest $570 million over five years in an interconnected pan-Canadian health information system that includes: => A $225 million, 5-year Health Information System Transition Fund aimed at change management training and support involved in converting 26 million patient records in 36,000 physician offices and community care facilities into interoperable electronic records across Canada. => $305 million for a 3-year time limited accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for EMR software and hardware costs related to health information technologies that connect patient records from physician offices to laboratories and hospitals. => $10 million to sponsor a cross-country education campaign to inform Canadians of the health and system benefits of e-health connectivityxix. => $2 million annually for Canada Research Chairs promoting the value of interconnectivity in health information between the faculties of Medicine, Management and Engineering. References 1The cumulative economic cost of waiting for treatment across just 4 priority areas in 2007 was an estimated $14.8 billion. This reduction in economic activity lowered federal and provincial government revenues in 2007 by a combined $4.4 billion. See:www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Media_Release/pdf/2008/EconomicReport.pdf 2 Almost 5-million Canadians do not have a family physician. Canada would need 26,000 more doctors to meet the OECD average of physicians per population. Physicians spend more time on paperwork and less with patients than they did 20 years ago. See: "More Doctors. More Care.": www.moredoctors.ca/take_action/ 3 Please see Table l in Appendix 1 for full investment horizon details. i Patient perspective on electronic medical record. Meldgaard M; International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Meeting (19th : 2003 : Canmore, Alta.). Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2003; 19: abstract no. 148. CONCLUSIONS: Patient confidence and perceived quality of care is influenced by a well informed forward-looking staff as can be obtained in settings where EPR is successfully implemented. Patient satisfaction and the functional level of EPR implementation are interdependent. ii A Report Card on Canada see: http://sso.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/overview/health-overview.aspx iii Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2007). OECD Health Data 2007. Version 07/18/2007. CD-ROM. Paris: OECD. iv World Health Organization [WHO] (2007). World Health Statistics 2007. see: http://www.who. v Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care May 15, 2007 (updated May 16, 2007)
Volume 59 Authors: Karen Davis, Ph.D., Cathy Schoen, M.S., Stephen C. Schoenbaum, M.D., M.P.H., Michelle M. Doty, Ph.D., M.P.H., Alyssa L. Holmgren, M.P.A., Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea Editor(s):Deborah Lorber see: www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678 vi See Tables Q39 and Q40a in the 2007 National Physician Survey at:www.nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/nps/ vii Dr. Alan Brookstone is a family physician in Richmond, BC and the founder of CanadianEMR. The quote was taken from: Online resource enables MDs to rate EMRs. See: www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Future_Practice/English/2007/November/Online-e.pdf The CanadianEMR Physician Resource Directory provides access to a province specific searchable list of vendors of products and services to support the EMR-based practice. http://www.canadianemr.ca/ viii Booz, Allan, Hamilton Study, Pan-Canadian Electronic Health Record, Canada's Health Infoway's 10-Year Investment Strategy, March 2005-09-06. ix Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, And Costs Richard Hillestad, James Bigelow, Anthony Bower, Federico Girosi, Robin Meili, Richard Scoville and Roger Taylor, Health Affairs, 24, no. 5 (2005): 1103-1117. x In November 2008 the Auditor General of Canada will present it's performance audit on, "Reporting on Health Indicators-Health Canada" to Parliament. See: www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/oag-bvg_e_29401.html xi There has been heavy emphasis is being placed on "accountability" and "performance measurement," endorsed by the Romanow Commission (Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada 2002), the Kirby Committee (Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology 2002), and the First Ministers' accord (First Ministers 2004). See Raisa Deber Why Did the World Health Organization Rate Canada's Health System as 30th? Some Thoughts on League Tables. Some Thoughts on League Tables xii The results of an Ipsos Reid poll (January 2008) finds that eight in ten (78%) Canadians believe that hospital and other health care wait times cost Canada money because people who are waiting for treatment are less productive and miss work. This is compared to just two in ten (19%) who think that wait times save Canada money because governments don't have to put as many resources into healthcare. xiii The economic cost of wait times in Canada, January 2008. This study was commissioned by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) to analyze the economic costs of wait times in Canada's medical system. The CMA's membership includes more than 67,000 physicians, medical residents and medical students. It plays a key role by representing the interests of these members and their patients on the national stage. Located in Ottawa, the CMA has roots across the country through its close ties to its 12 provincial and territorial divisions. See: www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Media_Release/pdf/2008/EconomicReport.pdf xiv Sources: Physician visits - CIHI - Physicians in Canada: Fee-for-Service Utilization 2005-2006. Table 1-21. Hospital contacts - CIHI - Trends in Acute Inpatient Hospitalizations and Day surgery Visits in Canada 1995-1996 to 2005-2006 and CIHI -National Ambulatory Care Reporting System - Visit Disposition by Triage Level for All Emergency Visits - 2005-2006. xvAdvantage Canada builds on Canada's strengths and seeks to gain a global competitive advantage in five areas: 1. Tax Advantage-Reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G7. 2. Fiscal Advantage-Eliminating Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation. 3. Entrepreneurial Advantage-Reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape and increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace. 4. Knowledge Advantage-Creating the best-educated, most-skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. 5. Infrastructure Advantage-Building the modern infrastructure we need. xvi Software: CLASS 12 , (100 per cent) Property not included in any other class that is.... (o) computer software acquired after May 25, 1976, but not including systems software or property acquired after August 8, 1989 and before 1993 that is described in paragraph (s). xvii Hardware: CLASS 45 , (45 per cent) Property acquired after March 22, 2004 (other than property acquired before 2005 in respect of which an election is made under subsection 1101(5q)) that is general-purpose electronic data processing equipment and systems software for that equipment, including ancillary data processing equipment. Draft Regulation (a) electronic process control or monitor equipment; (b) electronic communications control equipment; (c) systems software for equipment referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or (d) data handling equipment (other than data handling equipment that is ancillary to general-purpose electronic data processing equipment). Class 50 (55 per cent) Property acquired after March 18, 2007 that is general-purpose electronic data processing equipment and systems software for that equipment, including ancillary data processing equipment, but not including property that is principally or is used principally as (a) electronic process control or monitor equipment; (b) electronic communications control equipment; (c) systems software for equipment referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or (d) data handling equipment (other than data handling equipment that is ancillary to general-purpose electronic data processing equipment). xviii Health Council of Canada, Rekindling Reform: Health Care Renewal in Canada, 2003 - 2008, June 2008 (page 23). See: www.healthcouncilcanada.ca/docs/rpts/2008/HCC%205YRPLAN%20(WEB)_FA.pdf Appendix 1 (Table does not display correctly -- See PDF) Table 1 -Health Interconnectivity investments over five years. Figure 2 -Major Canadian health centers are well below industry IT investment standard
Documents
Less detail

Notes for an address by Dr. Eugene Bereza, Chair, Committee on Ethics, Canadian Medical Association : Bill C-13 - An act respecting assisted human reproduction : Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1963
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2002-11-20
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2002-11-20
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
BILL C-13 - AN ACT RESPECTING ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health Ottawa, Ontario November 20, 2002 BILL C-13 - AN ACT RESPECTING ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION Madame Chair and Members of the Committee: My name is Dr. Eugene Bereza. I am a physician and clinical ethicist at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal and Chair of the Canadian Medical Association Committee on Ethics. I am here today representing our members, more than 54,000 physicians from across Canada. I also wish to speak as a advocate for our patients, especially those affected by infertility and those who are or will suffer from diseases for which medical science is searching for cures. I am accompanied today by Dr. John Williams, our Director of Ethics. You will recall that we appeared before this Committee on October 23, 2001 in company with representatives from eight other national health provider and scientific organizations to present our views on draft legislation on assisted human reproduction. Although we were pleased that your December 2001 report recommended the establishment of an assisted reproduction regulatory body outside the Department of Health, we were disappointed that you did not find favour with other recommendations we put forward. The government responded to your report with Bill C-56, now Bill C-13. It is this bill that we are here to address today. Although there are many details in the bill on which we would like either clarification or changes, we intend to focus our remarks on the issue that we consider of greatest importance for our patient’s wellfare and the practice of medicine. That issue is the use of the criminal power to deal with medical and scientific activities. The Standing Committee Report and Bill C-13 In your December 2001 report, you acknowledged our position on this issue: “Some witnesses recommended the elimination of the prohibited activities category altogether. Citing the benefits of regulatory flexibility, they felt that all activities should come under the controlled activity category, including the more reprehensible activities like reproductive cloning for which licences, arguably, would never be allowed under the regulations” (page 9). However, you rejected this view on the grounds that “a licence-related prohibition of this sort would not carry the same weight or degree of social censure as the statutory prohibition…. An outright statutory ban signals more clearly that certain activities are either unsafe or socially unacceptable. The use of the statutory ban also signals that these activities are of such concern to Canadians that their status as a prohibited activity may not be altered except with the approval of Parliament” (page 9). Bill C-13 reflects your views on this matter. We recognize your good faith in proposing and defending this position but we are convinced that its potential for harm outweighs its potential benefits. And so we are pleased to have this opportunity to reiterate the reason why the CMA believes that Bill C-13 will adversely affect the patient-physician relationship and the advance of medical science. Need to Change Bill C-13 As you know, our position on this matter is supported by legal scholars such as Patrick Healy, McGill University Faculty of Law, Tim Caulfield, Director of the University of Alberta Health Law Institute, and Bartha Knoppers, Université de Montréal Centre de Recherche en Droit Publique. In essence, our position is that the criminal law is a blunt instrument and very difficult to change and is therefore appropriate for activities whose status is unlikely to change over time, such as murder and theft, rather than medical and scientific activities that are constantly developing. The latter are better left to a representative regulatory body to determine if and when changes in health and safety considerations and public attitudes and values might justify allowing certain formerly prohibited activities to take place under specific conditions. Bill C-13 begins with the statement: “This enactment prohibits assisted reproduction procedures that are considered to be ethically unacceptable.” This echoes the conclusions in your report. However, as the transcripts of your hearings demonstrate, many Canadians, especially those who are infertile, do not consider some or all of these procedures to be ethically unacceptable. As a matter of public policy, should Canadians who hold this view be denied access to medical treatment for infertility because others consider such treatments to be ethically unacceptable? Should patients who suffer from conditions for which research that is forbidden in Bill C-13 might lead to a cure be denied that opportunity? We question whether criminal prohibitions are appropriate for dealing with activities on which there is considerable ethical disagreement among Canadians. In Canada legislators have been justifiably reluctant to use the criminal law to deal with medical and scientific issues such as abortion, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and the conduct of medical research. Why is an exception being made for assisted reproduction? What sort of precedent will this set for other controversial bioethical issues? We are also concerned about the bill’s penalties for infractions: jail terms up to 10 years and fines up to $500,000. These are disproportionate to the penalties for crimes that injure persons or property and, as such, will create a climate of undue fear and excessive caution for physicians and scientists working in this area, such that they will avoid any activity that is potentially covered by the bill, even to the detriment of patient care. Given the rapid advance of science and medical practice and the difficulty of anticipating new developments, it will be difficult to adjust the law to deal with new applications of prohibited activities that may be ethically acceptable. An Alternate Solution The CMA has stated repeatedly that we are not opposed to the prohibition of certain assisted human reproduction activities. Instead of instituting criminal prohibitions within the legislation, we remain convinced that an independent body on an ongoing basis should determine the activities that are permissible or prohibited on the basis of up-to-date scientific research, public input and ethical review. This can be accomplished very easily in Bill C-13 by moving the procedures listed under “Prohibited Activities” (sections 5-9) to “Controlled Activities” and adding the words “except in accordance with the regulations and a licence” to each of the provisions in sections 5-9. Consistent with this recommendation we consider that the regulatory agency should be established as soon as possible and be given as much authority as possible over the matters that Bill C-13, section 65, reserves to regulations of Governor in Council. We hope that the agency will build upon the experience and expertise of existing organizations and structures in the field of assisted reproduction that deal with practice standards, education, certification and accreditation. Conclusion To summarize, we strongly support government efforts to regulate assisted human reproduction and related activities, including the prohibition of certain practices either temporarily or permanently. However, like others who have appeared before this Committee, we do not believe that criminalizing the medical and scientific activities named in the bill is an appropriate way to achieve those objectives. We consider that the objectives could be as well achieved by far less drastic means than criminalization and, moreover, that criminalization would create major obstacles to legitimate medical and scientific progress in the treatment of infertility. We recommend that the proposed agency be empowered to regulate these practices and that the criminal power be invoked when controlled activities are performed without authority of a licence from the agency or in defiance of the licensing conditions established by the agency. Thank you, Madame Chair and members of the Committee. We will be pleased to respond to your questions.
Documents
Less detail

Notes for an address by Dr. Peter Barrett, Past-President, Canadian Medical Association : Public hearings on primary care reform : Presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy2011
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2002-05-22
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Health human resources
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2002-05-22
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Health human resources
Text
On behalf of the 53,000 physician members of the CMA, we appreciate the opportunity to offer our thoughts on the issue of primary care reform and the recommendations made recently in your April 2002 report. I am very pleased to be presenting today with my CMA colleague, Dr. Susan Hutchison, Chair of our GP Forum along with Dr. Elliot Halparin and Dr. Kenneth Sky from the Ontario Medical Association. Before I begin presenting the CMA’s recommendations, I believe it’s important to make a few points clear in regard to primary care: * First, is that Canada has one of the best primary care systems in the world. (Just ask Canadians, we have. Our 2001 Report Card showed that 60% of Canadians believe that we have one of the best health care systems in the world and gave high marks for both quality of service and system access). * Second, is that primary care reform is not the panacea for all that ails Medicare. * And finally, primary care and specialty care are inextricably linked. I like to expand a bit on the last point because I think it’s an important consideration. There is a tendency to separate medical care into two areas; primary care and specialty care. However, we need to recognize that medical and health care encompasses a broad spectrum of services ranging from primary prevention to highly specialized quaternary care. Primary care and specialty care are so critically interdependent that we need to adapt an integrated approach to patient care. Now, in respect to the CMA’s recommendations on implementing changes for the delivery of primary care, we believe that government must respect the following four policy premises: 1. All Canadians should have access to a family physician. 2. To ensure comprehensive and integrated care, family physicians should remain as the central provider and coordinator of timely access to publicly-funded medical services. 3. There is no single model that will meet the primary care needs of all communities in all regions of the country. 4. Scopes of practice should be determined in a manner that serves the interests of patients and the public safely, efficiently, and competently. Access to Family Physicians A successful renewal of primary health care delivery cannot be accomplished without addressing the shortage of family physicians and general practitioners. The effects of an aging practitioners population, changes in lifestyle and productivity, along with the declining popularity of this field as the career choice of medical school graduates are all having an impact on the supply of family physician. Physician as Central Coordinator While multistakeholder teams offer the potential for providing a broader array of services to meet patients’ health care needs, it is also clear that for most Canadians, having a family doctor as the central provider for all primary medical care services is a core value. As the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) indicated in its submission to the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, research shows that over 90% of Canadians seek advice from a family physician as their first resource in the health care system. The CFPC also noted that a recent Ontario College of Family Physicians Decima public opinion survey found that 94% agree that it is important to have a family physician who provides the majority of care and co-ordinates the care delivered by others. i A family physician as the central coordinator of medical services ensures efficient and effective use of system resources as it allows for only one entry point into the health care system. This facilitates a continuity of care, as the family physician generally has developed an ongoing relationship with his or her patients and as a result is able to direct the patient through the system such that the patient receives the appropriate care from the appropriate provider. No Single Model for Reform In recent years, several government task force and commission reports, including the report of this Committee, have called for primary care reform. Common themes that have emerged include; 24/7 coverage; alternatives to fee-for-service payment of physicians; nurse practitioners and health promotion and disease prevention. Governments across the country have launched pilot projects of various models of primary care delivery. It is critical that these projects are evaluated before they are adopted on a grander scale. Moreover, we must take into account the range of geographical settings across the country, from isolated rural communities to the highly urbanized communities with advanced medical science centres. Scopes of Practice There is a prevailing myth that physicians are a barrier to change when in fact the progressive changes in the health care system have been more often than not physician lead. Canadian physicians are willing to work in teams and the CMA has developed a “Scopes of Practice” policy that clearly supports a collaborative and cooperative approach. A policy that has been supported in principle by the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Pharmacists Association. Because of the growing complexity of care, the exponential growth of knowledge, and an increased emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, primary care delivery will increasingly rely on multi-stakeholder teams. This is a positive development. However, expanding the primary care team to include nurses, pharmacists, dieticians, and others, while desirable, will cost the system more, not less. Therefore, we need to change our way of thinking about primary care reform. We need to think of it as an investment. We need to think of it not in terms of cost savings but as a cost-effective way to meet the emerging unmet needs of Canadians. Conclusion To conclude, there is no question that primary care delivery needs to evolve to ensure it continues to meet the needs of Canadians. But we see this as making a good system better, not fundamental reform. Thank you. i College of Family Physicians of Canada. Shaping The Future of Health Care: Submission to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Ottawa: CFPC; Oct 25, 2001.
Documents
Less detail

A Prescription for SUFA : CMA Submission to the F/P/T Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1961
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2002-10-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2002-10-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
It has been over three years since the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) was signed by the federal and provincial/territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. At the time, it was heralded as an important breakthrough in federal-provincial relations that would clear the way for greater intergovernmental cooperation on pressing social policy issues such as health care renewal. Functional federalism is essential to achieving social policy objectives that will be of benefit to Canadians from coast to coast. While SUFA may not be perfect, it is better than the alternative of federal-provincial paralysis and dysfunction. And as SUFA acknowledges, Canada’s social union is about more that how governments relate to each other: it is about how governments can and should work with external stakeholders and individual Canadians to improve the social policies and programs. The health sector is an important test case for SUFA. It is the most cherished of Canada’s social programs. Canadians want and expect their governments to work together to improve the health care system and ensure its future sustainability. Ironically, it is also the area where government intergovernmental discord has been the greatest. On the eve of the final report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, it is timely to reflect on SUFA and its role in the renewal of Canada’s health system. SUFA and the Health Sector – Strengths and Weaknesses The attached table provides a summary of the key elements of SUFA and the CMA’s assessment of how well SUFA provisions have been applied in the health sector. On the positive side, the health sector has fared relatively well in the area of mobility within Canada. Physicians and other regulated health care providers generally enjoy a high degree of mobility. Portability of hospital and medical benefits is largely ensured through interprovincial eligibility and portability agreements. There are, however, two areas of concern. First, there is the longstanding failure to resolve the non-portability of medical benefits for Quebec residents. Second, there is growing disparity in coverage for services that are currently not subject to national standards under the Canada Health Act, particularly prescription drugs and home care. In the area of dispute avoidance and resolution, governments have agreed to a formal process to address concerns with the Canada Health Act. This is a positive step, though few details have been made public. The real test will be whether this new process accelerates the resolution of non-compliance issues (most of which, as the Auditor-General recently pointed out, have remained unresolved for five years or longer), and whether the federal government will have the political will to levy discretionary penalties for non-compliance. There has also been progress on public accountability and transparency as governments have begun reporting results in 14 health indicator areas pursuant to the September 2000 health accord. The CMA is disappointed, however, that governments did not fulfil their pledge to involve stakeholders at all levels in the development of these indicators. Moreover, governments have short-changed Canadians by not providing them with a national roll-up of indicators that would facilitate comparisons across jurisdictions. Looking to the future, it will be critical to put in place a process that moves from benchmarks (indicators) to the bedside (best practices, better outcomes). This must be done in collaboration with health care researchers, providers and health managers—those individuals who understand the importance of taking research and importing it into practice. Clinical researchers across the country are doing this work and must to be supported. Overshadowing these relative successes in the first three years of the Social Union Framework Agreement are three key challenges that must be addressed: * inadequate institutional mechanisms to improve accountability across the system * failure to reduce uncertainty about what the health system will deliver, now and into the future * resistance on the part of governments to engage stakeholders in a true partnership for health system renewal The CMA is concerned that if these fundamental weaknesses are not addressed, they will undermine future attempts to renew Canada’s health system. Improving accountability With the adoption of SUFA, governments have significantly increased emphasis on performance measurement and public reporting. While this is a positive development, it also has the potential to lead towards information overload and paralysis, unless two critical elements are addressed. First, there is a need for a clear accountability framework that sets out the roles, rights and responsibilities of all key players in Canada’s health system: patients, health care providers and governments. This, in turn, requires the creation of a credible arm’s length institution to monitor compliance with this framework and rise above the fray to give Canadians the straight goods on health care. One has to look no further that the recent rekindling of the so-called “shares debate” between the federal and provincial governments as an example of why these changes are necessary. Reducing uncertainty Over the past decade, Canada’s health system has been plagued by an escalating crisis of uncertainty. Patients have faced increasing uncertainty about the accessibility and timeliness of essential health care services. Health care providers have seen working conditions deteriorate. Employers and private insurers have seen their contribution to funding health services increase unpredictably as governments have scaled back their funding commitments. Furthermore, provincial and territorial governments have had to contend with an unstable federal funding partner. Canadians deserve better. They need more certainty that their public health system will care for them when they need it most. They need more transparency from governments about “what’s in” and “what’s out” in terms of public or private coverage. They need their governments to act on their SUFA undertaking to make service commitments for social programs publicly available such as establishing standards for acceptable waiting times for health care. And they need governments to follow through with their SUFA commitment to ensure stable and adequate funding for the health system and other social programs. Fostering real partnerships In the health care field, deliberations and agreements have taken place behind closed doors and governments have discounted the role that non-governmental organizations and citizens should play in decision-making. It is these very providers and patients who are expected to implement and live with the results of such cloistered decision-making. The consequences of this systematic exclusion are all too evident in the current critical and growing shortages of physicians, nurses and other health professionals. If we are to achieve the vision of a sustainable Medicare program, it is critical that governments come clean on their SUFA commitment to work in partnership with stakeholders and ensure opportunities for meaningful input into social policies and programs. CMA’s Prescription for Sustainability – Building on SUFA The Social Union Framework Agreement has created the necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for health system renewal. It has codified the emerging consensus on federal-provincial relations and has clarified the "rules of the game". However, it is an enabling framework that is of limited value in the health sector unless it is given life through institutional mechanisms that establish enduring partnerships not just between governments, but between governments health care providers, and patients. In its final submission to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada entitled “Prescription for Sustainability”, the CMA proposes the implementation of three integrated “pillars of sustainability” that together would improve accountability and transparency in the system: a Canadian Health Charter, a Canadian Health Commission, and federal legislative renewal. Canadian Health Charter A Canadian Health Charter would clearly articulate a national health policy that sets out our collective understanding of Medicare and the rights and mutual obligations of individual Canadians, health care providers, and governments. It would also underline governments’ shared commitment to ensuring that Canadians will have access to quality health care within an acceptable time frame. The existence of such a Charter would ensure that a rational, evidence-based, and collaborative approach to managing and modernizing Canada’s health system is being followed. Canadian Health Commission In conjunction with the Canadian Health Charter, a permanent, independent Canadian Health Commission would be created to promote accountability and transparency within the system. It would have a mandate to monitor compliance with and measure progress towards Charter provisions, report to Canadians on the performance of the health care system, and provide ongoing advice and guidance to the Conference on Federal-Provincial-Territorial ministers on key national health care issues. Recognizing the shared federal and provincial/territorial obligations to the health care system, one of the main purposes of the Canadian Health Charter is to reinforce the national character of the health system. Federal legislative renewal Finally, the CMA’s prescription calls for the federal government to make significant commitments in three areas: 1) a review of the Canada Health Act, 2) changes to the federal transfers to provinces and territories to provide increased and more targeted support for health care, and 3) a review of federal tax legislation to realign tax instruments with health policy goals. While these three “pillars” will address the broader structural and procedural problems facing Canada’s health care system, there is many other changes required to meet specific needs within the system in the short to medium term. The CMA’s Prescription for Sustainability provides specific recommendations in the following key areas: * Defining the publicly-funded health system (e.g. a more rational and transparent approach to defining core services, a “safety valve” if the public system fails to deliver, and increased attention to public health and Aboriginal health) * Investing in the health care system (e.g. human resources, capital infrastructure, surge capacity to deal with emergencies, information technology, and research and innovation) * Organization and delivery of services (e.g. consideration of the full continuum of care, physician compensation, rural health, and the role of the private sector, the voluntary sector and informal caregivers) Conclusion On balance, the Social Union Framework Agreement has been a positive step forward for social policy in Canada, though its potential is far from being fully realized. The CMA’s proposal for a Canadian Health Charter, a Canadian Health Commission and federal legislative review entail significant changes to the governance of Canada’s health system. These changes would be consistent with the Social Union Framework Agreement and would help “turn the corner” from debate to action on health system renewal. The early, ongoing and meaningful engagement of health care providers is the sine qua non of securing the long-term sustainability of Canada’s health system. Canada’s health professionals, who have the most to contribute, and next to patients – who have the most at stake – must be at the table when the future of health and health care is being discussed. The CMA’s Assessment of the Social Union Framework Agreement ANNEX [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] SUFA provisions CMA assessment Principles 1. All Canadians to be treated with fairness and equity 2. Promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians 3. Respect for the equality, rights and dignity of all Canadian women and men and their diverse needs 4. Ensure access for all Canadians to essential social programs and services of reasonably comparable quality 5. Provide appropriate assistance to those in need 6. Respect the principles of Medicare: comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility 7. Promote the full and active participation of all Canadians in Canada’s economic and social life 8. Work in partnership with stakeholders and ensure opportunities for meaningful input into social policies and programs 9. Ensure adequate, affordable, stable and sustainable funding for social programs 10. Respect Aboriginal treaties and rights [#4] Progress towards the objective of ensuring access to essential health services of reasonably comparable quality is difficult to assess. First, there is no agreed-upon definition of essential health services. Second there the development of indicators and benchmarks of health care quality is still in its infancy. However, the CMA is very concerned that the system is not headed in the right direction, with growing shortages of physicians, nurses and other health care providers. According to Statistics Canada’s recently released survey on access to health care services, an estimated 4.3 million Canadians reported difficulties accessing first contact services and approximately 1.4 million Canadians reported difficulties accessing specialized services. [#6]Although there is broad support for the five principles of Medicare, there continue to be a number of longstanding violations of Canada Health Act that are not being addressed, including the portability of medical benefits for Quebec residents. The emergence of privately-owned clinics that charge patients for medically-necessary MRI scans is also cause for concern. [#8] There is no formal, ongoing mechanism for input from stakeholders and the individual Canadians in debates about national health policy issues. (See also #17 below). [#9] Ensuring adequate, affordable, and stable funding for Canada’s health system is essential to its long-term sustainability. During the 1990s, billions of dollars were siphoned out of the system to eliminate government deficits. To put Medicare back on a sustainable path, governments must make long-term funding commitments to meet the health care needs of Canadians. The CMA has recommended that the federal government should significantly increase its financial contribution to restore the federal-provincial partnership in health care, and increase accountability and transparency through a new earmarked health transfer. Mobility within Canada 11. Removal of residency-based policies governing access to social services 12. Compliance with the mobility provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade [#11] Residency-based policies are generally not an issue for physician and hospital services, where inter-provincial portability is guaranteed through reciprocal billing arrangements. As noted above, however, the portability of medical benefits for many Quebec residents is limited because the province only reimburses out-of-province services at home-province (as opposed to host-province) rates. [#12] Regulatory authorities initiated work towards meeting the obligations of the Labour Mobility Chapter of the Agreement on Internal Trade in fall 1999. A Mutual Recognition Agreement has been developed and endorsed by all physician licensing authorities. Public accountability & transparency 13. Performance measurement and public reporting 14. Development of comparable indicators to measure progress 15. Public recognition of roles and contributions of governments 16. Use funds transferred from another order of government for purposes agreed and pass on increases to residents 17. Ensure effective mechanisms for Canadians to participate in developing social priorities and reviewing outcomes 18. Make eligibility criteria and service commitments for social programs publicly available 19. Have mechanisms in place to appeal unfair administrative practices 20. Report publicly on appeals and complaints [#13-14] Pursuant to the September 2000 Health Accord, the federal government and provinces have developed common health indicators in 14 areas and have released a first slate of reports. However, the usefulness of these reports is hampered by missing data elements on quality of care (access and waiting times in particular) and the absence of a national roll-up to facilitate inter-provincial comparisons. [#15] Continuing federal-provincial bickering about shares of health funding makes it clear that this provision is not being met. [#16] The CMA’s analysis of the Medical Equipment Fund found that incremental spending by provinces on medical technology accounted for only 60% of the $500 million transferred by the federal government for this purpose. [#17] There is no mechanism in place to ensure ongoing input from Canadians and health care providers in national health policy development. The CMA has recommended the creation of a Canadian Health Commission, with representation from the public and stakeholders to provide advice and input to governments on key national health policy issues. [#18] Although there have been proposals to this effect in a couple of provinces, governments currently do not make explicit commitments about the quality and accessibility of health services. In order to reduce the uncertainty Canadians are feeling with respect to Medicare, the CMA has recommended the creation of a Canadian Health Charter that would set out the rights and responsibilities of patients, health care providers and governments. In particular, the health charter would require all governments to set out care guarantees for timely access to health services based on the best available evidence. [#19-20] The Auditor-General recently reported that Health Canada provides inadequate reporting on the extent of compliance with the Canada Health Act. Governments working in partnership 21. Governments to undertake joint planning and information sharing, and work together to identify priorities for collaborative action 22. Governments to collaborate on implementation of joint priorities when this would result in more effective and efficient service to Canadians. 23. Advance notice prior to implementation of a major policy or program change that will substantially affect another government 24. Offer to consult prior to implementing new social policies and programs that are likely to substantially affect other governments. 25. For any new Canada-wide social initiative, arrangements made with one province/territory will be made available to all provinces/territories. 26. Governments will work with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address their pressing needs [#21-25] The requirement for governments to work together collaboratively is perhaps the most important part of SUFA, yet there it is impossible for organizations and individuals outside of government to assess the degree to which these provisions have been met. This so-called “black box of executive federalism” is not serving Canadians well. In the health sector, there are too many examples of governments developing policy and making decisions with little or no input from those who will ultimately have to implement change. To achieve a true social union, the tenets of good collaborative working relationships – joint planning, advance notice and consultation prior to implementation – must be extended beyond the ambit of federal-provincial decision-making. The CMA’s proposal for a Canadian Health Commission would go some distance in addressing these concerns. A key part of its mandate would be to bring the perspective of health providers and patients into national health policy deliberations and decision-making. Federal spending power 27. Federal government to consult with P/T governments at least one year prior to renewal or significant funding changes in social transfers 28. New Canada-wide initiatives supported by transfers to provinces subject to: a) collaborative approach to identify Canada wide objectives and priorities b) Agreement of a majority of provincial governments c) Provincial discretion to determine detailed design to meet agreed objectives d) Provincial freedom to reinvest funding in related area if objectives are already met e) Jointly developed accountability framework 29. For new Canada-wide initiatives funded through direct transfers to individuals or organizations, federal government to provide 3-months notice and offer to consult [#27-28] There have been three new Canada-wide health initiatives supported by the federal spending power: the $500M Medical Equipment Fund, the $800 Primary Health Care Transition Fund and the $500M fund for health information technology. The Medical Equipment Fund was created to respond to a genuine need for more modern diagnostic and treatment equipment. However, objectives were vague, money was transferred with no strings attached, and there was no accountability framework. The result, as the CMA’s analysis has shown, is that a significant portion of the funding did not reach its destination. The jury is still out in the case of the Primary Care Transition Fund. Delivery of this program through normal government machinery will entail a higher degree of accountability than in the case of the Medical Equipment Fund. However, objectives of this initiative may be too broad to have a significant steering effect on the system as a whole. Canada Infoway Inc. is an arm’s length body created by the federal government to disburse the $500M in health information technology funding. While this model has the advantage of being less politicized than government-run programs; accountability to Parliament and to Canadians is weaker. Dispute avoidance & resolution 30. Governments committed to working together and avoiding disputes 31. Sector negotiations to resolve disputes based on joint fact-finding, including the use of a third party 32. Any government can require a decision to be reviewed one year after it enters into effect 33. Governments will report publicly on an annual basis on the nature of intergovernmental disputes and their resolution [#30-33] Federal and provincial governments have agreed to a formal dispute avoidance and resolution process under the Canada Health Act. The Canadian Health Commission recommended by the CMA could play a useful role as an independent fact-finder. Review of SUFA 34. By the end of the 3rd year, governments will jointly undertake a full review of the Agreement and its implementation. This review will ensure significant opportunities for input and feedback from Canadians and all interested parties, including social policy experts, the private sector and voluntary organizations. [#34] Governments have taken a minimalist approach to the SUFA review by opting for an internet-based consultation and closed meetings with invited external representatives. This approach is not sufficient. Future reviews should be more inclusive of all stakeholders. [TABLE END]
Documents
Less detail

A Prescription for sustainability

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1967
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2002-06-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2002-06-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
Medicare emerged from the 1990s bent, but not broken — in large measure due to the tireless efforts of health professionals whose commitment has always been, first and foremost, to their patients. However, this level of effort cannot continue. Canadian health providers and the facilities they work in are stretched to the limit. Over the past decade there have been countless studies on what is wrong with Canada’s health care system. However, very little action has been taken to solve the problems identified in the reports because very few of these reports provided a roadmap with concrete recommendations on how to achieve change. Furthermore, many decisions regarding the health care system have been made by governments without meaningful input from health professionals. As we indicated in our first submission, there is clearly a need for a collaborative approach to “change management” that is based on early, ongoing and meaningful involvement of all key stakeholders. However, before consideration is given to how to solve the woes of the health care system, it is essential to establish a shared vision of Canada’s health care system. Several attempts have been made to this end; however, few have included health care providers or the public in the process. The CMA has established its own vision for a sustainable health care system, upon which the recommendations we have presented in this submission are based. To ensure that our health care system in Canada is sustainable in the future, longer-term structural and procedural reforms are required. The CMA proposes 5 recommendations involving the implementation of three integrated “pillars of sustainability” that together will improve accountability and transparency in the system. These pillars would also serve as the basis for addressing the many short- to medium-term issues facing Medicare today and into the future. To this end, we put forward 25 recommendations suggesting specific “hows” for solving these critical problems. The three “pillars” are: a Canadian Health Charter, a Canadian Health Commission, and a renewal of the federal legislative framework. A Canadian Health Charter would underline governments’ shared commitment to ensuring that Canadians will have access to quality health care within an acceptable time frame. It would also clearly articulate a national health policy that sets out our collective understanding of Medicare and the rights and mutual obligations of individual Canadians, health care providers, and governments. The existence of such a Charter would ensure that a rational, evidence-based, and collaborative approach to managing and modernizing Canada’s health system is being followed. In conjunction with the Canadian Health Charter, a permanent, independent Canadian Health Commission would be created to promote accountability and transparency within the system. It would have a mandate to monitor compliance with and measure progress towards Charter provisions, report to Canadians on the performance of the health care system, and provide ongoing advice and guidance to the Conference on Federal-Provincial-Territorial ministers on key national health care issues. Recognizing the shared federal and provincial/territorial obligations to the health care system, one of the main purposes of the Canadian Health Charter is to reinforce the national character of the health system. The federal government would be expected to make significant commitments in a number of areas, including a review of the Canada Health Act, changes to the federal transfers to provinces and territories, and a review of federal tax legislation. While these three “pillars” will address the broader structural and procedural problems facing Canada’s health care system, there are many other changes required to meet specific needs within the system in the short to medium term. The CMA has provided specific recommendations in the following key areas: * Meaningful stakeholder input and accountability * Defining the public health system (e.g. core services, a “safety valve”, Public Health, Aboriginal health) * Investing in the health care system (e.g. human resources, capital infrastructure, surge capacity, information technology, and research and innovation) * Health system financing * Organization and delivery of services (e.g. consideration of the full continuum of care, physician compensation, rural health, the private sector, the voluntary sector and informal caregivers) The following is a summary of the key recommendations set out in A Prescription for Sustainability. While we have put an emphasis on having the recommendations as self-contained as possible, readers are encouraged to consult the corresponding section of this paper as appropriate for further details. The first five recommendations refer specifically to the three pillars. The remaining recommendations address the more specific and immediate needs of the health care system. Recommendation 1 That the governments of Canada adopt a Canadian Health Charter that * reaffirms the social contract that is Medicare * acknowledges the ongoing roles of governments in terms of overall coordination and health planning * sets out the accessibility and portability rights and responsibilities of residents of Canada * sets out the rights and responsibilities of the governments, providers and patients in Canada * provides for a “Canadian Health Commission.” Recommendation 2 That a permanent Canadian Health Commission be established and operate at arm’s length from governments. The Commission’s mandate would include * monitoring compliance with the Canadian Health Charter * reporting annually to Canadians on the performance of the health care system and the health status of the population * advising the Conference of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Health on critical issues. Recommendation 3 That the federal government undertake a review of the Canada Health Act with the view to amending it * to embody the Canadian Health Charter within it * to provide for the Canadian Health Commission and * to allow for a broader definition of core services and for certain service charges under certain terms and conditions. Recommendation 4 (a) That the federal government’s contribution to the publicly funded health care system * be harmonized with the five-year review of the federal equalization program * be locked-in for a period of five years, with an escalator tied to a three-year moving average of per capita GDP * rise to a target of 50% of provincial/territorial per capita health spending for core services * provide for notional earmarking of funds for health. (b) That the federal government create special purpose, one-time funds totalling $2.5 billion over five years (or build on existing funds) to address pressing issues in the following areas * health human resources planning * capital infrastructure * information technology * accessibility fund. Recommendation 5 That a blue ribbon panel of Parliament be established to work with the Canadian Health Commission to review the current provisions of federal tax legislation with a view to identifying ways of enhancing support for health policy objectives through tax policy. Recommendation 6 That governments and regional health authorities initiate or enhance significant efforts to secure the participation of and input from practicing physicians at all levels of health care decision-making. Recommendation 7 That all Canadians be provided coverage for a basket of core services under uniform terms and conditions. Recommendation 8 (a) That the scope of the basket of core services be determined and be updated regularly to reflect and accommodate the realities of health care delivery and the needs of Canadians. (b) That the scope of core services should not be limited by its current application to hospital and physician services, provided that access to medically necessary hospital and physician services is not compromised. Recommendation 9 (a) That the scope of the basket of core services be determined and regularly updated by a federal-provincial-territorial process that has legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians – patients, taxpayers and health care professionals. (b) That the values of transparency, accountability, evidence-based, inclusivity and procedural fairness should characterize the process used to determine the basket of core services to include under Medicare. Recommendation 10 (a) That governments develop a new framework to govern the funding of a basket of core services with a view to ensuring that * Canadians have reasonable access to core services on uniform terms and conditions in all provinces and territories * governments, providers and patients are accountable for the use of health care resources * no Canadian is denied essential care because of her or his personal financial situation. (b) That legislation be amended to permit at least some core services to be cost-shared under uniform terms and conditions in all provinces and territories. (c) That once the basket of core services is defined, minimum levels of public funding for these services be uniformly applied across provinces and territories, with flexibility for individual governments to increase the share of public funding beyond these levels. Recommendation 11 (a) That Canada’s health system develop and apply agreed upon standards for timely access to care, as well as provide for alternative care choices – a “safety valve” – in Canada or elsewhere, if the publicly funded system fails to meet these standards. (b) That the following approach be implemented to ensure that governments are held accountable for providing timely access to quality care. * First, governments must establish clear guidelines and standards around quality and waiting times that are evidence-based and that patients, providers and governments consider reasonable. An independent third-party mechanism must be put in place to measure and report on waiting times and other dimensions of health care quality. * Second, governments must develop a clear policy which states that if the publicly funded health care system fails to meet the specified agreed-upon standards for timely access to core services, then patients must have other options available to them that will allow them to obtain this required care through other means. Public funding at the home province rate would follow the patient in this circumstance, and patients would have the opportunity to purchase insurance on a prospective basis to cover any difference in cost. Recommendation 12 (a) That governments demonstrate healthy public policy by making health impact the first consideration in the development of all legislation, policy and directives. (b) That the federal government provide core funding to assist provincial and territorial authorities in improving the coordination of prevention and detection efforts and the response to public health issues among public health officials, educators, community service providers, occupational health providers, and emergency services. (c) That governments invest in the human, infrastructure and training resources needed to develop an adequate and effective public health system capable of preventing, detecting and responding to public health issues. (d) That governments undertake an immediate review of Canada’s self-sufficiency in preventing, detecting and responding to emerging public health problems and furthermore, facilitate an ongoing, inclusive process to establish national public health priorities. Recommendation 13 That the federal government adopt a comprehensive strategy for improving the health of Aboriginal peoples which involves a partnership among governments, nongovernmental organizations, universities and the Aboriginal communities. Recommendation 14 (a) That the federal government establish a $1 billion, five-year Health Resources Education and Training Fund to (1) further increase enrolment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education (including re-entry positions), (2) expand the infrastructure (both human and physical resources) of Canada’s 16 medical schools in order to accommodate the increased enrolment and (3) enhance continuing medical education programs. (b) That the federal government increase funding targeted to institutions of postsecondary education to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases. (c) That the federal government enhance financial support systems for medical students that are (1) non-coercive, (2) developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase, (3) in direct proportion to any tuition fee increase and (4) provided at levels that meet the needs of the students. (d) That incentives be incorporated into medical education programs to ensure adequate numbers of students choose medical fields for which there is greatest need. Recommendation 15 (a) That governments and communities make every effort to retain Canadian physicians in Canada through non-coercive measures and optimize the use of existing health human resources to meet the health needs of Canadian communities. (b) That the federal government work with other countries to equitably regulate and coordinate international mobility of health human resources. (c) That governments adopt a policy statement that acknowledges the value of the health care workforce in the provision of quality care, as well as the need to provide good working conditions, competitive compensation and opportunities for professional development. Recommendation 16 (a) That a national multistakeholder body be established with representatives from the health professions and all levels of government to develop integrated health human resource strategies, provide planning tools for use at the local level and monitor supply, mix and distribution on an ongoing basis. (b) That scopes of practice should be determined in a manner that serves the interests of patients and the public, safely, efficiently, and competently. Recommendation 17 (a) That hospitals and other health care facilities conduct a coordinated inventory of capital infrastructure to provide governments with an accurate assessment of machinery and equipment. (b) That the federal government establish a one-time catch-up fund to restore capital infrastructure to an acceptable level. (see Recommendation 4(b).) (c) That governments commit to providing adequate, ongoing funding for capital infrastructure. (d) That public-private partnerships (P3s) be explored as a viable alternative source of funding for capital infrastructure investment. Recommendation 18 That the federal government cooperate with provincial and territorial governments and with governments of other countries to ensure that a strong, adequately funded emergency response system is put in place to improve surge capacity. Recommendation 19 That federal government make an additional, substantial, ongoing national investments in information technology and information systems, with the objective of improving the health of Canadians as well as improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system. Recommendation 20 That governments adopt national standards that facilitate the collection, use and exchange of electronic health information in a manner which ensures that the protection of patient privacy and confidentiality are paramount. Recommendation 21 That the federal government’s investment in health research be increased to at least 1% of national health expenditures. Recommendation 22 (a) That the provincial and territorial governments’ commitment to funding core services be locked-in for an initial five-year period with an escalator tied to provincial population demographics and inflation. (b) That governments establish a health-specific contingency fund to mitigate the effects of fluctuations in the business cycle and to promote greater stability in health care financing. Recommendation 23 That any effort to change the organization or delivery of medical care take into account the impact on the whole continuum of care. Recommendation 24 (a) That governments work with the provincial and territorial medical associations and other stakeholders to draw on the successes of evaluated primary care projects to develop a variety of templates of primary care models that would * suit the full range of geographical contexts and * incorporate criteria for moving from pilot projects to wider implementation, such as cost-effectiveness, quality of care and patient and provider satisfaction. (b) That family physicians remain as the central provider and coordinator of timely access to publicly funded medical services, to ensure comprehensive and integrated care, and that there are sufficient resources available to permit this. Recommendation 25 (a) That governments develop a national plan to coordinate the most efficient access to highly specialized treatment and diagnostic services. * This plan should include the creation of defined regional centres of excellence to optimize the availability of scarce specialist services. * Any realignment of services must accommodate and compensate for the relocation of providers. * That the federal government create an accessibility fund that would support interprovincial centres of excellence for highly specialized services. Recommendation 26 That governments respect the principles contained in the CMA’s policy on physician compensation and the terms of duly negotiated agreements. Recommendation 27 That governments work with universities, colleges, professional associations and communities to develop a national rural and remote health strategy for Canada. Recommendation 28 That Canada’s health care system make optimal use of the private sector in the delivery of publicly financed health care provided that it meets the same standards of quality as the public system. Recommendation 29 That governments examine ways to recognize and support the role of the voluntary sector in the funding and delivery of health care, including enhanced tax credits. Recommendation 30 That governments support the contributions of informal caregivers through the tax system. 1. Introduction Medicare emerged from the 1990s bent, but not broken — in large measure, due to the tireless efforts of professionals whose commitment has always been, first and foremost, to their patients. But this level of effort cannot continue. Canadian health care providers and the facilities they work in are stretched to the limit. Our system is truly at a crossroads. The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada has a unique opportunity to sculpt a health care system that will meet the needs and expectations of Canadians for the 21st century. Fundamentals and principles of change management must be satisfied for change to be of lasting value. Decision-making processes must become more accessible, accountable and transparent to those most affected. Canadians are tired of the “blame game,” and physicians and other health providers are tired of being marginalized. Why is it that those who have the most at stake and those who have the most invested in the health system — namely patients, physicians and other providers — have the least say in system change? All parties need to be at the table. Health professionals have not been involved in an early, ongoing or meaningful way in discussions about the future of their health and health care systems. This must change. Another prerequisite for effective change is to reaffirm that there is more to health than health care. Although Canada has led the world in thinking about the overall determinants of health, the same cannot always be said when it comes to action. Canada needs broad consensus around a multi-year, national health action plan — one that is developed in collaboration with all the key players in the system and one that has clear goals, objectives and milestones. At the same time, sustainability must be seen as ensuring that Canadians have access to required services at the time and to the extent of their need. Canadians have lost confidence that the system will be there for them and for their children. Sustainability is about the legacy of Medicare. These are some of the key issues and challenges that the CMA stressed in earlier submissions to the Commission. In our first report, entitled Getting the Diagnosis Right (November 2001; see Appendix A), we described the signs and symptoms of a system in distress. Earlier this year, in our interim submission, entitled Getting It Right (Appendix B), we outlined some of the broad choices that we have to make as a society to help stabilize the Medicare “patient” and transport it into a sustainable future. As part of this future, the interim report proposed a Canadian Health Charter, which has received considerable attention. In this, our final submission to the Commission, we have built on the earlier work and ask the Commission to consider our Prescription for Sustainability. It is important to note that the recommendations we present to the Commission are integrated; and therefore we ask that they not be “cherry-picked”. This document also refers to a number of appendices that will be available as a separate volume. A great deal of policy research has been done on what changes are needed to make progress. The weak link has been in dealing with the “how.” The CMA believes that if we get the structures and processes right in terms of accountabilities, positive health outcomes will follow for our patients and for the future sustainability of the system. 2. Vision Several attempts have been made over the years to articulate a national vision for Medicare, but they have all proven inadequate. However laudable these attempts may be, they all suffer the fatal flaw of isolationism: they were all developed by governments — federal, provincial or territorial — in isolation from health care providers and the public. Goodwill, collaboration and partnership cannot be legislated or dictated from on high. In planning for the future, we have consistently argued for a values-based approach centred on a shared vision. The CMA has established a vision for Medicare that forms the basis of our recommendations for improving the design and functioning of the health care system. CMA’s Vision for a Sustainable Health System The goal of Canada’s health system is to preserve, protect and improve the health and well-being of each Canadian. This will be achieved through timely access to services that not only keep people well or restore health, but also enhance their quality of life and add longevity. Health care is an investment in both economic and social terms, providing benefits of value to both individuals and society. The objective of publicly funded health care is timely access to quality care through a defined set of core services that — as the principal building blocks of Canada’s overall health care system — must be provided on a sustainable basis. These core services must be determined and regularly reviewed in an inclusive and transparent manner. This will result in clear choices as to which services will be fully publicly funded, partly publicly funded and fully privately funded. The special nature of care related to illness — the original focus of Medicare — must continue to be recognized. Core services must reflect the immediacy with which such care is required, the potential to place a financial burden on individuals and families, and the unpredictability as to when such care will be required by an individual. Canadians should be able to choose who will provide their care, what the treatment(s) will be and where it will be provided. Every Canadian should have access to a physician of their choice and, in particular, should be encouraged to select a primary care physician who provides continuity of care. Physicians play key roles as agents and advocates for their own patients and for the public at large; they seek a health care system that respects the integrity and primacy of the patient–physician relationship. Payment and delivery mechanisms should be structured to foster and support these roles and to protect clinical and professional autonomy. Evidence-based care with explicit standards and benchmarks (e.g., maximum, acceptable waiting times) is a prerequisite to achieving high-quality health care — a primary objective of the public system. Individuals should have the opportunity to purchase health services where they are not publicly funded and where the public system does not meet agreed-upon standards. 3. Three Pillars of Sustainability The CMA believes that the current health policy decision-making system is fundamentally flawed and that three steps must be taken to help put the health of Canadians first. The three inextricably linked “pillars of sustainability” presented here are long-term structural and procedural reforms needed to improve accountability and transparency and, thus, enhance the overall sustainability of the system. In Getting the Diagnosis Right, we contended that Canadians had lost confidence that the system would be there for them and their families at the time and to the extent of their need. In our interim report, we also indicated that Canadian health care providers have never felt more demoralized or disenfranchised. The shortages of providers, poor access, resource constraints and passive privatization that occurred through most of the 1990s have combined to create uncertainties around the scope of coverage and the standard of care Canadians can expect from their health care system. The CMA believes that these uncertainties that accompany unplanned changes have also had a deleterious effect on the Canadian economy and a demoralizing effect on the health care community. On both counts, a clarification of the social contract for health is required at the highest level. 3.1 Canadian Health Charter The need to renew the social contract underlying Medicare raises a number of fundamental questions. What will this new social contract look like? Where will it be vested? Who will oversee its development and implementation? And what difference will it make for Canadians? The answers to these questions are set out below in the CMA’s proposal for a Canadian Health Charter. 3.1.1 What is it? The concept of a Canadian Health Charter is not new. The 1964 report of the Royal Commission on Health Services chaired by Justice Emmett Hall recommended a charter that set out a vision for a universally accessible system of prepaid health care, including the roles and responsibilities for individual Canadians, providers and governments. Currently, neither the Canada Health Act nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms offers Canadians an explicit right of access to quality health care delivered within an acceptable time-frame.1 Moreover, Canadians do not have the benefit of a clearly articulated national health policy that sets out our shared understanding of Medicare and the rights and mutual obligations of individual Canadians, health care providers and governments. Without such a national policy statement to set the broad parameters around which Canada’s health system can be managed and modernized, the Medicare debate will continue to be characterized by rhetoric, hidden agendas and fruitless finger-pointing. To be certain, the notion of a Canadian Health Charter raises many issues in a decentralized federation such as Canada, where the constitutional responsibility for health care delivery lies with provinces and territories. Having examined the relevant legal, political and health policy considerations, the CMA is proposing the development and formal approval of a Canadian Health Charter based on a renewed partnership between levels of government and with the agreement of patients and providers.2 3.1.2 What would it look like? The CMA envisions a charter with three main parts: a vision statement, a section on national planning and coordination and a section on roles, rights and responsibilities. The CMA has developed an illustrative example of a charter in a separately released paper, Charter at a Glance. Vision Although there is no shortage of vision statements for Medicare, there is no single shared vision. The federal government, provinces and territories and individual stakeholders have all developed their own visions for various purposes and at various times. In some cases, such as the September 2000 Health Accord, governments have gone as far as issuing jointly approved vision statements. What is needed is for all parties to come together and achieve consensus on a shared vision that will lay out a modern view of Canada’s health system. The CMA has articulated its own vision in section 2, above. National planning and coordination The Canadian Health Charter would set out the requirement for national planning and coordination based on such principles as collaboration, evidence-based decision-making, stable and predictable funding, regional and local flexibility, and accountability. It could also specify areas where national planning and coordination are required, particularly with respect to the determination and regular review of core health care services; the development of national benchmarks for timeliness, accessibility and quality of health care; health system resources including health human resources and information technology; and the development of national goals and targets to improve the health of Canadians. The charter would also provide for the creation of a Canadian Health Commission to monitor compliance with and measure progress towards charter provisions, report to Canadians on the performance of the health care system, and provide ongoing advice and guidance to the Conference of Federal–Provincial–Territorial Ministers on key national issues. Roles, rights and responsibilities One of the key aims of the charter would be to develop a common understanding of the roles, rights and responsibilities of the key players in the renewal of Medicare. Key aspects of understanding would include * Acknowledgement of the ongoing role of governments in terms of overall coordination and health planning * Reinforcement of the accessibility and portability rights of the residents of Canada by a clear and unequivocal statement that governments must do everything in their power to provide reasonably comparable access to timely, high-quality health care3 * Establishment of the rights and responsibilities of patients, providers and governments in Canada. 3.1.3 Development and implementation of a charter Key features of our proposed Canadian Health Charter are as follows. * National mandate: It will be an inclusive document — one that is truly national as opposed to federal or interprovincial or interterritorial. * Values-based: It will be consistent with publicly accepted values and principles. * Enforceable: It will achieve compliance to its provisions through administrative mechanisms rather than through the courts. * Non-derogational: It will respect federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictional boundaries. The Canadian Health Charter will only be as good as the process put in place to develop it and to oversee its implementation. Although it may be too early to speculate on how this would be orchestrated, we make the following observations. * The development of the Canadian Health Charter will require a broad consultative process. Although this process could be led by governments, it should be developed in an inclusive manner with all stakeholders, including organizations representing health care providers and consumers. * Once consensus is reached on a proposed Canadian Health Charter, it will be important for the federal, provincial and territorial governments to give it formal approval. This could be accomplished in a number of ways, including approval at a first ministers meeting, through the elected assemblies or by way of a royal proclamation.4 Recommendation 1 That the governments of Canada adopt a Canadian Health Charter that * reaffirms the social contract that is Medicare * acknowledges the ongoing roles of governments in terms of overall coordination and health planning * sets out the accessibility and portability rights and responsibilities of residents of Canada * sets out the rights and responsibilities of the governments, providers and patients in Canada * provides for a “Canadian Health Commission.” 3.2 Canadian Health Commission What is clear from the past decade — through numerous provincial Commissions, a three-year National Health Forum, a Senate study and now the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada — is that strategic health planning is a never-ending challenge. This is why we need a permanent, depoliticized forum at the national level for ongoing dialogue and debate — a Canadian Health Commission. 3.2.1 Structure, composition and mandate Our thinking on the development of a Canadian Health Commission has been guided by a number of precedents and models that have been used in the Canadian context, beginning with the Dominion Council of Health, which was provided for in the Act constituting the Department of Health in 1919. It was formed to facilitate coordination with the provinces and territories and various private organizations on health matters and was the principal advisory agency to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Membership comprised the federal deputy minister (chair), provincial deputy ministers and external members representing women’s organizations, labour, agriculture and medical science. We also examined more recent models of national advisory and oversight bodies. More details on the structures and basic mandates of these bodies are provided in Appendix C. Our assessment of these Commissions, roundtables and councils leads us to a number of conclusions about the structure and composition of the Canadian Health Commission: * Independence: The Commission should be at arm’s length from governments and have the freedom to conduct research and advise governments on a broad range of health and health care issues. However, it should have close links with government agencies such as the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research to facilitate its work. * Transparency: The Commission should be open and transparent. We do not want to recreate the black box of executive federalism. Government representatives would be welcome as observers, and the Commission’s deliberations would be made public. * Credibility: The composition of the Commission should reflect a broad range of perspectives and expertise necessary fulfill its mandate. Appointments should not be constituency-based, to ensure that constituency politics do not interfere with the Commission’s deliberations. * Legitimacy: Although the Commission would be established by the federal government, its structure, composition and mandate will have to be legitimate in the eyes of provincial and territorial governments. * Permanence: The Commission should be permanent and it should be afforded adequate resources to do its job, subject to a regular review of its mandate and effectiveness. * Stakeholder engagement: The Commission should include representation from the general public and should seek to engage Canadians at large through research, consultation and public education activities. * Authoritative leadership: The Commission should be chaired by a Canadian Health Commissioner, who would be an officer of Parliament (similar to the Auditor General) appointed for a five-year term by consensus among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The Health Commissioner would not be a substitute for the federal minister of health. The minister of health would continue to be responsible to Parliament for federal health policies and programs, as well as for promoting intergovernmental collaboration on a range of health and health care issues. The Commissioner would be afforded the powers necessary to conduct the affairs of the Commission, such as the power to call witnesses before hearings of the Commission. The Commission’s mandate would include the following responsibilities: * Monitor compliance with the Canadian Health Charter * Report annually to Canadians on the performance of the health care system and the health status of the population * Advise the Conference of Federal–Provincial–Territorial Ministers of Health on critical questions such as: - defining the basket of core services that would be publicly financed - establishing national benchmarks for timeliness, accessibility and quality of health care - planning and coordinating health system resources at the national level, including health human resources, information technology, and capital infrastructure - developing national goals and targets to improve the health of Canadians. Recommendation 2 That a permanent Canadian Health Commission be established and operate at arm’s length from governments. The Commission’s mandate would include * monitoring compliance with the Canadian Health Charter * reporting annually to Canadians on the performance of the health care system and the health status of the population * advising the Conference of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Health on critical issues. 3.3 Renewing the Federal Legislative Framework Flowing from the Canadian Health Charter will be a number of moral and political obligations directed at the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, providers and patients. Recognizing the shared federal, provincial and territorial obligations to the health care system, one of the main purposes of the Charter is to reinforce the national character of Canada’s health system. The federal government would be expected to make significant commitments in a number of areas. 3.3.1 The Canada Health Act The Canada Health Act (CHA) was adopted by Parliament in 1984 as the successor to federal legislation governing cost-sharing agreements for hospital and medical insurance. Its principles have become the cornerstone of Medicare. The CHA articulates the underlying vision and values of Medicare and sets out the five conditions with which provincial and territorial health insurance plans must comply — universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration — to receive the full federal financial contribution that they are entitled to under the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST). Thus, the Canada Health Act is the linchpin that holds together 13 separate provincial and territorial health systems. Although the CHA has been a lightning rod for several federal–provincial–territorial disputes over the years, the reasons for these disagreements have had more to do with politics than with the substance of the act. In fact, if there is one public policy issue in Canada over which there is near unanimity across provinces and territories and across political parties, it is that the principles of the CHA are sound. Recently, federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to establish a formal dispute avoidance and resolution mechanism to deal more openly and transparently with issues arising from the interpretation of the Canada Health Act. The CMA applauds this development. In section 5.1.3 of this report, the CMA calls for the establishment of a process at the national level to determine and review regularly the basket of core services in an open, transparent and evidence-based manner. The CHA should be amended to provide for such a process. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the CHA should be amended to reflect the Canadian Health Charter. This would include changing the preamble to ensure that it reflects a modern vision and values of Medicare, provides for a Canadian Health Commission, recognizes the federal role and reflects the accessibility and portability rights of Canadians. Recommendation 3 That the federal government undertake a review of the Canada Health Act with the view to amending it * to embody the Canadian Health Charter within it * to provide for the Canadian Health Commission and * to allow for a broader definition of core services and for certain service charges under certain terms and conditions. 3.3.2 Transfers to provinces and territories The nature of Canada’s publicly funded health care system creates unique challenges and opportunities regarding accountability and sustainability. Provinces and territories have the constitutional responsibility for health care and provide most of the funding; the federal government’s role includes funding and is based on the desire of Canadians to have the semblance of a national health care program. The CMA has been a strong advocate of stable, predictable and adequate federal funding for health care. The federal government has responded by introducing a cash floor for the CHST and by restoring some of the cuts made during the 1990s. However, the federal government still has a long way to go. Cash transfers must be increased if the federal government is to be considered a credible partner in Medicare. A larger and continuing federal role in health care financing is required, and the allocation of funds must be done more transparently and in support of a longer planning horizon. Transparency in federal funding for health care means that the federal government can no longer claim to be spending its CHST contribution three ways. Canadians have a right to know how much of their federal tax dollars is being transferred to provinces and territories to support Medicare. The same should hold for transfers related to postsecondary education and social services. Although this may be at odds with the prevailing doctrine in the ministries of finance and intergovernmental affairs, it is the least that Canadians can expect from their governments in terms of accountability. It also serves to underscore the fact that the underlying purpose of fiscal federalism is to support Medicare and other important social programs, not the reverse. In addition to the transfer of block funds to provinces and territories, the sheer magnitude and pressing nature of many issues facing Medicare warrant the use of one-time only, targeted, special-purpose transfers. Precedents for these types of transfers include the National Health Grants Program created in 1948 to develop hospital infrastructure across the country, as well as the more recent funds created to support early child development, medical equipment, the health infoway and primary care renewal. This type of approach, coupled with more stringent accountability provisions to ensure that the funds are spent as intended, should be used to address serious system shortcomings in the areas of health human resources, capital infrastructure and information technology. Recommendation 4 (a) That the federal government’s contribution to the publicly funded health care system * be harmonized with the five-year review of the federal equalization program * be locked-in for a period of five years, with an escalator tied to a three-year moving average of per capita GDP * rise to a target of 50% of provincial/territorial per capita health spending for core services * provide for notional earmarking of funds for health. (b) That the federal government create special purpose, one-time funds totalling $2.5 billion over five years (or build on existing funds) to address pressing issues in the following areas * health human resources planning * capital infrastructure * information technology * accessibility fund. 3.3.3 Tax policy in support of health In the past, the Government of Canada has relied heavily on its spending power and legislation to influence the development of Medicare across Canada. However, increasing concern associated with Canada’s health care system has obliged the federal government to maximize all its available policy levers, including taking another look at how the tax system can be used to support renewal of the health sector. Although taxes are widely used as a public policy tool, to date the role of taxation in the area of health has been relatively small. In total, personal income tax assistance (i.e., foregone government revenue) for health was estimated at $3.8 billion in 2001, equal to only a little more than 3.7% of total health expenditures for that year. The tax system interfaces with the health sector at three levels — health care financing, health care inputs and lifestyle choices. Key questions of reform that could be addressed through a review of the tax system at these levels include the following. Health care financing * Could tax incentives be used to improve access to private supplemental insurance? * How could increased tax relief be provided to people with high out-of-pocket medical expenses? * Should the tax system be used to encourage personal savings for long-term care? Health care inputs * How could tax incentives be used to address health human resource issues (e.g., attracting physicians and nurses to rural and remote areas, off-setting high costs of medical education, promoting continuing education)? * How can the federal government proceed with changes to the tax system to ensure equitable treatment of all health providers (e.g., GST)? * Could enhanced tax credits be developed to support informal caregivers? * Could tax incentives be used to promote research and innovation in health care beyond the pharmaceutical sector? Lifestyle choices * How could the tax system be used to encourage healthy lifestyles (e.g., incentives to eat well and exercise; disincentives for unhealthy choices)? The level of support provided by the tax system for people facing high out-of-pocket expenses is a particularly pressing question. Currently, the medical expenses tax credit provides limited relief to those whose expenses exceed $1,637 or 3% of net income. The 3% threshold was established before Medicare was introduced. Does it still make sense in 2002? Are there ways to enhance this provision to reduce financial disincentives facing many Canadians when they have to pay for health services that may not be medically necessary, but are beneficial and worthy of government support? The CMA encourages the federal government to undertake a comprehensive review of these and other tax questions pertaining to health. Clearly, we do not believe tax policy will, by itself, solve all of the challenges facing Canada’s health care system. Nevertheless, the CMA believes that the tax system can play a key role in helping the system adapt to changing circumstances, thereby complementing the other two components of our renewal strategy. Recommendation 5 That a blue ribbon panel of Parliament be established to work with the Canadian Health Commission to review the current provisions of federal tax legislation with a view to identifying ways of enhancing support for health policy objectives through tax policy. 4. Meaningful Stakeholder Input and Accountability In the Commission’s interim report, the question was posed: why are those who have the most to contribute, who are the most committed — Canada’s health professionals — not at the table when the future of health and health care is being discussed by this country’s leaders? Physicians individually and collectively feel disempowered and disengaged. They feel frustrated, marginalized and left out at all levels of decision-making. Nowhere is this more evident than at the national level, where physicians and other health care providers have tried in vain to gain access to the “black box” of executive federalism. Physicians and other providers have been systematically excluded from participating in decisions about the future of health and health care. During the past decade, with the exception of successful joint management ventures at the provincial, territorial or regional levels, physicians have been increasingly marginalized in terms of policy decisions. At the federal–provincial–territorial level, physicians have been frozen out since the late 1980s. At the federal level, organized medicine had no opportunity for formal input to the National Forum on Health. Physicians were specifically excluded from many regional boards when they were established in the early 1990s. Finally, the consolidation of many local governance structures (e.g., hospital boards) into regional boards has reduced opportunities for local decision-making. A basic principle of justice states that those who are affected directly by decisions ought to be present when such decisions are made. Physicians, nurses and others bring much to the table. The grounds for exclusion are often not clear, but tend to be a result of the misguided notion that self-interest might prevail over the collective interest. In today’s environment, with the rapid turnover of senior health officials, we believe the pendulum must swing toward building a table where enlightened self-interest is promoted. Whereas elected officials are in the health business for only a short time, physicians and other providers have their careers on the line. We have the most invested, the most to give and, next to our patients, the most to lose. Why is it that we have the least say in decisions about the future of health and health care? Why is it that we learn about decisions after the fact and are then expected to support them? Canada has paid an enormous price for this policy of exclusion. Ill-informed policy decisions in human health resources planning have had catastrophic results. Recently, the shell game around investments in medical technology has typified how federal, provincial and territorial governments working behind closed doors tend to promote solutions that minimize friction between the two levels of government, but are of little or no concrete benefit to the health care system. We need a more transparent and accountable process. Recommendation 6 That governments and regional health authorities initiate or enhance significant efforts to secure the participation of and input from practicing physicians at all levels of health care decision-making. 5. Defining the Public Health Care System Sustainability and accountability are overarching themes of this submission, and our ultimate goal is timely access to quality care for all Canadians. The time has come to stop making excuses for rationing the publicly funded health care system. Our patients deserve health care that is available to them in a timely fashion in their own country. Canada’s physicians support publicly funded health care, but not if it means patients are denied timely access to quality care and not if it means rationing and denial of necessary care. We strongly believe that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, should have access to high-quality health care. 5.1 Core Services One of the pathways identified in our initial submission was the need to strike a better balance among everything and everyone. No country in the world has been able to provide first-dollar5 coverage for timely access to all services. In light of the rapidly transforming delivery system with its shift from institutional to community-based care, a re-examination of the Medicare “basket” is overdue. 5.1.1 Uniform coverage for all Canadians All Canadians should have coverage for basic health care services under uniform terms and conditions, regardless of where they live. A clearly defined basket of core services is an essential requirement for a national program in a decentralized system of health care such as Canada’s. This basket would ensure that a minimum level of coverage is applied uniformly across all provinces and territories. However, it is important to acknowledge that variation will occur in health care priorities across provinces and territories; as a result, provinces and territories may choose to add to this basket. Recommendation 7 That all Canadians be provided coverage for a basket of core services under uniform terms and conditions. 5.1.2 Redefining core services Since the inception of Medicare in Canada, core services have generally been understood to be those subject to the five program criteria set out in the Canada Health Act. These include medically necessary hospital services, physician services and surgical dental services provided to insured persons. However, as health care delivery has evolved, more and more services have migrated out of the hospital setting, effectively reducing the relative size of the basket of core services. For example, while hospital and physician expenditures accounted for 56% of total health spending in 1984, by 2000 this had declined to 45%. Many services previously provided in hospitals are now delivered through a combination of community-based services and drug therapy. Services that continue to be provided in hospitals are increasingly being provided on a “day surgery” basis (requiring no admission) or during a much shorter stay. If Medicare is to continue to meet the needs of Canadians, then the notion of core services must be changed to cover an array of services consistent with the realities of health care in the 21st century. Specifically, the definition of core services should be reviewed to determine the extent to which it should go beyond hospital and physician services. Recommendation 8 (a) That the scope of the basket of core services be determined and be updated regularly to reflect and accommodate the realities of health care delivery and the needs of Canadians. (b) That the scope of core services should not be limited by its current application to hospital and physician services, provided that access to medically necessary hospital and physician services is not compromised. 5.1.3 A process for clarifying what is in and what is out There is no simple way to decide what the basket of core services should include or exclude. It involves making difficult value judgements and trade-offs and achieving consensus among a broad cross-section of perspectives and interests. For several years, the CMA has advocated a balanced approach to the determination of core services that addresses the issues of ethics, quality (evidence) and economics (Appendix D). The risks of not making these difficult decisions have become all too clear: a health system that is locked into antiquated notions of health care and is increasingly out of touch with the needs of Canadians. The process used to determine core services should be inclusive and transparent. Decisions should be evidence-based and not biased in favour of any single provider or setting in which care is provided. The special nature of care related to illness should be recognized ? emergent vs. non-emergent conditions, the potential financial burden on individuals and families, and the inability to predict when such care will be required. Most important, whoever is assigned the task of defining and updating the basket of core services must have legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The CMA believes that the values listed below should characterize the process used to determine the basket of core services covered under Medicare. Values for Determining Core Services Transparency: The process and principles or rules on which decisions are based should be open to scrutiny and made public. Accountability: Decision makers should have proper authority to make these decisions and provisions should be in place for them to be held accountable for the decisions they make. Evidence-based: The decision-making process should incorporate relevant empirical evidence as available and appropriate. Inclusivity: Parties having an important stake in the decisions, should be identified, consulted and included in decision-making. Recommendation 9 (a) That the scope of the basket of core services be determined and regularly updated by a federal-provincial-territorial process that has legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians – patients, taxpayers and health care professionals. (b) That the values of transparency, accountability, evidence-based, inclusivity and procedural fairness should characterize the process used to determine the basket of core services to include under Medicare. 5.1.4 Funding core services - finding a new Canadian compromise Under the Canada Health Act, provinces and territories must ensure that medically necessary physician and hospital services are provided on a first-dollar basis. Beyond these core services, provinces and territories provide varying degrees of coverage for other services, which are funded through a mix of government funding and patient cost-sharing. Some services are completely funded from private sources. Beyond hospital and physician services, there is no uniformity across provinces and territories in the terms and conditions under which services may be partly covered under the public funding umbrella. If the basket of core services is to be expanded beyond its focus on physician and hospital care, then certain realities must be addressed. First, although first-dollar coverage may be required to maintain access to services for the most vulnerable in society, its universal application creates the illusion that health care services are free when they clearly are not. Second, given limited fiscal resources and political priorities, governments will likely not be able to afford first-dollar coverage for an expanded set of core services. Without additional funding, resources will have to be reallocated from hospital and physician services to finance other services added to the basket. This argues for a different approach to the funding of core services — one that is more pragmatic and less ideologically driven. Under this approach, health services would be divided into three categories: those that are exclusively publicly funded, those that are partly publicly funded, and those that are exclusively privately funded. The services in the first two categories would be defined as core services. As discussed earlier, the basket of core services would be determined and regularly updated by a legitimate, multistakeholder group using an evidence-based process; it should no longer be defined on the basis of whether the services are 100% publicly financed. If core services are redefined to include services that are currently financed through a mix of private and public funding, then Canadians must be prepared to review the use of first-dollar coverage to ensure that it is applied where it is most needed to maintain access to core services. Uniform terms and conditions for core services with mixed private–public funding must also be developed, i.e., by defining the minimum level of public funding from all provinces and territories. The development of uniform terms and conditions around those services that receive a mix of public and private funds has never been addressed in Canada. Even though the criteria of the Canada Health Act ? universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration ? should be relatively easy to apply in a world of first-dollar coverage, Canada’s health system has not been able to satisfy all of them consistently. It is essential that these criteria be more diligently applied to core services that are funded on the basis of first-dollar coverage. In addition, they must be adapted to provide an effective framework of terms and conditions to govern access to services with mixed private–public funding. There is a need for a more rational discussion of the role of patient cost-sharing in the Canadian health care system. Many types of mechanisms for cost-sharing are in place today, including premiums, deductibles, co-payments, charges at point of service and taxation of health benefits. Here again, governments should adopt approaches that promote transparency and accountability, while ensuring that no one is denied care because they cannot afford to pay. Service charges are an acceptable part of the provision of many important health-related products and services such as pharmaceuticals and dental care. Furthermore, the Canada Health Act makes an explicit provision for chronic care co-payments. However, other services such as physician and hospital services are currently considered off-limits. Certain services that possess an “amenity” component, such as some pharmaceuticals, prostheses and certain elements of home care could continue to include a service charge to cover a portion of the service. However service charges are applied, it should be done in a fair and equitable manner that takes into consideration those at a financial disadvantage so that it does not impede access to necessary care, but encourages appropriate use of the health care system. In addition, patient cost-sharing arrangements for core services must be consistent across provinces and territories. Minimum thresholds for the public share of financing could be established for different categories of core services; however, any jurisdiction would be free to increase its share to a level above the minimum. Recommendation 10 (a) That governments develop a new framework to govern the funding of a basket of core services with a view to ensuring that * Canadians have reasonable access to core services on uniform terms and conditions in all provinces and territories * governments, providers and patients are accountable for the use of health care resources * no Canadian is denied essential care because of her or his personal financial situation. (b) That legislation be amended to permit at least some core services to be cost-shared under uniform terms and conditions in all provinces and territories. (c) That once the basket of core services is defined, minimum levels of public funding for these services be uniformly applied across provinces and territories, with flexibility for individual governments to increase the share of public funding beyond these levels. 5.2 Care Guarantee and “Safety Valve” A common frustration in recent years among many physicians and patients has been the lack of any recourse or alternative care in Canada when the publicly funded health system fails to provide timely access to health care. For Canadians, the only alternative since the inception of Medicare has been to turn to the United States or other countries for medical care. This may have been acceptable in the early days of Medicare when public funding was plentiful and the need to seek care outside of Canada was more theoretical than real; however, in 1998, the National Population Health survey estimated that some 17,000 Canadians traveled to the United States to seek medical care. Clearly, this is not an option for most Canadians. Recent court cases have held provincial governments accountable for providing timely care. An increasing number of Canadians are seeking private care in Canada, such as at private magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clinics, even though this service is potentially in conflict with the principles of the Canada Health Act. The public has, in effect, built its own safety valve. This is a concrete example of what happens when the publicly funded system fails to respond to a legitimate demand. This gap in Canadian health policy must be addressed in a way that compels the system to provide timely care while preserving the right of Canadians to seek alternate care if the public system fails to deliver. The first step in addressing these issues is to define core services. The second step is to establish guidelines and standards around quality and waiting times that are evidence-based and that patients, providers and governments consider reasonable. To date, the best example of such benchmarking in Canada has been by the Cardiac Care Network in Ontario. The CMA has reviewed progress toward the development of benchmarks in A Canadian Health Charter: A Background Discussion Paper, which examines Canadian and international experience with health charters. We have also written a policy on operational principles for the measurement and management of waiting lists (Appendix E). If the publicly funded health care system fails to meet the specified agreed-upon standards for timely access to core services, then patients must have other options to allow them to obtain this required care through other means. Step three involves setting up a “safety valve” to address situations where the established time guarantees cannot be met. This safety valve provision would allow patients and their physicians to seek required care wherever it is available. Attempts would be made to find care geographically close to the patient — first within the province or territory, then in another province or territory or even out of country. The public funds that would have been used to pay for the patient’s care if the time guarantee had been met would be used to pay for the service wherever it is provided. In some cases, the cost of this service will be more than what would have been charged had the service been available in a timely manner from the public system in the patient’s home province or territory. Patients would be able to purchase supplementary private insurance on a prospective basis to cover this difference in cost. Ideally, Canadians would never have to use this “safety valve.” However, its inclusion in Canadian health policy will provide assurances and help restore public confidence in the health system. It will also remind governments about the repercussions of not living up to mutually agreed-upon commitments to provide timely access to care. Recommendation 11 (a) That Canada’s health system develop and apply agreed upon standards for timely access to care, as well as provide for alternative care choices – a “safety valve” – in Canada or elsewhere, if the publicly funded system fails to meet these standards. (b) That the following approach be implemented to ensure that governments are held accountable for providing timely access to quality care. * First, governments must establish clear guidelines and standards around quality and waiting times that are evidence-based and that patients, providers and governments consider reasonable. An independent third-party mechanism must be put in place to measure and report on waiting times and other dimensions of health care quality. * Second, governments must develop a clear policy which states that if the publicly funded health care system fails to meet the specified agreed-upon standards for timely access to core services, then patients must have other options available to them that will allow them to obtain this required care through other means. Public funding at the home province rate would follow the patient in this circumstance, and patients would have the opportunity to purchase insurance on a prospective basis to cover any difference in cost. 5.3 Public Health Canada has been a leader in recognizing that there is more to health than health care. The Hon. Marc Lalonde’s 1974 New Perspective on the Health of Canadians, which has since become world renowned, introduced the health field concept that emphasized the role of environmental and lifestyle determinants of health. Public health is often associated with measures to prevent illness, such as safe drinking water, sanitation, waste disposal, immunization programs, well-baby clinics or programs promoting healthy lifestyles. It is the organized response of society to protect and promote health and to prevent illness, injury and disability. Public health carries out its mission through organized, interdisciplinary efforts that address the physical, mental and environmental health concerns of the population at risk of disease and injury. These efforts require coordination and cooperation among individuals, governments (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal), community organizations and the private sector. Putting patients first means, among other things, making sure that the health system is capable of stretching to capacity to meet unforeseen circumstances. The need for this “surge capacity” is discussed in more detail in section 6.3. Canadian physicians have long recognized the value of health promotion and disease prevention and have incorporated these elements into their practices. The CMA and its divisions and affiliates have also been active in the field of public health. For its part, the CMA * Worked with the CBC on the first series of public health broadcasts * Was the first organization to call for a ban of smoking on airplanes * Developed a tool to help physicians determine medical fitness to drive * Launched a campaign to reduce traffic injuries (seatbelts, breathalyzers, etc) * Carried out a national Bicycle Helmet Safety Program * Supported warning labels on tobacco products. Public health is complex, and the current status of the public health system in Canada requires a full and open review. In 1999, the auditor general found Health Canada unprepared to fulfill its responsibilities in the area of public health: communication among multiple agencies was poor and weaknesses in the key surveillance system impeded the effective monitoring of communicable and noncommunicable diseases and injuries. It is imperative that various departments and sectors coordinate and communicate effectively to synergize efforts and to avoid duplication. The capacity of the public health care sector to deliver disease prevention and health promotion programs is inadequate, and its ability to respond varies across the country. This situation is due to a lack of trained professionals and a lack of operational funds. Greater commitment is needed from governments at all levels to ensure that adequate human resources and infrastructure are available to respond to public health issues when they arise. This includes the expansion of the public health training programs. Once a public health issue has been identified, it is the responsibility of professionals within the system to use effective means of control. The public health system must be supported by a strong and viable infrastructure to allow them to meet such challenges. Major public health issues facing Canadians include, but are not limited to, high rates of obesity, tobacco and other substance use, mental health challenges, ensuring a clean and safe environment and prevention of injury and violence. The ability of the public health system to respond to these issues directly affects the well-being of Canadians, in a manner as important as the ability of the acute care system to respond to medical emergencies. However, investment in public health initiatives must not be made at the expense of acute and long-term care. Since the 1970s, the World Health Organization and national governments around the world have paid increasing attention and put greater effort into establishing goals for improving public health and into monitoring achievement. Numerous examples can be cited in the United States, England and Australia. In Canada, although the federal government has not attempted to establish goals, several provinces have undertaken such an exercise. Public health priorities or goals are considered to be an asset to a health care system in that they * Provide a baseline assessment of a population’s health and a tracking system for monitoring change * Encourage an increase in the breadth and intensity of health improvement activities and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing activities * Facilitate evaluation of the impact of health improvement activities * Foster unity of purpose, organization, participation and spirit of cooperation through consensus * Build awareness of and support for health programs among policymakers and the public * Guide decision-making and funding allocations. At their meeting in September 2000, the first ministers made several commitments to improve public health * Promote the public services, programs and policies that extend beyond care and treatment and that make a critical contribution to the health and wellness of Canadians * Develop strategies and policies that recognize the determinants of health, enhance disease prevention and improve public health * Further address key priorities for health care renewal and support innovations to meet the current and emerging needs of Canadians * Report regularly to Canadians on health status, health outcomes and the performance of publicly funded health services, and the actions taken to improve these services. Unfortunately, there has been little progress to date. Canada must develop a strategic approach to sustain and strengthen the capacity of the public health system to prevent, detect and respond to public health issues. Recommendation 12 (a) That governments demonstrate healthy public policy by making health impact the first consideration in the development of all legislation, policy and directives. (b) That the federal government provide core funding to assist provincial and territorial authorities in improving the coordination of prevention and detection efforts and the response to public health issues among public health officials, educators, community service providers, occupational health providers, and emergency services. (c) That governments invest in the human, infrastructure and training resources needed to develop an adequate and effective public health system capable of preventing, detecting and responding to public health issues. (d) That governments undertake an immediate review of Canada’s self-sufficiency in preventing, detecting and responding to emerging public health problems and furthermore, facilitate an ongoing, inclusive process to establish national public health priorities. 5.4 Aboriginal health Despite improvements in many areas, First Nations, Métis and Inuit people continue to have a poorer health status than the general Canadian population. The current health status of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples is a result of a broad range of factors. It is generally acknowledged that improving it will take a lot more than simply increasing the quantity of health services. The underlying roots of the problem must be addressed; for example, poverty, low levels of education, unemployment and underemployment, exposure to environmental contaminants, inferior housing, substandard infrastructure and maintenance, low self-esteem and loss of cultural identity. A problem of this magnitude and complexity must be addressed in a comprehensive way, with all components of health, government and other sectors working in full partnership with the Aboriginal community. In recognition of this need, in February 2002 the CMA signed a letter of intent with the National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO) (Appendix F) to collaborate on activities in four areas of mutual interest: 1. Workforce initiatives: To increase recruitment and retention of physicians and other health professionals, particularly of Aboriginal descent, who serve Aboriginal communities. 2. Research and practice enhancement initiatives: To promote research into Aboriginal health issues and the translation of research into effective clinical practice through means such as dissemination of best-practice information and the development of user-friendly practice tools. 3. Public and community health programs: To address and develop initiatives to promote healthy living for Aboriginal communities. 4. Leadership programs: To develop and implement leadership development initiatives including mentoring programs for Aboriginal physicians. The exploration of these and other areas is essential to improve Aboriginal health status so that it is on par with the rest of the Canadian population. Recommendation 13 That the federal government adopt a comprehensive strategy for improving the health of Aboriginal peoples which involves a partnership among governments, nongovernmental organizations, universities and the Aboriginal communities. 6. Investing in the Health Care System 6.1 Health Human Resources Governments must demonstrate their commitment to the principle of self-sufficiency in the production of physicians to meet the medical needs of the Canadian population. Coverage means nothing without access, and access means nothing without availability of health care professionals. Unfortunately, there are shortages of human resources in various health care disciplines, and these shortages will be exacerbated by the demographics of the Canadian population and of each provider group and by changing public expectations. The population in general is becoming older. Older age groups experience an increased incidence of illness and disability, and thus place higher demands on the health care system. At the same time, significant numbers of health care providers are approaching retirement; in many cases, there are not enough young people entering the professions to replace those who will soon be leaving. Over the past two decades, one of the most striking changes in the medical workforce in Canada has been the increased proportion of female medical graduates: in 1980, women represented 32% of medical graduates; by 1996, this proportion reached 50%. Women now represent 30% of the practising profession in Canada and this will approach 40% by the end of the decade. Although more research is needed, it is clear that male and female physicians have different practice patterns. The changing gender distribution must be taken into consideration when examining the problem of physician supply. A more highly educated population and the widespread use of information sources such as the Internet are contributing to a heightened sense of patient empowerment, higher expectations and consumerism. These factors will increase pressure for high-quality health services. Although we encourage patients to be informed, we must be prepared for the added demands on the health system that this enhanced knowledge will create, especially in terms of the supply of health human resources. The human resources crisis is one of the most important issues facing health care today. Solutions must be found to address the many specific problems that are plaguing all health provider groups. The nursing field is suffering from many of the same challenges as physicians, including attrition and the “brain drain.” The accessibility crisis is compounded by shortages of laboratory technologists and others in the health care field, who directly support the work of physicians. Although these problems must all be addressed to make our health care system sustainable for the future, this document focuses on the professionals about whom the CMA has the greatest knowledge and expertise: physicians. 6.1.1 Supply, training and continuing education All areas of the health care continuum are experiencing a shortage of physicians. The key factors underlying this shortage include physician demographics (e.g., age and gender distribution), changing lifestyle choices and productivity levels (expectations of younger physicians and women differ from those of older generations) and the insufficient numbers entering certain medical fields. According to 2001 data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada ranked 21st out of 26 countries in terms of the ratio of practising physicians to the population. In addition to the factors affecting physician supply mentioned above, other drivers of change, such as technological innovation and information technology, are adding further pressure to an already overworked medical profession. The OECD report further states that empirical evidence shows that lower doctor numbers are closely linked with higher mortality, after taking other health determinants into consideration. Yet, in terms of female and male life expectancy at birth, Canada ranks 7th and 6th, respectively.6 This is a powerful testament to the efforts of Canadian health professionals in putting patients first. Increasing numbers of Canadians feel the impact of the widespread physician shortages when they are unable to find a family physician or they experience delays in seeing specialists. Physicians themselves are finding that they must reduce the time they can spend doing research, teaching and pursuing continuing medical education in order to focus on direct patient care. In November 1999, the Canadian Medical Forum7 (CMF) and the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada met with the federal, provincial and territorial governments to present a detailed report on physician supply containing five specific recommendations. The CMA and the other CMF organizations were encouraged to see that many jurisdictions across Canada agreed with the need to increase enrolment in undergraduate medical education programs, although we are still far from the 2,000 medical students by year 2000 that was recommended. The necessary increases in undergraduate enrolment in medicine require funding not only for the positions themselves, but also for the infrastructure (human and physical resources) needed to ensure high-quality training that meets North American accreditation standards. The concomitant increases in postgraduate positions that will be required three to four years later must also be resourced appropriately. This is in addition to the extra positions recommended in the November 1999 CMF report, which are needed to increase flexibility in the postgraduate training system; the capacity to provide training to international medical graduates; and opportunities for re-entry for physicians who have been in practice. The CMA remains very concerned about high and rapidly escalating increases in medical school tuition fees across Canada. According to data from the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges (ACMC), in just five years (1996 to 2001), average first-year medical school tuition fees increased by 100%. In Ontario, they went up by 223% over the same period. Student financial support through loans and scholarships has not kept pace with this rapid escalation in tuition fees. The CMA is particularly concerned about the impact this will have on the physician workforce and the Canadian health care system. High tuition fees will have a number of consequences. They create barriers to application to medical school and threaten the socioeconomic diversity of future physicians serving the public. They also exacerbate the “brain drain” of physicians to the United States where newly graduated physicians can pay down their large student debts much more quickly. Medical education does not end with earning the title MD; in fact, this is just the beginning of a physician’s learning. The continuously evolving nature of medicine requires that physicians remain up-to-date on emerging medical technologies, new treatment modalities and numerous other developments. In the early 1990s, the conventional wisdom was that medical knowledge was doubling every five years. Now, a time of less than two years is more commonly cited. Clearly, there is an increasing role for continuing medical education (CME), underscored by explicit requirements for self-directed activities to promote maintenance of certification for both family practitioners and specialists. Historically, this is an area where physicians have largely had to fend for themselves. For its part, the CMA has sponsored the Physician Manager Institute, which provides training for physicians moving into leadership positions. Although many provincial and territorial medical associations have negotiated CME benefits with their governments, it is essential that academic health science centres be supported to expand capacity in the area of CME. In the early days of Medicare, the federal government played a leadership role in building the infrastructure for health education through the Health Resources Fund, which distributed $500 million during 1966–1980. The purpose of this fund was to help provinces bear the capital costs of constructing, renovating and acquiring health training facilities and research institutions. More recently, the federal government supported a rebuilding of the university research infrastructure generally through the $800-million Canada Foundation for Innovation fund, which was announced in the 1997 budget, and the $900-million Canada Research Chairs program, which was announced in the 2000 budget to support the establishment of 2,000 research chairs by 2000. The health field will be a significant beneficiary of these funds. However, considering the shortage of health professionals that we face today and that will soon worsen, as well as the prospect of diminished access to professional education as a result of higher tuition, there is an urgent need for targeted federal funds to address this situation immediately. Recommendation 14 (a) That the federal government establish a $1 billion, five-year Health Resources Education and Training Fund to (1) further increase enrolment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education (including re-entry positions), (2) expand the infrastructure (both human and physical resources) of Canada’s 16 medical schools in order to accommodate the increased enrolment and (3) enhance continuing medical education programs. (b) That the federal government increase funding targeted to institutions of postsecondary education to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases. (c) That the federal government enhance financial support systems for medical students that are (1) non-coercive, (2) developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase, (3) in direct proportion to any tuition fee increase and (4) provided at levels that meet the needs of the students. (d) That incentives be incorporated into medical education programs to ensure adequate numbers of students choose medical fields for which there is greatest need. 6.1.2 Physician retention and recruitment As important as investments in medical education may be, they will only begin to pay off in terms of increased supply of physicians in the medium- to long-term. In the short-term, shortages of family physicians and specialists will persist and possibly worsen. There is no quick fix for this problem; we must manage the best we can. This means making sure that we retain the physicians who are now practising in communities across the country. Physician turnover is a chronic problem in both rural and urban areas. The loss of a physician in a community has a very real impact in terms of continuity of care. There are unmeasured costs to patients, such distress and turmoil, as well as to the remaining physician(s) and communities that must cope with the repeated loss of valued physicians. Canada is both an exporter and an importer of physicians. The two-way flow, mainly between Canada and the United States, is tracked by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Since tracking began in the 1960s, Canada has been a net exporter of physicians to the United States. During the mid-1990s, the net loss exceeded 400 ? roughly equal to 4 graduating medical classes. Since then, it has abated to 164 in 2000, but this is still the equivalent of 1.5 medical classes. Conversely, Canada is a net importer of physicians from the rest of the world. Although the figure is more difficult to quantify, it is estimated that Canada is a net importer of 200–400 international medical graduates, who are most typically recruited to work in rural and remote communities. Short-term responses to the physician shortage include repatriating Canadian physicians working abroad and integrating qualified international medical graduates and other providers. Canada must recognize that there is a global shortage of physicians ? and a global marketplace for our services; a widespread, organized recruitment of physicians from other countries, especially from those that are also experiencing physician shortages, is not the way to solve Canada’s health human resources problems.8 Recommendation 15 (a) That governments and communities make every effort to retain Canadian physicians in Canada through non-coercive measures and optimize the use of existing health human resources to meet the health needs of Canadian communities. (b) That the federal government work with other countries to equitably regulate and coordinate international mobility of health human resources. (c) That governments adopt a policy statement that acknowledges the value of the health care workforce in the provision of quality care, as well as the need to provide good working conditions, competitive compensation and opportunities for professional development. 6.1.3 The need for integrated health human resources planning Health human resource planning is complex. The CMA seeks to build consensus within the medical profession on major program and policy initiatives concerning the supply, mix and distribution of physicians and to work with major stakeholders in identifying and assessing issues of mutual importance. Planning for the provision of services by a broad array of providers to meet changing health care needs should focus on having the right providers in the right places doing the right things. This first requires the determination of the needed supply, mix and distribution of physicians, which will assist in the development of a similar assessment for all other providers. Resource planning must be based on the health care needs of Canadians rather than driven by cost. The CMA has developed principles and criteria for the determination of scopes of practice. The primary purpose is to meet health care needs and to serve the interests of patients and the public safely, efficiently and competently. These principles and criteria (listed below) have been endorsed by the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Pharmacists Association. See Appendix G for more details. Principles and Criteria for the Determination of Scopes of Practice Principles: * Focus * Flexibility * Collaboration and cooperation * Coordination * Patient choice Criteria: * Accountability * Education * Competencies and practice standards * Quality assurance and improvement * Risk assessment * Evidence-based practices * Setting and culture * Legal liability and insurance * Regulation The CMA remains sensitive to Canada’s provincial and territorial realities with respect to the fact that health human resource planning requires assessment and implementation at the local or regional level. However, there is a need for a national body to develop and coordinate health human resources planning initiatives. Recommendation 16 (a) That a national multistakeholder body be established with representatives from the health professions and all levels of government to develop integrated health human resource strategies, provide planning tools for use at the local level and monitor supply, mix and distribution on an ongoing basis. (b) That scopes of practice should be determined in a manner that serves the interests of patients and the public, safely, efficiently, and competently. 6.2 Capital Infrastructure The crisis in health human resources is exacerbated by an underdeveloped capital infrastructure ? bricks, mortar and tools. This is seriously jeopardizing timely access to quality care within the health care system. In our 2001 discussion paper, Specialty Care in Canada, the CMA indicated there has been inadequate investment in buildings, machinery and equipment and in scientific, professional and medical devices. Provincial and territorial government spending on construction, machinery and equipment for hospitals, clinics, first-aid stations and residential care facilities has remained, on average, 16.5% below its peak in 1989. Specifically, real capital expenditures on new building construction decreased 5.3% annually between 1982 and 1998. Investment in new hospital machinery and equipment declined by 1.8% annually between 1989 and 1998. In 1998, hospital expenditures on scientific, professional and medical devices were nearly 17% below 1994 levels. While these cutbacks were occurring, significant innovations in medical technology were being introduced worldwide. Although hospitals are still providing most acute care services, whether patients are treated as inpatients or outpatients, the equipment required is not keeping pace with the growth of new technologies, the health needs of the patients and the increase and aging of the population. Equipment and machinery in the hospital sector are overaged due to a lack of replacement capital. In the absence of timely access to current and emerging health technologies, Canadians face the prospect of unrestrained progression of disease, increased stress and anxiety over their health status and, possibly, premature death. Meanwhile, society bears the direct and indirect costs associated with delayed access. On September 11, 2000, the federal government announced a new $1 billion transfer to provinces and territories for the purpose of purchasing new medical equipment. A recent analysis by the CMA found that just over half of this fund can be accounted for as being spent as intended (Appendix H). The question remains as to what has happened to the remainder of the fund. Governments have been placing a lower priority on capital investment when allocating financial resources for health care. It will not be enough simply to bring Canada’s health infrastructure up to par; a commitment to ongoing funding to maintain the equipment must also be made. This, in turn, requires continuous inventory maintenance for regular replacement. Therefore, it may be necessary for hospitals to develop innovative approaches to financing capital infrastructure. The CMA agrees with other organizations such as the Canadian Healthcare Association on the need to explore the concept of entering into public–private partnerships (P3s) to address capital infrastructure needs as an alternative to relying on government funding. Joint ventures and hospital bonds are but two examples of P3 financing. Recommendation 17 (a) That hospitals and other health care facilities conduct a coordinated inventory of capital infrastructure to provide governments with an accurate assessment of machinery and equipment. (b) That the federal government establish a one-time catch-up fund to restore capital infrastructure to an acceptable level. (see Recommendation 4(b).) (c) That governments commit to providing adequate, ongoing funding for capital infrastructure. (d) That public-private partnerships (P3s) be explored as a viable alternative source of funding for capital infrastructure investment. 6.3 Surge Capacity Putting patients first means, among other things, making sure that the health care system is capable of stretching its capacity to meet unforeseen circumstances, that the system is monitored for quality, that compensation is available when unintended harm occurs and that patient privacy and confidentiality are respected. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, followed closely by the distribution of anthrax through the United States postal service, provided a grim reminder of the necessity of having a strong public health infrastructure in place at all times. As was demonstrated quite vividly, we do not have the luxury of time to prepare for these events. Although it is not possible to plan for every contingency, certain scenarios can be sketched out and anticipated. To succeed, all communities must maintain a certain consistent level of public health infrastructure to ensure that all Canadian residents are protected from threats to their health. In addition to external threats, the Canadian public health system must also cope with domestic issues such as diseases created by environmental problems (e.g., asthma), sexually transmitted diseases and influenza, among many others. Even before the spectre of bioterrorism, this country’s public health experts were concerned about the infrastructure’s ability to deal with multiple crises. Like our hydro system, “surge capacity” must be built into the system nationally to enable hospitals to open beds, purchase more supplies and bring in the health care professionals they require to meet the need. The CMA’s 2001 pre-budget submission lays out comprehensive recommendations to address this issue (Appendix I). Recommendation 18 That the federal government cooperate with provincial and territorial governments and with governments of other countries to ensure that a strong, adequately funded emergency response system is put in place to improve surge capacity. 6.4 Information Technology Much of the recent debate about the future of the health care system has focused on the need to improve its adaptability and overall integration. One critical ingredient in revitalizing the system is establishing the information technology (IT) and information systems (IS) that physicians and other health care professionals must have at their disposal. Effective and efficient networks will facilitate integrated and coordinated care, as well as better management of clinical information. Although health care is information-intensive, health care systems in Canada and abroad have generally been slow to adopt IT. Other sectors of the economy have invested heavily in IT/IS over the past two decades and have reaped enormous benefits in efficiency and service to clients. IT should be viewed as a “social investment” in the acquisition of knowledge. Patients will benefit through potential reductions in rates of mortality and morbidity due to misdiagnosis and improper treatment, as well as reductions in medication errors that come with access to online drug reference databases and the virtual elimination of handwritten prescriptions. IT will permit better access to diagnostic services and online databases, such as clinical practice guidelines, that are widely available but underused. Health promotion and disease prevention will be enhanced through superior monitoring and patient education (e.g., e-libraries), and decision-making by providers and patients will be improved. These represent only a subset of the potential benefits to Canadians. A great deal of effort is currently being devoted to the development of a secure electronic health record (EHR) that provides details of all health services provided to a patient. An EHR will not generate new information on patients; it will simply make existing information more readily accessible to the physician or appropriate health care provider. We are still at the infant stage of EHRs. Implementation will require a process of continual expansion, beginning with the most basic of patient information and evolving into a comprehensive record of all of the patient’s encounters with the health care system ? as well legislation protecting personal privacy and unwarranted access. It is widely accepted in industry that 4 – 5% of financial budgets is a reasonable target for information technology spending. It is equally widely accepted that in Canada the health care sector falls well short of this target. As part of the September 2000 Health Accord, the federal government invested $500 million to create the Canada Health Infoway with a mandate to accelerate the development and adoption of modern systems of IT, such as electronic patient records. The CMA applauds this investment, but notes that the $500-million down-payment is only a fraction of the $4.1 billion that the CMA estimates it would cost to fully connect the Canadian health care system. A number of provincial and territorial governments are also moving ahead with the development of IT in health care, but further financial support is required. The CMA is prepared to play a pivotal partnership role in achieving the buy-in and cooperation of physicians and other health care providers through a multistakeholder process. Toward this end, the CMA has developed principles for the advancement of EHRs (Appendix J). The CMA’s involvement would be a critical success factor in helping the federal government make an electronic health care system a realizable goal in the years to come. Recommendation 19 That federal government make an additional, substantial, ongoing national investments in information technology and information systems, with the objective of improving the health of Canadians as well as improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system. Recommendation 20 That governments adopt national standards that facilitate the collection, use and exchange of electronic health information in a manner which ensures that the protection of patient privacy and confidentiality are paramount. 6.5 Research and Innovation Research and innovation in the health sector are producing an expanding array of treatments and therapies that improve quality of life and longevity, e.g., pharmaceuticals, surgery, human genome, etc. Health research provides substantial economic, social and health care benefits to society. It * Creates high-quality, knowledge-based jobs that drive economic growth * Supports academic institutions across the country and helps train new health professionals in the latest health care technologies and techniques * Supports health care delivery and is key to maintaining centres of excellence for highly specialized care * Leads directly to better ways to treat patients and promote a healthier population. In Canada, health research is carried out by a mix of public, voluntary and private-sector organizations with the federal government being the main player in publicly funded health research. Several provinces have their own health research funding agencies. Canada’s health charities play an important role in funding research on a range of diseases and conditions. The pharmaceutical industry, especially the name-brand companies, invests heavily to develop new drugs. Recent federal investments have begun to revitalize Canada’s health research capacity. With the creation of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Canada now has a modern funding agency that integrates biomedical, clinical, health services and population health research. New programs have been introduced to attract world-class scientists, modernize research infrastructure and equipment and support research in genomics. As significant as these investments have been, Canada still ranks second-to-last among G7 countries in terms of support for health research. The United States’ National Institutes of Health has a budget that is 50 times that of the CIHR for a population only 10 times bigger than Canada’s. Other countries are increasing their investment in health research to keep pace. If Canada is to improve it position vis-à-vis our key competitors, the federal government must map out a plan to increase its investment in health research to internationally competitive levels. The federal government’s investment in health research currently stands at about 0.5% of total health expenditures. There is a broad consensus in the health community that this should be increased to at least 1% of total health expenditures. Recommendation 21 That the federal government’s investment in health research be increased to at least 1% of national health expenditures. 7. Health System Financing Governments’ contributions to funding Canada’s health system should support the long-term sustainability of the system and the provision of high-quality health care for all Canadians. Governments’ contribution to Medicare should promote greater public accountability, transparency and a linkage of sources with their uses. Changes in health system financing have played a central role in the crisis facing Medicare. Significant and unpredictable funding cuts at both federal and provincial–territorial levels have wreaked havoc in the planning and delivery of a very complex array of services. Health care costs that were previously covered by provincial and territorial health insurance plans have been gradually shifted to individuals (“passive privatization”) leaving those without private insurance coverage increasingly vulnerable. Mounting evidence of unacceptably long waits for treatment and poor access to services has underlined the risks attached to having a single-payer system, with insufficient accountability for timeliness and accessibility of care. Growing problems of access and declining provider morale, combined with constant bickering about funding between federal and provincial–territorial governments have led to deterioration of public confidence in the system. The message from the front lines is clear: restoring the health care system to a sustainable footing cannot be accomplished by simply managing our way out of this crisis. As Medicare is renewed, it is essential that its underlying financing framework is modernized, taking into account the multiple policy objectives served by health financing mechanisms. 10 Policy Objectives for Health Financing Mechanisms 1. Stable and sustainable funding 2. Risk-pooling 3. Equity (between population subgroups, across regions) 4. Responsible use 5. Administrative simplicity 6. Transparency and accountability 7. Choice 8. Efficiency 9. Meet current needs 10. Fairness between generations (intergenerational equity) Our recommended changes to the legislation governing federal transfers to provinces and territories are set out in section 3.3.2. To restore the federal–provincial–territorial partnership in health, we recommend that the federal contribution to the public health care system be locked in for a 5-year period, with a built-in escalator tied to increases in GDP, rising to a target of 50% of spending for core services. We also recommend that the federal government establish special purpose, one-time funds to address a number of pressing issues. Given their constitutional responsibility in the area of health care, provinces and territories will continue to play the lead role in regulating the flow of public funding for health care. Once the basket of core services is determined according to the process outlined in section 5.1, provinces and territories will have to commit sufficient funding to ensure that these services are available and accessible in a timely way. The funding commitment of provinces and territories will, therefore, drive the federal government’s 50% contribution. In addition to providing half of public funding for core services, provinces and territories will also have the option of funding additional health services beyond the national minimum core basket, much as they do now. Although adequate and stable funding for health care is imperative at the federal level, it is equally important at the provincial and territorial level. Provincial and territorial commitment to funding core services must also be locked-in for a five-year period with an escalator tied to provincial demographics and inflation. To ensure stability, a buffer will also be needed to protect provincial and territorial health care budgets from the ebbs and flows of the business cycle. Currently, the federal Fiscal Stabilization Program compensates provinces if their revenues fall substantially from one year to the next due to changes in economic circumstances. However, this program is not health-specific and only takes effect when provincial revenues drop by over 5%. It is also funded from general revenues, which makes it more vulnerable to economic and political factors. A more robust approach to guaranteeing stability of public funding for health care would be to create a stand-alone contingency fund to which all governments would contribute. Excess revenues would be collected into this fund during periods of high economic growth, and could be used during less prosperous periods when governments experience fiscal capacity shortfalls. Recommendation 22 (a) That the provincial and territorial governments’ commitment to funding core services be locked-in for an initial five-year period with an escalator tied to provincial population demographics and inflation. (b) That governments establish a health-specific contingency fund to mitigate the effects of fluctuations in the business cycle and to promote greater stability in health care financing. 8. Organization and Delivery of Services 8.1 The Medical Care Continuum There is a tendency to separate medical care into two areas; primary care and specialty care. However, we must recognize that medical and health care encompass a broad spectrum of services ranging from primary prevention to highly specialized care. Primary and specialty care are so closely interrelated that the renewal of either should not be attempted without considering the impact on the rest of the care continuum. Recommendation 23 That any effort to change the organization or delivery of medical care take into account the impact on the whole continuum of care. 8.1.1 Primary care services In recent years, several government task force and Commission reports have called for primary care reform. Common themes include improving continuity of care (including 24/7 coverage); establishing alternatives to fee-for-service payment of physicians; placing greater emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention; and adopting team models that involve nurse practitioners and other health care providers working collaboratively with physicians. Governments have responded by launching pilot projects to evaluate different models of primary care delivery. It is critical to evaluate these projects before moving ahead with them on a broader scale and to consider the implications of their system-wide implementation. Although some jurisdictions have moved forward with ambitious proposals to change the structure of primary care and the remuneration of physicians, the CMA urges the Commission not to view primary care renewal as a panacea for all that ails Medicare. Primary care renewal should not be used as a pretext for changing how doctors are paid nor should it focus on substituting the lowest cost provider. The focus should be on patient need. Any changes to the delivery of primary care should respect the following principles: * All Canadians should have access to a family physician. * No single model will meet the primary care needs of all communities in all regions of the country. Successful renewal of primary health care delivery cannot be accomplished without also addressing the shortage of family practitioners. Not only is the supply of these physicians affected by an aging physician population and by changes in lifestyle and productivity, but the popularity of primary care as a career choice among medical graduates is also declining. According to the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS), in 1997, only 10% of positions that were still vacant after the first round of the residency match were in family medicine. By 2000, family medicine’s share of vacant positions after the first iteration peaked at 57%; since then it has remained close to 50%. Furthermore, before 1994, more graduates were choosing family medicine than there were positions available. Since then, the situation has reversed with fewer graduates consistently choosing family medicine than there are positions available.9 A major factor in this trend may be the 1993 change in the residency program, which removed graduates’ ability to do a first-year rotation in family medicine, then have the choice of continuing in the family medicine program or switching into a specialty. Now, any graduate who chooses family medicine is committed to that program. The dramatic shift in the number of graduates choosing family medicine in 1994 is likely due to the assumption that it is easier to switch out of a specialty into family medicine than vice versa. The uncertainty of the future of primary care caused by these constant reform efforts has also contributed to the decline in popularity of family medicine among medical graduates. Efforts must be made to remove these perceived barriers so that the public’s need for primary care services can be met. Multidisciplinary teams, both formal and informal, are common in primary care today. The reliance on the team approach will likely grow because of the increased complexity of care, the exponential growth of knowledge, the greater emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, and the choice of patients and providers. Although desirable, primary care teams ? physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dieticians and others ? will cost the system more, not less, than the traditional fee-for-service physician approach. Funding these initiatives must not come at the expense of the provision of illness care. The add-on costs of primary care teams, including informational technology (IT) and information systems (IS), must be looked upon as an investment in the health of Canadians. (IT and IS opportunities must also be available to all physicians, regardless of how they are paid or their patterns of practice.) Although multidisciplinary teams may provide a broader array of services, for most Canadians having a family doctor as the central provider of all primary medical care services is a core value. As the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) indicated in its submission to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, over 90% of Canadians seek advice from a family physician as their first resource in the health care system. The CPFC also reports that a recent Ontario College of Family Physicians public opinion survey, conducted by Decima, found that 94% of people agree that it is important to have a family physician who provides the majority of primary care and coordinates the care delivered by others.10 A family physician as the central coordinator of medical services promotes the efficient and effective use of resources. This facilitates continuity of care because the family physician generally has the benefit of developing an ongoing relationship with his or her patients and their families and, as a result, can advise and direct the patient through the system so that the patient receives the appropriate care from the appropriate provider. Canada has one of the best primary care systems in the world, but it can be improved through better integration and coordination of care. This requires investment to increase quality and productivity through improved IT and connectivity to support physicians in their expanded roles as information providers, coordinators and integrators of care, and to support the integrated care of primary care teams. Recommendation 24 (a) That governments work with the provincial and territorial medical associations and other stakeholders to draw on the successes of evaluated primary care projects to develop a variety of templates of primary care models that would * suit the full range of geographical contexts and * incorporate criteria for moving from pilot projects to wider implementation, such as cost-effectiveness, quality of care and patient and provider satisfaction. (b) That family physicians remain as the central provider and coordinator of timely access to publicly funded medical services, to ensure comprehensive and integrated care, and that there are sufficient resources available to permit this. 8.1.2 Specialty care services Much of the focus in recent years has been on primary care renewal. Countless reports indicating a major crisis in the area of primary care delivery have overshadowed the problems that are plaguing other areas of the health care continuum. For example, a severe physician shortage is occurring in specialty care at the generalist level. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada reports that a third of general surgeons are aged 55 or older and nearly 40% more general surgeons are retiring than are graduating from medical schools.11 Canada cannot afford to continue to ignore this key segment of the care continuum. A concerted effort must be made to increase the visibility of secondary care specialists and to encourage medical students to enter general specialties. As highly specialized care and technology have advanced, there has been increasing pressure at the tertiary level of the health care system to provide the highest level of care possible. Delivering tertiary care in the ways to which Canadians are accustomed cannot be sustained into the future; and such tertiary care cannot be available in all areas of the country. Alternative approaches to delivering and receiving high-level specialty care are both required and inevitable. The aging population, the challenges posed by Canada’s geography, rapidly expanding high-cost technologies and the lack of a critical mass of highly specialized health care providers necessitate a change in thinking. The health system has reached the point where certain types of care are neither universally nor readily available. The shortage of specialists and the high cost of technology and pharmaceuticals will exacerbate this situation. The future challenge is to design delivery systems that are built around a series of regional centres of excellence, without abandoning the concept of “reasonable” access. As these highly specialized services are realigned interprovincially, resources must also be realigned to accommodate and compensate for the relocation of providers and to ensure that patients have equitable access to treatment. At their January 2002 meeting in Vancouver, the premiers recognized that some types of surgery and other medical procedures are performed infrequently and that the necessary expertise cannot be developed and maintained in each province and territory. Building on the experience in Canada’s three territories and Atlantic Canada, they agreed to share human resources and equipment by developing sites of excellence in such fields as pediatric cardiac surgery and gamma knife neurosurgery. This should lead to better care for patients and more efficient use of health care dollars. At the provincial–territorial level, this strategy has led to regional centres and hospitals with responsibilities for province- and territory-wide programs and services. The concept of centres of excellence can be further supported by the adoption of telemedicine and telehealth technologies which will permit rapid access to or exchange of electronic diagnostic information (e.g., imaging) and enable remote consultation and treatment. Determining where care is available will become an increasingly relevant policy matter ? especially as costs such as travel and lost income could be downloaded onto patients and their families. Efforts will be required to optimize the use of scarce specialist services, improve care and availability, assure continuity and enhance provider morale. In the interests of quality care, patient safety and the economical use of scarce resources interjursidictionally, there is a need for a Canadian Accessibility Fund. This fund would be modeled after the Portability Fund established to support the Federal–Provincial–Territorial Eligibility and Portability Agreements under the Medical Care Act. The cost of the new fund, like the old, would be 50–50 cost-shared by the federal and provincial–territorial governments. It would require an initial investment of $100 million. Access to the fund would be determined by a mutually agreed upon set of criteria, and any monies withdrawn would be used to facilitate access to highly specialized health care services that are not available in the patient’s home province. Recommendation 25 (a) That governments develop a national plan to coordinate the most efficient access to highly specialized treatment and diagnostic services. * This plan should include the creation of defined regional centres of excellence to optimize the availability of scarce specialist services. * Any realignment of services must accommodate and compensate for the relocation of providers. * That the federal government create an accessibility fund that would support interprovincial centres of excellence for highly specialized services. 8.2 Physician Remuneration It is a common misconception that successful renewal of the health care system involves simply changing how physicians are paid ? specifically, abolishing fee-for-service. In their analysis of primary care in Canada, Hutchison and colleagues note that governments’ preoccupation with the “big bang” approach — that typically involves the adoption of inappropriate funding and remuneration methods — is a major contributor to the failure of many primary care projects.12 Every system of remuneration has its strengths and weaknesses. Canadians should not be led to think that movement away from fee-for-service remuneration of physicians will provide them with better care. How physicians (and other health care providers) are paid should be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Nevertheless, physicians are willing to consider other appropriate methods of remuneration in appropriate circumstances. Physicians must be given a choice about their method of payment. Experience has taught us that a “one size fits all” approach to compensation does not work. Furthermore, any remuneration arrangement must preserve and protect physician autonomy and the ability of the physician to act as an advocate for his or her patients. In 2001, the CMA developed a policy on physician compensation (Appendix K) that is based on the following principles. CMA Policy on Physician Compensation: Basic Principles * Medical practitioners must receive fair, reasonable and equitable remuneration for the full spectrum of their professional activities. * Physicians need to receive reasonable consideration and compensation when facilities and programs are discontinued, reduced or transferred. * Individual medical practitioners have the liberty to choose among payment methods. * Payment systems must not compromise the ability of physicians to provide high-quality cost-effective medical services. * Payment mechanisms must allow for a reasonable quality of life. * Provincial and territorial government resources and funding for physician services must be allocated directly to physicians for services provided. * All physicians, including those indirectly affected, have the right to representation in negotiations on issues of payment, funding, and the terms and conditions of their work. * Paying agencies must fulfill the terms of agreement negotiated with legitimate agents of the medical profession and be obliged to honour a mutually agreed-upon and established process of negotiation with those agents. * In the event of failure of negotiations relating to physician compensation, such disagreement must be resolved by a mutually agreed-upon, timely process of dispute resolution. * The federal minister of health must enforce the provisions of the Canada Health Act relevant to physician compensation (section12.2). Recommendation 26 That governments respect the principles contained in the CMA’s policy on physician compensation and the terms of duly negotiated agreements. 8.3 Rural Health Care Canadian physicians and other health care professionals are greatly frustrated by the impact that health care budget cuts and reorganization have had, and continue to have, on the timely provision of quality care to patients and on general working conditions. For physicians who practise in rural and remote communities, this impact is exacerbated by the breadth of their practice, long working hours, lifestyle restrictions created by on-call responsibilities, geographic isolation and lack of professional backup and access to specialist services. In 2000, the CMA developed a policy statement on rural and remote practice (Appendix L) to help governments, policymakers, communities and others involved in the retention of physicians understand the various professional and personal factors that must be addressed to retain and recruit physicians to rural and remote areas. The 28 recommendations address training, compensation and work and lifestyle support issues. Training for rural practice must span the full medical career lifecycle, from recruitment of candidates likely to enter rural practice to special skills training, retraining and continuing professional development. Compensation must reflect the degree of isolation, level of responsibility, frequency of on-call duty, breadth of practice and additional skills. Consideration must also be given to the broader social issues of the physician and his or her family, as well as the need to facilitate the availability of locum tenens, particularly across jurisdictional boundaries. There is a need to ensure that there is sufficient availability of physicians so that on-call requirements are manageable and that adequate professional backup is provided, e.g., locum services currently offered through provincial and territorial medical associations. We concur with the observation made by the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada in their August 2001 submission to the Commission that Canada needs a national rural health strategy. The aim of the strategy would be to look at the systemic barriers to meeting the needs of rural Canadians and to provide strategic program funding to catalyze change. Recommendation 27 That governments work with universities, colleges, professional associations and communities to develop a national rural and remote health strategy for Canada. 8.4 Emerging and Supportive Roles in Health Care Delivery 8.4.1 Private sector Canada has a mixed system of public–private delivery and public–private financing, as illustrated in the following diagram with all four possible combinations. [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] Delivery Public Private Financing Public Public delivery/ public financing (e.g., public hospital services) Private delivery/ public financing (e.g., doctor’s office care) Private Public delivery/ private financing (e.g., private room in a public hospital) Private delivery/ private financing (e.g., cosmetic surgery) [TABLE END] No issue in Canadian health policy has generated more controversy than the role of the private sector. As we move forward with the renewal of Medicare, it will be important for Canadians to understand the distinction between private delivery and private funding. The appropriate mix of public and private should not be based on ideology, but rather on the optimal use of resources. Health care is delivered mainly by private providers including physicians, pharmacists, private not-for-profit hospitals, private long-term care facilities, private diagnostic and testing facilities, rehabilitation centres. (In addition, supplies from food and laundry to drugs and technology are provided almost exclusively by the private sector.) This significant level of private-sector delivery has served Canada well. Accordingly, the CMA supports a continuing and major role for the private sector in the delivery of health care. However, we are not proposing a parallel private system. There may be a growing role for private delivery. We would encourage this as long as the services can be provided cost-effectively. As with the public sector, any private-sector involvement in health care must be patient-centred as well as open, transparent and accountable. Furthermore, it must be strictly regulated to ensure that high standards of quality care are being met and monitored. Recommendation 28 That Canada’s health care system make optimal use of the private sector in the delivery of publicly financed health care provided that it meets the same standards of quality as the public system. 8.4.2 Voluntary sector The voluntary sector, including many charities and consumer advocacy groups, has played a critical role in the development of the public health system ? providing and funding services, programs, equipment and facilities. Much of the capital infrastructure development, especially in hospitals, has been made possible through the fundraising efforts of charity foundations and service organizations. In addition, many patient support services such as “Meals on Wheels” exist only because of the efforts of volunteer groups. Although the voluntary sector is a major asset for Canada’s health care system, it is critical for governments to fulfill their obligation to support publicly financed health care. Governments must avoid passing off their responsibilities to the voluntary sector, which is already stretched to the limit. Governments should not abuse the voluntary sector, but should properly fund the public health system’s ongoing operating costs and capital expenditures. The voluntary sector should be formally recognized for the contribution it makes to the health care system. Many of these organizations operate on a shoestring budget with limited capacity to respond to the increasing demands being placed on them. Recommendation 29 That governments examine ways to recognize and support the role of the voluntary sector in the funding and delivery of health care, including enhanced tax credits. 8.4.3 Informal caregivers Informal caregivers ? particularly those who provide care for ailing relatives and friends ? play an essential role in the health care system. The massive off-loading onto these caregivers has gone unrecognized. The costs of providing this kind of care go beyond identifiable dollar amounts such as loss of income. Many indirect costs, including emotional strain on the caregivers and their families, must also be acknowledged with support provided by governments and employers. Patients often prefer to receive their care at home, but it cannot be assumed that care provided at home is better for the patient than that provided within a health care institution. Resources must be made available to ensure that the care patients receive at home is acceptable. Increased financial support should be provided to informal caregivers through the tax system. Refundable tax credits and a program for family leave are two examples of this support. Recommendation 30 That governments support the contributions of informal caregivers through the tax system. Conclusions Canada’s health care system is at a crossroads. We need to act now to ensure that our health care system will be able to meet the current and future health care needs of Canadians. Canadians are looking for real solutions that will have meaningful results. This means not only addressing the most critical issues such as health human resources, infrastructure and delivery mechanisms, but also implementing system-wide structural and procedural changes. It also means involving all key stakeholders in the decision-making process at all levels. In this second submission to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, the CMA has offered solutions that are patient-centred and reflect Canadian values of a publicly funded system that is sustainable and accountable and provides timely access to high-quality care. These recommendations form a complete, integrated package that should be implemented as a whole to be successful. The CMA would like to thank the Commission for providing this opportunity to submit our Prescription for Sustainability and we wish the Commission every success in developing a concrete plan for revitalizing our cherished Canadian health care system. 1 A recent article by Patrick Monahan and Stanley Hartt published by the C.D. Howe Institute argues that Canadians have a constitutional right to access privately funded health care if the publicly funded system does not provide access to care in a timely way. 2 Although the word “charter” has a legal connotation, it has been used in other contexts. An example is the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, an international call for action on health promotion that has received worldwide acclaim. 3 This could be linked to the equalization provision in Section 36(2) of the Constitution Act (1982). 4 Proclamations are issued by the Queen’s representative in the particular jurisdiction. An example of a proclamation that has been issued this way is the “Proclamation Recognizing the Outstanding Service to Canadians by Employees in the Public Service of Canada in Times of Natural Disaster” (13 May, 1998). 5 100% government-funded without patient cost-sharing. 6 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a glance. Paris, France: OECD; 2001. 7 CMF membership includes: CMA, Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, College of Family Physicians of Canada, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Canadian Federation of Medical Students, Canadian Association of Internes and Residents, Federation of Medical Licensing Authorities of Canada, Medical Council of Canada, and Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations. 8 See for example the Melbourne Manifesto: A Code of Practice for the International Recruitment of Health Care Professionals, which was adopted at the 5th Wonca World Conference on Rural Health in May 2002. It puts the onus on every country to train enough health professionals to meet their own needs (www.wonca.org). 9 Canadian Resident Matching Service. PGY-1 Match Report 2002. History of family medicine as a career choice of Canadian graduates. [http:// http://www.carms.ca/stats/stats_index.htm]. Ottawa: CaRMS; 2002. 10 College of Family Physicians of Canada. Shaping the Future of Health Care. Submission to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Ottawa: CFPC; 25 Oct. 2001. 11 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Health care renewal through knowledge, collaboration, and commitment. Ottawa: RCPSC; 31 Oct. 2002. 12 Hutchison B, Abelson J, Lavis J. Primary care in Canada: so much innovation, so little change. Health Aff 2001 May/Jun; 20(3):116-31.
Documents
Less detail

16 records – page 1 of 2.