Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


18 records – page 1 of 2.

Budget 2009: Economic Stimulus through Targeted Investments in Health Infrastructure - Brief to the Minister of Finance's Roundtable

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9401
Date
2009-01-12
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2009-01-12
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
With economic growth having slowed, Budget 2009 provides an historic opportunity to invest in initiatives that will stimulate the Canadian economy in the short term while also strengthening it in the long term. With the federal government now considering several areas for potential fiscal stimulus, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) views infrastructure spending as the government's best option. In order to provide much-needed immediate economic stimulus and a responsible, long-term strategy to achieve economic stability, the CMA recommends the federal government invest $2.4 billion in health infrastructure upgrade initiatives to be carried out over the next two years. These initiatives fall into three priority areas: 1) Accelerating existing or "construction-ready" capital projects in health care facilities. The CMA recommends a federal investment of $1.5 billion over two years to accelerate existing hospital and health facility construction projects. While investments in physical infrastructure are required across the continuum of care, a focus on hospital construction - specifically on construction-ready projects already approved at the provincial level - will allow funds to flow more quickly and thus provide a more immediate economic stimulus. Federal investment in hospital and health facility construction will create 16,500 jobs over two years and 11,000 jobs in 2009 alone. These projects may be financed through existing public-private partnerships (P3s). With targeted and strategic federal investment, health facility capital projects would also stimulate further investment in the form of private-sector financing of these capital projects. 2) Accelerating implementation of electronic medical records. Health system information technology is an area where infrastructure investments are needed and would provide significant return on investment through immediate economic stimulus and improved health system efficiency in the medium and long term. CMA recommends that the federal government make a strategic "strings attached" $225-million investment in an Electronic Medical Record Patient Transition Fund that could be managed by the Canada Health Infoway. 3) Modernizing information systems in small- and medium-sized health care facilities. A federal investment of $700 million over two years to upgrade information system hardware and software in small- and medium-sized hospitals could be implemented within the next eight quarters and begin to create 7,700 jobs and rapidly improve health care efficiency. These health infrastructure investments would create 27,000 new jobs over the next two years: 1. 16,500 jobs for existing hospital building projects that are "construction ready"; 2. 4,950 jobs for electronic medical records (EMR) implementation for community-based health care offices; 3. 7,700 jobs for hospital information systems in small- and medium-sized hospitals. Introduction In these challenging economic times, the federal government is to be commended for casting a wide net in search of effective and immediate measures to stimulate Canada's economy. Of course, Canadians must also be assured that we will not be mortgaging our future by doing so. In order to both provide much-needed immediate economic stimulus and a responsible, long-term strategy to achieve economic stability, the CMA recommends that the federal government invest $2.4 billion in health infrastructure upgrade initiatives to be carried out over the next two years. These investments would stimulate further provincial/territorial and private-sector investment. To be clear: these recommendations are in the context of a fiscal stimulus plan and do not encompass CMA's entire long-term vision for high-quality and patient-focused health care. The CMA initiatives fall into three priority areas: 1) Accelerating existing or "construction-ready" capital projects in health care facilities; 2) Accelerating implementation of electronic medical records; 3) Modernizing information systems in small- and medium-sized health care facilities. A critical factor in these recommendations is the fact that the federal government already has in place funding mechanisms to deliver stimulus funds rapidly in all three areas. Canada Health Infoway is such an established vehicle for the EMR initiative and the upgrading of hospital information systems. The Canada Foundation for Innovation or an expanded "Building Canada" program are initiatives that have organizations in place to administer the investments in hospital construction projects. Additionally, these initiatives are flexible in both size and duration. Most economists agree that increasing infrastructure spending generally will boost the economy by creating jobs. In no sector is this more true than health care. Infrastructure investments, will lead to higher employment and more spending on products and services, and generate higher overall demand.i (See Appendix A for investment and job creation quarterly forecasts 2009/2010ii). The Business Register of Statistics Canada reports there were 75,615 establishments in the health service delivery (HSD) industry in 2003, employing 1.3 million people. That year, they accounted for 3.3% of all Canadian business establishments and 7.6% of total employment. In 2003, the GDP of the HSD industry was larger than wholesale trade, retail trade, and the upstream oil and gas mining industry, and almost as large as the construction sector. Physicians' offices (30,120 establishments) accounted for almost 39% of all HSD establishments and employed 142,000 people, or almost 11% of all HSD employees. By targeting investment in the three areas outlined above, the government will respond to Canadians' desire for a strengthened health care system, support Canada's competitive advantage and create 27,000 jobs in the next two years (Figure 1). 1. Accelerating Health Facility Construction Projects The CMA recommends that the federal government invest $1.5 billion over two years to accelerate hospital and/or health facility projects that are "construction ready". In 2001 the CMA identified inadequate investment in buildings, machinery and equipment and in scientific, professional and medical devices as major hurdles to timely access to health care services. While spending has increased in health care since then, governments have placed a lower priority on capital investment when allocating financial resources for health care. The CMA recommends a federal investment of $1.5 billion over two years to accelerate existing hospital and health facility construction projects. This does not capture all the capital requirements in the health system in the medium- and long-term. While investments in physical infrastructure are required across the continuum of care, a focus on hospital construction - specifically on construction-ready projects - will allow funds to flow more quickly and thus provide a more immediate stimulus to the economy. Federal investment in hospital and health facility construction will create 16,500 jobs over a two-year period and 11,000 jobs in 2009 alone. These projects may be financed through existing public-private partnerships (P3s). With targeted and strategic federal investment, health facility capital projects can also stimulate further investment in the form of private-sector financing of capital projects. Across Canada hospitals are seeking to develop innovative approaches to financing capital infrastructure. The CMA agrees with other organizations such as the Canadian Healthcare Association about the need to explore the concept of entering into public-private partnerships 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. As these types of partnerships are pursued, the CMA recommends that governments establish uniform requirements and regulations to ensure the transparency of the tendering process and adequate measuring of quality of care and cost-effectiveness in both public and private settings.iii The federal government has long showed great leadership in partnering to build Canada's health care system - the Hospital Construction Grants Program of 1948 and the Health Resources Fund Act of 1966. Today our country and our health care system need a new vision for replacing aging physical infrastructure. 2. Electronic Medical Records - Accelerating Coverage for 26 Million Patients CMA recommends that the federal government invest $225 million over two years to accelerate the implementation of an interoperable electronic medical record across Canada. International studies confirm that Canada lags behind nearly every major industrial country when it comes to the adoption of health information technology (Figure 8). The Conference Board of Canadaiv, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)v, the World Health Organizationvi, the Commonwealth Fundvii, and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy all rate Canada's health care system poorly in terms of value for money and efficiency. The impact of this underinvestment is longer wait times, poorer quality, greater health system costs and a severe lack of financial accountability - especially when it comes to federal dollars. Health system information technology is an area where infrastructure investments are needed and would provide significant return on investment through immediate economic stimulus and improved health system efficiency in the medium- and long-term. CMA recommends that the federal government make a strategic, "strings attached,"1 $225-million investment in an Electronic Medical Record Patient Transition Fund that could be managed by the Canada Health Infoway.2 The fund would finance EMR capital equipment acquisition and EMR change management and transition support, specifically the conversion of 26 million patient records in 30,000 physician offices. This federal investment would be matched by provincial-territorial funds and would thus provide a total of $450 million in economic stimulus and create 5000 new jobs over two years. While public funds would kick-start this initiative, they would stimulate considerable private sector activity in the provision of EMR capabilities across Canada. Assuming the current trend prevails, the ongoing management of the data holdings would be outsourced to private sector companies based on application service provider arrangements. Moreover, these investments are consistent with the Building Canada plan's focus on broadband and connectivity, and with Advantage Canada's goals of creating a knowledge advantage and an infrastructure advantage. Beyond providing immediate stimulus to the Canadian economy, a fully realized EMR system will improve patient outcomes, system efficiency and accountability and save billions of dollars annually. Technology consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton found that the benefits of an interconnected Electronic Health Record (EHR) in Canada could provide annual system-wide savings of $6.1 billion.viii These savings would come from reduced duplicate testing, transcription savings, fewer chart pulls and less filing time, reductions in office supplies and reduced expenditures due to fewer adverse drug reactions. The study also found 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. By reducing wait times, an interoperable EMR will contribute to saving the Canadian economy billions of dollars each year. A study commissioned by the CMA conservatively calculated that excessive wait times involving just four procedures (joint replacements, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass grafts and MRIs) cost the economy over $14 billion in 2007 due to lost output and government revenues.ix The Electronic Medical Record Patient Transition Fund focuses on community care and the physician offices where most patient visits occur. 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' offices.x Thus, patient-physician office interactions outnumber patient-hospital interactions by a ratio of 18 to 1. In Ontario (Figure 2), just 3,000 of an average of 247,000 patient visits per day, or 1.2%, are made in hospitals. Figure 2 Patient visits per day in Ontario (Canada Health Infoway) 3. Modernizing Hospital Information Systems The federal government should invest $700 million over two years to modernize information systems in small- and medium-sized hospitals. Aging information systems in small hospitals (fewer than 100 beds) and medium-sized hospitals (100 to 300 beds) create considerable inefficiency in patient care and administration. While larger hospitals have upgraded their information systems, hundreds of smaller facilities have information systems that are at least 10 years old. This means that patients are often forced to provide their personal and health information many times: when checking in to the emergency department, then when having a diagnostic test performed, and again when being admitted to hospital. Each step creates room for error and needlessly wastes the time of health care staff and patients. In addition, these discrete systems may not be networked, a situation that risks compromising patient care. A federal investment of $700 million over two years to upgrade information system hardware and software in small- and medium-sized hospitals could be implemented within the next eight quarters and begin to create 7,700 jobs and rapidly improve health care efficiency. The $700 million investment is based on a recent conservative estimate for outfitting hospitals across the country (see Appendix B). There are at least 70 medium-sized Canadian hospitals requiring major system upgrades immediately at a cost of $15 million per hospital. The distribution of these hospitals would help spread out the fiscal stimulus regionally and mitigate against potential labour shortages. The $700-million recommendation assumes that the majority of hospital information system investments (64%) would need to be focused on the hardware and professional services related to implementing the new systems, with the rest focused on system software. It is important to note that these investments would help support related Canadian software, hardware and professional services firms over the next 24 months and beyond. More importantly, the hospital information system sector is a multibillion dollar global industry. A fiscal stimulus investment in this sector now would help Canadian firms to capitalize on a golden opportunity to export these goods and services, which are increasingly in high demand.xi It is also important that patients be involved in evaluating these systems in order to improve care and system efficiencies. As Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Business noted: "We can dramatically improve the production of globally competitive health care product and services firms, but only if we work to significantly improve the demand side (patients) of our innovation equation."xii This is in line with the CMA's call for patient-focused funding. Conclusion That these are extraordinary economic times is beyond question, but the CMA contends that it is precisely during such times that opportunities often present themselves. We think the federal government must continue to examine and leverage all available policy levers at its disposal, including studying how the tax system could be used to support renewal within the health care sector. The tax system's level of support for people facing high out-of-pocket expenses remains 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 2009? Are there ways to enhance this provision to reduce financial disincentives facing many Canadians when they have to pay for health services? The CMA encourages the federal government to undertake a comprehensive review of these and other tax questions pertaining to health. By itself, tax policy will not solve all the challenges facing Canada's health care system, but 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. Similarly, the government must remember that almost five million Canadians do not have a family physician and that Canada needs 26,000 more doctors to meet the OECD average of physicians per population. The federal government wisely recognized the urgency of this situation when it committed to several targeted and affordable measures to begin to address the doctor shortage. It should follow through on its election commitment to take first steps towards addressing the shortage, including contributing $10 million per year over four years to provinces to allow them to fund 50 new residencies per year in Canada's major teaching hospitals, and $5 million per year over four years to help Canadian physicians living abroad who wish to relocate to Canada. These initiatives would begin to increase the supply and retention of physicians in areas of priority need, and could bring back as many as 300 Canadian physicians over four years. Today, the federal government is focused on instituting specific, strategic and immediate economic stimulus measures, and rightfully so. However, we must not let the urgent crowd out the important in terms of building a sustainable health care system that provides timely access to quality health care services for all Canadians. Appendix A. Investment and job creation profile estimates 2009-10 B. Projected Costs to Implement / Upgrade Hospital Information Systems3 Assumptions 1. Total number of hospitals in Canada = 734 a. % small hospitals (< 100 beds) = 69% b. % medium hospitals (< 300 beds) = 18% 2. Components in hospital information systems a. Finance & Administration b. Admission, Discharge, Transfer (ADT) System c. Patient Information System d. Radiology Information System e. Laboratory Information System f. Pharmacy Information System g. Coding & Abstracting System 3. Cost to implement complete HIS for medium size hospital = $15 million a. Ratio of software to hardware and professional services - 1:1.8 b. Software = $5,357,143 c. Hardware & Professional Services = $9,642,857 4. Small hospitals (i.e. < 25 beds) would not have the resources to manage a full HIS a. Cluster implementations among 8 hospitals b. Number of clusters = 33 (total # of hospitals = 270) 5. Small hospitals would have greater requirement for full implementation of HIS a. % of hospitals requiring full implementations = 50% b. Number of hospitals (exclusive of clusters in #4) = 117 c. Total number including clusters in # 4 requiring full implementation = 91 d. Cost to implement full HIS - 60% of medium hospital implementation = $9 million 6. Medium sized hospitals with systems > 10 years old would require full implementation a. % of hospitals requiring full HIS implementation = 30% b. Number of hospitals= 40 7. Major system upgrades are estimated at 40% of cost of a full HIS a. Cost to complete system upgrade = $6 million b. % small hospitals (# of beds between 25 - 99) requiring upgrade = 30% c. Number of hospitals = 70 d. % of medium hospitals requiring upgrade = 30% e. Number of hospitals = 40 Investment Needed 1. Investment required for small hospitals - full implementation $ 9,000,000 x 91 = $ 819,000,000 2. Investment required for small hospitals - system upgrade $ 6,000,000 x 70 = $ 420,000,000 3. Investment required for medium hospitals - full implementation $ 15,000,000 x 40 = $ 600,000,000 4. Investment required for medium hospitals - system upgrades $ 6,000,000 x 40 = $ 240,000,000 5. Total investment for HIS for small and medium size hospitals $ 2,079,000,000 References 1 The conditions of this health information investment should include: * Fifty-fifty FPT cost sharing; * Involvement of the clinical community in the input and oversight of the program; * Use of consistent standards. 2 See Table l in Appendix A for full investment horizon details. 3 Prepared for the Canadian Medical Association by Branham Group December 2008 see: http://www.branhamgroup.com/company.php i Will Stimulus Help Employment in a 21st Century Economy? Wall Street Journal, Dec. 5, 2008. ii These estimates were derived using the principle of an employment multiplier and adapted using the methodology applied by Informetrica for an infrastructure study they prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (05/08). iii Improving performance measurement, quality assurance and accountability in the public-private interface - CMA Policy Statement, It's still about access! Medicare Plus, July 2007 iv A Report Card on Canada see: http://sso.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/overview/health-overview.aspx v Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2007). OECD Health Data 2007. Version 07/18/2007. CD-ROM. Paris: OECD. vi World Health Organization [WHO] (2007). World Health Statistics 2007. see: http://www.who.int. vii 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 viii Booz, Allan, Hamilton. Canada Health Infoway's 10-Year Investment Strategy: pan-Canadian electronic health record, March 2005-09-06. ix The economic cost of wait times in Canada, January 2008. This study was commissioned by the Canadian Medical Association 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 x 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. xi Canada boasts a sophisticated network of providers, many globally-recognized hospitals, and a number of major centres for health research. We spend aggressively in global terms on health research, which is supported nationally by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). But against this backdrop lies a mystery: why do so few Canadian health care firms sell their products and services in the international market? Only nine sell as much as $100 million of any product or service to customers outside the country, with total sector sales outside Canada of less than $5 billion. This sector total compares unfavourably with the foreign sales of individual firms such as Bombardier at $22 billion, and Magna International at $14 billion; overseas health-care sales are even dominated by the export of sawn logs, at $9 billion. see: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/rogermartin/Canadianhealthcaremystery.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009) From: Roger, Martin, The Canadian Health Care Mystery: Where Are the Exports? Rotman magazine (Winter 2006). xii Ibid.
Documents
Less detail

Building a Comprehensive Post-Market Surveillance System : Canadian Medical Association Response to Health Canada’s Discussion Paper “Designing a Mandatory System for Reporting Serious Adverse Reactions”

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1951
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-07-28
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-07-28
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
Building a Comprehensive Post-Market Surveillance System Canadian Medical Association Response to Health Canada’s Discussion Paper “Designing a Mandatory System for Reporting Serious Adverse Reactions” Submitted to Health Canada July 28, 2005 Overview The CMA believes that all stakeholders should work together to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, in the interests of improving patients’ safety and health. However, we believe that activity in pursuit of this end must be based on two fundamental premises: a) Reporting is only one part of a comprehensive post-market surveillance system. In order to effectively monitor the safety of Canada’s drug supply, this system should include: * a simple, comprehensive and user-friendly reporting process; * rigorous analysis of reports to identify significant threats to drug safety; * a communications system that produces useful information, distributed to health care providers and the public in a timely, easily understood manner. There is no point in enacting a mandatory reporting requirement until all of these elements are in place. We wonder why mandatory reporting has been singled out for discussion when a holistic approach to reforming Canada’s drug safety system is called for. b) Health care providers should be encouraged to participate willingly and voluntarily in the reporting process. To be successful, Canada’s post-market surveillance system will depend on the active participation of physicians and other health professionals. Experience with health system quality and safety improvement efforts over the past several years has demonstrated that meaningful acceptance is most effectively obtained when those involved are willing participants. If you build a comprehensive, efficient and effective post-market surveillance system, physicians will participate actively in it. Forcing them to participate before the system has been built will result in alienation, frustration and failure. Comments on Discussion Paper a) Is Mandatory Reporting Necessary? This is a fundamental question and the discussion paper does not satisfactorily address it. There are two reasons why we question the necessity for imposing an ADR reporting requirement on health professionals. First, as awareness of the drug-safety system’s importance has increased, the number of ADR reports has increased along with it - more than 10% in 2004, as the discussion paper notes - without a mandatory reporting requirement. Given this trend, it is highly probable that time, education, adequate resources and increasing familiarity with the surveillance system will raise reporting rates to the desired level (however defined) without mandatory reporting. Second, as the discussion paper points out, there is no evidence that mandatory reporting has been effective in other jurisdictions where it has been implemented. The paper offers no clear explanation for this lack of success. More importantly, it does not indicate how Health Canada plans to ensure that mandatory reporting will succeed in this country when it has proven ineffective elsewhere. A primary principle of any system change is that we should not repeat the mistakes of others. Before launching a program whose success has not been proven, other viable, and possibly more effective, alternatives should be examined. b) Addressing known barriers to reporting The CMA acknowledges that ADRs are under-reported, in Canada and worldwide. The discussion paper identifies a number of barriers to reporting, and its list mirrors the observations and experiences of our own members. We believe most of these barriers can, and should, be overcome. We also agree that it is necessary to raise health professionals’ awareness of the importance of, and process for, ADR reporting. But we question the curious assertion that “Mandatory reporting could raise awareness of the value of reporting simply by virtue of the public debate.” Surely there are more positive ways to raise awareness than publicly speculating about the punitive consequences of non-compliance. We suggest that instead, Health Canada work with physicians and other health professionals to address the existing barriers to reporting. Specifically, we recommend that Health Canada implement: * a well-funded and targeted awareness-raising campaign focused on provider education and positive messaging, * a user-friendly reporting system, including appropriate forms, efficient processes and adequate fees. These measures are within Health Canada’s purview in the existing policy and legislative environment. We believe they would increase reporting without the need for coercive measures. At a minimum, positive system improvements should be tried first before considering a mandatory-reporting requirement. With regard to specific questions posed in the discussion paper: Question 1: Health professionals should be explicitly protected from any liability as a result of reporting an adverse drug reaction. This should be the case regardless of whether reporting is voluntary or mandatory. Question 2: Professionals should be compensated for all meaningful work including the completion of forms and any follow-up required as a result of the information they have provided. We would be happy to expand further on this issue on request. Question 3: Issues of confidentiality should be covered in legislation. The CMA has developed an extensive and authoritative body of knowledge on privacy issues in health care, which we would be pleased to share with Health Canada. c) Improved report quality We agree that increasing the quality and richness of ADR reports is as important as increasing their number. Perhaps it is even more important, since high-quality reports allow for high-quality analysis. Mandatory reporting will not improve the quality of ADR reports; it will simply increase their quantity. It may even compromise the system’s efficiency and effectiveness by increasing the volume of clinically insignificant reports. Experience elsewhere has taught us that true quality cannot be legislated or imposed; any attempt to do so would be pointless. If ADR reports included the information listed in Table 4, this would improve their usefulness and the effectiveness of the overall surveillance process. However, it is unrealistic to expect all reports to contain this level of information. The treating physician may not be able to provide all of it, especially if he or she is not the patient’s regular primary care provider. Some of this information, particularly about outcomes, may not be available at the time of the reporting, and gathering it would require follow-up by Health Canada. Health Canada should consider measures other than mandatory reporting to improve the quality of ADR reports. The CMA suggests that consideration be given to: * Improving follow-up capacity. We agree that it should be made easier for Health Canada officials to contact reporters and request details on follow-up or outcomes. This should be considered as part of a comprehensive initiative to improve Health Canada’s capacity to analyze ADR reports. * Establishing a sentinel system. Another option for increasing high-quality reports would be to establish a “sentinel” group of practicing physicians who would contract to report all ADRs in detail. These physicians, because of their contractual obligation, would be committed to assiduous reporting. Sentinel systems could be established concurrently with efforts to increase voluntary ADR reporting by the broader health professional community. In addition to the current information provided, consideration should be given to including on reporting forms the option to allow Health Canada officials to act on information the physician provides; for example, in the reporting of sexually transmitted diseases physicians provide certain information and have the option to request that public health officials undertake follow-up and contact tracing. d) Minimize administrative burden We agree that Health Canada should give consideration to making the ADR reporting system user-friendly, non-complex and easy to integrate into the patient-care work stream. These reforms can and should be implemented regardless of whether a mandatory requirement is in place. They do not need mandatory reporting to make them work; in fact, they are more likely to encourage ADR reporting than any form of coercive legislation. Rather than making a mandatory reporting requirement “fit” with the traditional patient-care framework, we invite Health Canada to work with us to increase health professionals’ capacity to report ADRs voluntarily. We are already working with Health Canada to improve physicians’ access to drug safety material. Health Canada’s ADR reporting form can now be downloaded from the cma.ca web site, which also posts the latest drug alerts from Health Canada and from the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. We have developed an on-line course in partnership with Health Canada, to teach physicians when and how to make ADR reports. We hope to build on this collaboration, with the goal of making it possible for physicians to report ADRs online via cma.ca. This will permit them to fit reporting more conveniently into their daily workflow. (Note: the “MedEffects” Web portal now being developed at Health Canada does not fit well into the workflow and therefore will not make reporting easier for health professionals.) In the future, we hope that ADR reporting can be built directly into the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). We think this will be a critical element in the bi-directional communicating that ADR reporting requires. It will also enable rapid integration of advisories into the EMR so that they can be available to physicians at the time they are writing a prescription. Before electronic ADR reporting can work, a standard for electronic data should be in place (at present it is not) and Health Canada should develop the capacity to accept data electronically. Health Canada’s discussion paper makes reference to cost-benefit analysis. We recommend that you take great care not to over-emphasize cost-benefit when it comes to enhancing patient safety. Meaningful improvements in the post-market surveillance system will be costly whatever solution Health Canada eventually embraces, and it is impossible to measure financially the value of safety. What is an acceptable cost for one life saved? e) Minimize Over-Reporting The discussion paper acknowledges that not all adverse reactions need be reported. We strongly agree that one of the dangers of mandatory reporting is its potential to overwhelm the system with an unmanageable flood of reports. There is no reason to require reports of minor side effects that are already known to be associated with given drugs. We agree that the reactions Health Canada most needs to know about are those which are severe and/or unexpected. If Health Canada insists on implementing a mandatory reporting system, it should be limited to these reactions (possibly with the corollary that well known serious ADRs would not need to be reported). However, the operating definitions may need clarification, and we recommend that Health Canada consult with health professionals and others on operational guidelines for defining “serious adverse reaction.” Health Canada’s desire to encourage reports on drugs approved within the last 5 years is understandable (though some drugs may be on the market for longer than this before their true risks are known). In practice, however, many physicians do not know which drugs these are, and seeking out this information may impose a heavy administrative burden. As we move toward an EMR-based reporting system, a tag on the Drug Identification Number to tell when the drug was approved will allow physicians to identify which medications require special vigilance. Appropriate reporting could be encouraged, and over-reporting discouraged, by clear guidelines as to what should be reported as well as appropriate compensation for reporting. f) Match Assessment Capacities In our opinion, this is one of the most important sections in the document. What happens once the reports have been received is crucial if we want to identify a serious drug risk as quickly as possible. Under the current system, one of the most significant barriers to physicians’ reporting is lack of confidence that anything meaningful will be done with their reports. Enhancements to the analysis function must be made concurrently with efforts to increase ADR reporting. ADR reports are only cyber-bytes or stacks of paper unless we can learn from them. This requires rigorous data analysis that can sort “signal from noise” – in other words, sift through thousands of reports, find the ones that indicate unusual events, investigate their cause, and isolate those that indicate a serious public health risk. This requires substantial resources, including an adequate number of staff with the expertise and sensitivity required for this demanding task. Unless Health Canada has this capacity, increasing the number of reports will only add to the backlog in analysts’ in-boxes. The CMA recommends that Health Canada allocate sufficient resources to enable it to effectively analyze and respond to ADR reports and other post-market surveillance information. g) Respect privacy Privacy of both patient and physician information is a significant concern. Physicians’ ethical obligation to maintain patient confidentially is central to the patient-physician relationship and must be protected. We acknowledge that issues of privacy and confidentiality must be resolved when designing an ADR reporting system, particularly as we work toward electronic communication of drug surveillance data and its incorporation into an EMR. For example, regulations should explicitly state that ADR reports are to be used only for the purpose for which they were submitted, i.e. for post-market drug surveillance. In addition, Health Canada should ensure that any privacy provisions it develops meet the legislative test outlined in Section 3.6 of CMA’s Health Information Privacy Code (Attachment I). Health Canada can be assured that physicians take their privacy obligations seriously. The CMA has been a strong and pro-active player in debate on this issue, and our Privacy Code lays the groundwork on which we believe any privacy policies involving ADR reporting should be based. h) Compliance through sanctions Physicians are motivated to report ADRs by their concern for public health and their patients’ well-being. In addition, they are guided by the CMA Code of Ethics and governed by regulatory authorities in every province. A clear ethical and professional obligation already exists to report anything that poses a serious threat to patient safety. If physicians do not comply with this obligation, sanctions are available to the provincial regulatory authorities. In fact, the most serious threat for physicians is loss of standing with the professional regulatory authority, not the courts or any external judicial system. It would be superfluous to add a second level of regulation or scrutiny when remedies already exist. The discussion paper presents few alternatives to the existing self-regulatory system. As the paper itself acknowledges, it is unrealistic to impose sanctions based on failure to report an ADR, since it is not always easy to determine whether an adverse effect is attributable to a health product. But the only suggested alternatives - requiring physicians to demonstrate knowledge, or to have the required reporting forms in their office - seem intrusive, crude and unreasonable; they are also meaningless since they have no direct relation to a physician’s failure to report. If Health Canada is considering a large outlay of taxpayers’ dollars for post-market surveillance, we suggest they target those funds to education and awareness raising, and to enhancing the system’s ability to generate and communicate meaningful signal data, rather than to enforcing a mandatory reporting system based on weak compliance measures, with no evidence of its effectiveness in other jurisdictions. Physicians who are in serious breach of their ethical and legal responsibility to report are subject to sanctions by provincial regulatory authorities. Most provincial colleges have policies or guidelines regarding timely reporting and appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Medicine’s tradition of self-regulation has served it well, and we recommend that Health Canada respect and support existing regulatory authorities as they maintain the standards for appropriate professional behaviour. As we have said before - the preferred quality improvement tools to enhance performance and encourage compliance are education and positive reinforcement, not legislation and the threat of sanctions. Conclusion In its discussion paper Health Canada has invited stakeholders to provide their input on how best to develop a mandatory system for reporting ADRs. The Canadian Medical Association believes that the best way to do this is not to develop one at all. Instead, we believe stakeholders should concentrate on building a sustainable, robust and effective post-market surveillance system which: * encourages and facilitates voluntary reporting, by designing a simple and efficient process that can be incorporated into a physician’s daily workflow; * effectively uses reporting data to identify major public health risks; * communicates drug safety information to providers and the public in a timely, meaningful and practical way. The CMA is committed to working, in partnership with Health Canada and other stakeholders, toward the ultimate goal of a responsive, efficient and effective post-market drug surveillance system. This is part of our long-standing commitment to optimizing Canadians’ safety and health, and achieving our vision of a healthy population and a vibrant medical profession.
Documents
Less detail

CMA's Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health : H1N1 Preparedness and Response

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9699
Date
2009-10-05
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2009-10-05
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Good afternoon Madame Chair. The Canadian Medical Association is pleased to address the committee as part of its ongoing study of H1N1 planning and response. In the broad context of pandemic planning, the CMA has focused on developing information and education tools on cma.ca to ensure Canada's doctors are equipped to provide the best possible care to patients. We have also engaged in discussions with the Assembly of First Nations to address workforce shortages in First Nations and Inuit communities during a pandemic. Despite the work of governments and others, there remains much to do. To provide optimal patient care, individual physicians - primary care providers and specialists alike - require: * Regular updates on the status of H1N1 in their community; * Timely and easy access to diagnostic and treatment recommendations with clear messages tailored to their service level; * Rapid responses to questions; and * Adequate supplies of key resources such as masks, medications, diagnostic kits and vaccines. The CMA commends federal, provincial and territorial governments for creating the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Care Sector. The CMA was pleased to provide feedback on elements of the plan and we are participating on the anti-viral and clinical care task groups. There are three issues that still must be addressed: First, the communications gap between public health officials and front-line providers; Second, the lack of adequate resources on the front lines; and finally, variability that exists across the country. The Communications Gap Physicians must be involved in the planning stages and must receive consistent, timely and practical plain-language information. They should not have to seek information out from various websites or other sources, or through the media. This communications gap also includes a gap between information and action. For example, we are told to keep at least a six-foot distance between an infected patient and other patients and staff. This will not be possible in a doctor's waiting room, nor will disinfecting examining and waiting rooms in-between each patient. Adequate resources Patient volumes may increase dramatically and there are serious concerns about how to manage supplies if an office is overwhelmed. There is also considerable concern over whether we can keep enough health care professionals healthy to care for patients, and whether we have enough respirators and specialty equipment to treat patients. Intensive-care units of hospitals can also expect to be severely strained as a second-wave pandemic hits. This speaks to a general lack of surge capacity within the system. Also, pandemic planning for ICUs and other hospital units must include protocols to determine which patients can benefit most when there are not enough respirators and personnel to provide the required care for all who need it. Beyond the need for more supplies, however, there is also the concern that there are only so many hours in a day. Doctors will always strive to provide care for those who need it, but if treating H1N1 cases takes all of our time, who will be available to care for patients with other conditions? Variability across the country CMA has consulted with provincial and territorial medical associations and their level of involvement in government planning as well as the general state of preparedness varies greatly. There is also marked inconsistency province-to-province around immunization schedules. We need a clear statement of recommendation to clear up this variability. In summary, there remains a great deal of uncertainty among physicians about: the vaccine, the supply of antivirals, the role of assessment centres and mass immunization clinics, delegated acts, and physicians' medico-legal obligations and protections. The bottom line is that there is still more work to do at all levels before front-line clinicians feel well prepared with information, tools and strategies they need. The CMA was pleased to meet with Dr. Butler-Jones to discuss our concerns last week and will continue to work closely with Public Health Agency of Canada to identify gaps and to prepare user-friendly information for clinicians. Thank you and I welcome any questions.
Documents
Less detail

Federal tax proposal risks negative consequences for health care delivery

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

International Medical Graduates : Notes for an address by Dr. Albert J. Schumacher, President, Canadian Medical Association : Presentation to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy2006
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-02-17
Topics
Health human resources
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-02-17
Topics
Health human resources
Text
Good afternoon, I am Dr. Albert Schumacher, President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and a family physician from Windsor, Ontario. With me today is Dr. Todd Watkins, Director, Office of Professional Services at CMA and also a family physician. It is estimated that some 4.5 million Canadians have had trouble finding a family doctor, while more than 3 million Canadians do not have regular access to one. Long waiting lists for consultations and specialized diagnostic and therapeutic procedures suggest there is a shortage of specialists. Including time spent on call, Canada’s physicians worked an average of 70 to 80 hours a week. Of the 21,000 physicians surveyed in the recently released National Physicians’ Survey, over a quarter said they plan to reduce their work week within the next two years. 60% of family doctors either limit the number of new patients they see or have closed their practices. At the same time, the average age of physicians in Canada is 48 years with 32% 55 years of age or older. Almost 4000 physicians may retire in the next two years. There is a “perfect storm” brewing in terms of health human resource in Canada. The message I hope to leave with you today is that the valuable participation of International Medical Graduates (IMGs) in our medical workforce must be part of a coordinated pan-Canadian plan that strives to address the double imperatives of immigration policies that are fair and policies that in the short, medium and longer term will ensure greater self-sufficiency in the education and training of physicians in Canada. Today I am going to focus on three things: Number one: clarify some of the myths about IMGs in Canada; Number two: stress the need for greater capacity in Canada’s medical education and training infrastructure; and Lastly: emphasize the importance of a national standard for licensure. Myths There are a few myths that abound about IMGs in Canada. If you were to believe some of what you read or hear in the media you might gather that it is next to impossible for international medical graduates to enter the practice of medicine in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. As of last month, almost one quarter of the physicians working in our health care system received their medical degree in a country other than Canada. This proportion has declined by only 2% since the 1960s. Estimates peg the number of IMGs arriving in Canada with pre-arranged employment licensed to practice each year at 400. Quite simply, our health care system could not function without the critical contributions of qualified international medical graduates (IMGs). Also, many IMGs access the postgraduate training system in Canada. As of December 2004 there were 316 IMGs who were either Canadian citizens or permanent residents in their first year of postgraduate residency training – this represents 15% of the total number of first-year trainees. In the past few years only a few provinces have greatly expanded opportunities for assessing the clinical skills of IMGs and providing supplementary training and practice opportunities. Just two weekends ago some 550 IMG’s participated in the Ontario Provincial IMG Clinical Assessment which was offered at four medical schools across the province. This will lead to some 200 IMGs being licensed to practice in Ontario. Other provinces have similar programs. I would note that the initiatives of the federal government announced by the Honourable Hedy Fry in March 2004 have been very helpful in communicating information about and raising awareness of the requirements to practice medicine in Canada. Some $3 million announced at that time was provided to assist provinces and territories in assessing IMGs and will add at least 100 internationally trained physicians into the system. I am optimistic that her continued collaborative efforts with the medical community will result in positive changes. So, has Canada closed its borders to IMGs? Hardly. Can more be done to achieve fairness? Absolutely. Capacity I can not stress strongly enough the need to increase the capacity of Canada’s undergraduate medical education and postgraduate training system. There are some who think that the fastest and least expensive way of meeting our medical workforce requirements is to simply recruit medical graduates from other countries. In the short term this is a major part of the fix. It is, however, no substitute for a “made in Canada” solution for the long term. As a long-term policy it fails to recognize the fact that the countries from which we poach these IMGs can ill afford to lose them. We are simply not pulling our weight as a country in educating and training future physicians. As my predecessor, Dr. Sunil Patel told his Committee last April, in 2002 there were roughly 6.5 first year medical school places per 100,000 population in Canada – just over one-half of the UK’s rate of 12.2 per 100,000. The CMA has recommended a 2007 target of 2500 first year medical positions and at the moment we are tracking toward 2300. Over reliance on IMGs also fails to appreciate the critical role played by Canada’s academic health science centres. These institutions have a three-fold mission of teaching, research and the provision of a great deal of patient care and these three components are inextricably linked. Expanded capacity will work to the benefit of both Canadians aspiring to attain a medical education and IMGs. For example, in 2004 of the 657 IMGs entering second iteration of the residency match, just 87 or 13% were successful. We need to expand capacity not only within academic health sciences centres themselves, but we need to recruit and support clinical teachers out in the community. This is crucial, especially for the IMG assessment programs now being rolled out. But most importantly, an enhanced education and training infrastructure will help meet the future health needs of Canadians. The goal that had been identified in the 2004 First Minister’s Agreement, specified $250 million a year beginning in 2009-10 through 2013-14 “primarily for health human resources” training and hiring. However, Bill C-39, which was recently tabled to implement provisions of the 10-year plan by creating the Wait Times Reduction Fund, falls short of what Canadians deserve and expect. Specifically, it stipulates theses dollars may be used for multiple purposes. This failure to recognize the critical shortage of health care professionals by dedicating specific dollars to the issue now could mean the promised investments may never be made to enhance health human resources. The temptation will be to continue to rely on “beggar thy neighbour” policies. However, Canada can and must do better to pull its own weight. Importance of a National Standard As the national organization representing Canada’s physicians we have a direct interest in working with government to ensure Canadians have access to health care when they need it. The CMA has a role in medical and health education in the accreditation of undergraduate medical education and the accreditation of the training programs of some 15 health disciplines. However, the CMA is not a regulator. We do not grant credentials or license physicians. Regulation of medicine falls under the purview of the provincial and territorial colleges of physicians and credentials are granted by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College des Médecins du Quebec. If medicine has a lesson to offer other professions and occupations it is in the value of having a national standard. While health is the constitutional responsibility of the provinces and territories, medicine has been able to realize a national standard for portable eligibility for licensure across Canada. Beginning in 1992 the basis for licensure in all provinces/territories except Quebec has been the successful completion of the two-part Qualifying Examination of the Medical Council of Canada plus certification by either the College of Family Physicians of Canada or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The procedures in place in Quebec are very similar. To be sure there can be interpretation around the application of the standard, but without a doubt it has provided a significant degree of transparency and uniformity about what is required to practice medicine in Canada. This not only promotes a concordance between the programs offered by our 16 (soon to be 17) medical schools but also provides a basis for the assessment of international programs. On this latter point, the Institute for International Medical Education has a database that contains information on more than 1,800 medical schools in 165 countries around the world. Conclusion During pre-budget hearings last fall, I submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance our plan to address health human resources shortages. As was the case then, IMGs are a critical part of the CMA plan. A plan that has as its core the belief that Canada must adopt a policy of increased self-sufficiency in the production of physicians in Canada. This involves: * increased opportunities for Canadians to pursue medical education in Canada; * enhanced opportunities for practising physicians to return for additional training; * strategies to retain physicians in practice and in Canada; and * increased opportunities for IMGs who are permanent residents or citizens of Canada to access post-MD training leading to licensure/certification and the practice of medicine in Canada. This set of imperatives needs to be balanced against a need for fairness. Fairness to ensure those who need to obtain further medical training are able to do so. And, fairness to young Canadians who deserve a chance to pursue a career in medicine. I appreciate the opportunity of entering into a dialogue with members of the Committee and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Documents
Less detail

Letter to the International Joint Commission on the 2004 Progress Report addressing air quality

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1952
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-02-11
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-02-11
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
On behalf of Canada’s physicians, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) would like to take this opportunity to provide comments to the International Joint Commission on the 2004 Progress Report addressing air quality. The Association, first founded in 1867, currently represents more than 59,000 physicians across the country. Our mission includes advocating for the highest standard of health and care for all Canadians and we are committed to activities that will result in healthy public policy which support health and the environment. The environment, as a determinant of health, is a major concern for the general public as well as health care providers. Air pollution affects the health of all Canadians, but particularly children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiac conditions. Poor air quality can provoke devastating health effects. Every day physicians come face to face with the reality of an unhealthy environment and its effects on our patients. The impact can be seen in terms of increased frequency of symptoms, medication use, physician visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths. Canadians and Americans breathe the same air, drink the same water, and share a common responsibility to provide future generations with a healthy environment. This is why the Canada-U.S. agreement to address and resolve environmental issues is so important. The U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement established a formal and flexible method of addressing trans-boundary air pollution and laid the groundwork for cooperation between the United States and Canada on very important air quality issues. Under the Air Quality Agreement of 1991, both countries have made progress in coordinating and implementing their acid rain control programs and have focused activities on ground level ozone since 2000. The improvements, as described in the 2004 Progress Report are commendable. But while many of the parties’ emission reduction commitments are on-track, dangerous air pollution continues to blow both ways across our borders. This suggests that the measures included in this agreement are not sufficient to ensure that Canadians have clean air to breathe. In fact, we believe that future evaluations should describe air quality improvement as the outcome of interest, in addition to cataloguing emission reduction initiatives, as is done in the 2004 Progress Report. The 2004 Progress Report, prepared by Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is the seventh biennial report compiled under the 1991 United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement. Ground level ozone, a primary component of smog, directly contributes to air quality and health. The commitment to reduce ground level ozone under the 2000 Agreement has the potential to improve air quality and the quality of life of literally millions of people. As indicated in the Progress Report 2004, Canada is “on track to implement all of its commitments for vehicles, engines and fuels” in order to reduce ground level ozone. However, the stationary emissions of NOx remain above target levels. An aggressive strategy to reduce NOx and VOC to lessen smog, and the adverse health impact on Canadians and Americans is urgently required. Smog and climate change are not distinct problems. In fact, a large proportion of the smog pollutants that cause serious cardiac and respiratory problems in Canada are emitted from the same tailpipes and industrial smokestacks as the greenhouse gases, which the Kyoto agreement aims to reduce. Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Accord provides an opportunity to significantly reduce smog and achieve cleaner air for all Canadians to breathe. The purchasing of emission credits from foreign countries to make up for a shortfall in the reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions Canada agreed to in the Kyoto accord is clearly short-term thinking that does not address the long term goals outlined in the accord. Climate change measures under the Accord will yield additional benefits through improved local and regional air quality. But more can and needs to be done. Canada must bring air pollution down to safe levels and to cut greenhouse gas emissions to halt climate change. For these reasons, CMA recommended that the Prime Minister commit to choosing a climate change strategy that satisfies Canada’s international commitments while maximizing the clean air co-benefits and smog–reduction potential of any greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. Canada’s physicians are concerned about the pollutants that are affecting the health of Canadians, and believe that there should be appropriate mechanisms to warn those who are vulnerable and at risk, so that they can act to protect themselves from contaminants in the air, water, or food. We have called on the government of Canada to establish a national Air Quality Index so that real-time air quality information and predictive forecasting is made available to all Canadians. Health-based reporting about pollutants is a way to allow Canadians to partner in their own health protection, while such pollutants are being addressed by policies aimed at producing cleaner air. Environment Canada and Health Canada have long been developing a health-based Air Quality Index, which would incorporate the most recent health science and make air quality forecasts and current ambient conditions available across the nation. We contend this is a key initiative and we urge this work be expedited. CMA reaffirms our support for the Kyoto protocol and in the best interest of Canadians, urges the government to establish a national Air Quality Index. There is a fundamental role for governments in preventing and controlling smog and poor air quality through healthy public policy and regulations. There remains much work to be done. CMA’s vision of a healthy population for Canada underpins our commitment to advocate for clean air. I would like to thank you and the IJC for your continued commitment to improving air quality for Canadians and Americans. It is through efforts like this, that our mutual goal for a clean, healthy and safe environment may be realized. We look forward to your next report demonstrating even further gains in achieving high air quality. Yours truly, Albert J. Schumacher, MD President AJS/jns
Documents
Less detail

Mental Health, Mental Illness & Addiction : CMA Submission to the Standing Committee on Social affairs, Science and Technology

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1950
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-04-20
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2012-03-03
Date
2005-04-20
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology’s study of mental health, mental illness and addiction in Canada. The Committee is to be commended for their commitment to the examination of the state of mental health services and addiction treatment in Canada. The Interim Report Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction: Overview of Policies and Programs in Canada is a most comprehensive and thorough study. It highlights and reinforces the myriad of players, programs and services as well as the scope and breadth of concerns related to mental health/mental illness care. The Issues and Options paper cogently outlines all the major issues facing mental health, mental illness and addiction care today and provides a platform to stimulate an important public debate on the direction that should be taken to address mental health reform in Canada. The CMA was pleased to appear before the Committee during its deliberations in March of 2004 to speak to the issues facing mental health and mental illness care and put forward recommendations for action by the federal government. The CMA recommended: * developing legislative or regulatory amendments to ensure that psychiatric hospitals are subject to the five program criteria and the conditions of the Canada Health Act, * adjusting the Canada Health Transfer to provide net new federal cash for these additional insured services, * re-establishing an adequately resourced federal unit focussed on mental health, mental illness and addiction, * reviewing federal policies and programs to ensure that mental illness is on par, in terms of benefits, with other chronic diseases and disabilities, * mounting a national public awareness strategy to address the stigma associated with mental illness and addiction. The physicians of Canada continue to support these recommendations. While the Committee has asked for input on a number of important issues in its Issues and Options paper, CMA will focus on the role of the federal government in three areas: * national leadership and intergovernmental collaboration, * accessibility, * accountability. We understand that the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Canadian Paediatric Society will, in their submissions to the Standing Committee, address specific issues of concern to the medical profession in the areas of primary care, child and adolescent mental health and mental illness services, and psychiatric care. The CMA supports the positions of these national specialty organizations. THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The economic burden of mental health problems is estimated, at a minimum, at $14.4 billion annually. 1 Mental illness and addiction affects one in five Canadians during their lifetime. According to a 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey, 2.6 million Canadians over the age of 15 reported symptoms consistent with mental illness during the past year. Mental illness impacts people in the prime of their life. Estimates from 1998 indicates that 24% of all deaths among those aged 15-24 and 16% of all deaths among those aged 25- 44 are from suicide 2. In contrast, the 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) that tragically, resulted in 483 cases and 44 deaths with an estimated economic impact in the Greater Toronto Area of 2 billion dollars served as the ‘wake-up call’ that galvanized the federal government into paying attention to public health in Canada. In the aftermath of SARS, the federal government appointed a Minister of State for Public Health, established the Public Health Agency of Canada and selected a Chief Public Health Officer for Canada. Nine hundred and sixty five million dollars has been invested by the federal government in public health in the two federal budgets following SARS and a new spirit of federal-provincial-territorial cooperation on public health issues has been spawned. The evidence of the enormous burden that mental illness and addiction places on Canadian society has been a clarion call to many concerned stakeholder organizations across the country to mobilize and search for solutions. It is astounding that the federal government has not heard the call. And it is hard to imagine just what more could constitute a ‘wake-up call’ for mental health care. In fact the federal government falls woefully short of fulfilling its responsibilities to the people of Canada. The Interim report of the Committee correctly outlines the state of fragmentation and gaps in services to those specific populations under direct federal jurisdiction. It also notes the ‘apparent ambivalence’ over the years by the federal government about the place of mental health services within publicly funded health care. This ambivalent approach also spills over to the broad national policies and programs of the federal government that can impact those suffering from mental illness, addiction or poor mental health. The federal government has systematically excluded mental health services since the earliest days of Medicare. Mental illness has been treated like a second class disease with little dedicated federal funding, and with programs and services not subject to national criteria or conditions as are set out in the Canada Health Act. In fact, the federal government could be seen as moving in reverse with the downgrading of mental health resources within Health Canada through the 1980s and 1990s. Leadership The CMA firmly believes that strong federal leadership is required to address the sometimes invisible epidemic of mental health problems and addiction in Canada.The government must lead by example and begin by ‘cleaning up its own backyard’ in terms of its direct role as service provider to those Canadians under its jurisdiction. It should take a ‘whole of government’ approach that recognizes the interplay of health services, education, housing, income, community and the justice system on mental health and mental illness care. Further, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that there is equitable access to necessary services and supports across the county. This will require a strong degree of cooperation and collaboration among provinces and territories and the federal government. The federal, provincial and territorial governments must come together to develop a national action plan on mental health, mental illness and addiction modeled on the framework developed by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health in 2000. The CMA has noted the options put forward to elevate mental health, mental illness and addiction in government priorities: A Canada Mental Health Act or a Minister of State for mental health, mental illness and addiction. We continue to believe that an adequately resourced, dedicated federal centre focussed on mental health, mental illness and addiction must be established within Health Canada. This will ensure that mental health, mental illness and addiction are not seen as separate from the health care system but an integral component of acute care, chronic care and public health services. A centre with dedicated funding and leadership at the Associate Deputy Minister level is required to signal the intent of the government to seriously address mental health, mental illness and addiction in terms of both its direct and indirect roles. This centre must also have the authority to coordinate across all federal departments and lead F/P/T collaborations on mental health, mental illness and addiction. The responsibility of the provinces and territories for the delivery of services for mental illness and addiction within their jurisdictions is unquestioned. But, as CMA has noted in relation to the acute care and public health systems, we have a concern with the disparity of these services across the country. We believe that the federal government must take a lead role, working with the provinces and territories, in establishing mental health goals, standards for service delivery, disseminating best practices, coordinating surveillance and research, undertaking human resource planning and reducing stigma. It is unfortunate that the Council of Deputy Ministers of Health withdrew its support of the F/P/T Advisory Network on Mental Health in 1990. The lack of a credible and resourced F/P/T forum for information sharing, planning and policy formation has impeded inter-provincial cooperation and collaboration for over a decade. F/P/T collaboration is essential to ensure adequacy of services in all parts of the country and end the piecemeal approach to mental illness and addiction. It would also encourage pan Canadian research and knowledge transfer. The CMA therefore recommends: 1. That the federal government create and adequately resource a Centre for Mental Health within Health Canada led by an Associate Deputy Minister with a mandate to initiate and coordinate activity across all federal departments to address the federal government’s responsibilities to specific populations under its direct jurisdiction, to oversee national policies and programs that impact on mental health, mental illness and addiction and to support intergovernmental collaboration. 2. That the federal government re-establish and adequately resource the F/P/T Advisory Network on Mental Health with a broader mandate to encompass mental health, mental illness and addiction. 3. That the federal government work with the provinces, territories and the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health to establish a Pan Canadian Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Network to develop a national mental health strategy, mental health goals and action plan; and serve as a forum for inter-provincial cooperation and collaboration on mental health, mental illness and addiction. Accessibility Accessibility leads the way as the number one concern regarding the health care system for patients and their families. This concern is in no way lessened when we look at access to mental health and addiction services and programs. The CMA has long identified accessibility as an essential issue that must be addressed to improve the health care system. In recent years, public concern over timely access has been growing. Recent polling for the CMA has shown that a significant majority of Canadians have suffered increased pain and anxiety while waiting for health care services. 3 The same polling clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of Canadians attributed long waits for health care services to a lack of available health providers and infrastructure. More recently, another opinion poll found that Canadians gave the health care system an overall grade of “C” in terms of their confidence that the system will provide the same level and quality of service to future generations. 4 The 2003 Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada report released by the Fraser Institute included a psychiatry waiting list survey which revealed that wait times from referral by a GP ranges from a Canadian average of 8.5 weeks to 20 weeks in New Brunswick. Patients then face a further delay as they wait for appropriate treatment after they have been seen by the specialist. This wait can be anywhere from 4 weeks to 19 weeks depending on the treatment or program. 5 The 2004 National Physician Survey, a collaboration between the CMA, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and the College of Family Physicians of Canada, found that 65.6% of physicians rated accessibility to psychiatrists as fair or poor. 6 These statistics do not reflect those patients that do not make it on to lengthy waiting lists where access is effectively denied. In September 2004 the CMA released a national plan of action to address issues of accessibility, availability and sustainability across the health system 7 . Better Access Better Health lays out a number of recommendations designed to ensure that access exists at times of need, and to improve system capacity and the sustainability of the system. While Better Access Better Health speaks to the health care system writ large, the provision of mental health services and addiction treatment clearly falls under this umbrella. Specific recommendations detailed in the plan of action for pan-Canadian wait-time benchmarks, a health human resource reinvestment fund, expanding the continuum of care and an increase in federal “core’ funding commitments would all have a positive impact on the accessibility of mental health and addiction services. The review of mental health policies and programs in select countries (Report 2 of the Interim Report) is striking for the similarity of problems facing mental health care. In each of the four countries studied there is concern for the adequacy of resources as well as recognition of the need to coordinate and integrate service delivery. The CMA agrees with the Committee’s commentary that: “The means for achieving these objectives that stands out from our survey of four countries is to set actionable targets that engage the entire mental health community, and to establish measurable criteria for the ongoing monitoring of reform efforts. Comprehensive human resource planning in the mental health field, as well as adequate funding for research and its dissemination are also suggested as key elements of a national strategy to foster mental health and treat mental illness.” CMA strongly supports setting national standards and targets with regard to mental health services and addiction treatment, but it must be understood that standards and targets can not be established until we have a clear and accurate picture of the current situation in Canada. Pan-Canadian research is needed to determine the availability of services across the country. Surveillance of mental illness risk factors, outcomes and services is essential to guide appropriate development and delivery of programs. Research is also needed to determine ways of integrating the delivery of mental health services between institutional and community settings. The Health Transition Fund supported 24 projects between 1997 and 2001 that made a substantial contribution toward a practical knowledge base in mental health policy and practice. The 2000 Primary Health Care Transition Fund is also supporting projects in the mental health field. For those projects that are due to be completed in 2006, they should be encouraged to put in place a prospective evaluation framework to determine the feasibility and scalability of collaborative care initiatives. As noted in Better Access Better Health availability is first and foremost about the people who provide quality care and about the tools and infrastructure they need to provide it. The shortage of family practitioners, specialists, nurses, psychologists and other health care providers within the publicly funded health care system is certainly an impediment to timely access to care. A health human resources strategy for mental health, mental illness and addiction is a first step in finding a solution to the chronic shortage of health professionals. The CMA therefore recommends: 4. That the federal government, through the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction, undertake a program of surveillance and research to determine actual availability of services for mental health, mental illness and addiction across the country. 5. That the federal government in consultation with provincial and territorial governments, health care providers and patients/clients establish national standards and targets for access to services. 6. That the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction and the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research within Canadian Institutes of Health Research establish a joint competition for research on ways of integrating the delivery of mental health services between institutions and community settings. 7. That the federal government undertake an evaluation of those Health Transition Fund and Primary Health Care Transition Fund projects in the mental health, mental illness and addiction field to determine the feasibility and scalability of collaborative care initiatives. 8. That the federal government work with the provinces and territories to develop a health human resource strategy for the field of mental health, mental illness and addiction. Accountability In its presentation to the Committee in March of 2004, CMA recommended that the federal government make the legislative and/or regulatory amendments necessary to ensure that psychiatric hospital services are subject to the criteria and conditions of the Canada Health Act. This would accomplish two objectives. It would signal the federal government’s serious intent to address the historical imbalance in the treatment of mental health and illness care while at the same time increase the accountability of these institutions and services to the values espoused in the Canada Health Act. This would be a very positive step, but we must also develop accountability mechanisms that can measure the quality and effectiveness of the mental health services provided. Since 2000, First Ministers and their governments have committed to reporting on numerous comparable indicators on health status, health outcomes and quality of services. In September 2002, all 14 jurisdictions including the federal government, released reports covering some 67 comparable indicators. In November 2004, these governments released their second report covering 18 indicators with a focus on health system performance including primary health care and homecare. Unfortunately, mental illness--despite its magnitude--has received little attention in these reports. Of the now 70 indicators that have been developed, only 2 directly address mental illness (potential years of life lost due to suicide and prevalence of depression). Furthermore, no performance indicators related to mental health outcomes or wait times for mental health services have been included in these reports. This is one more example of the oversight of mental illness related issues and the vicious circle that exists since few indicators makes it difficult to present the case for greater attention. The lack of information on availability of services, wait times and health outcomes for mental health services compromises governments’ ability to establish a funding framework to allocate funding equitably. Research that will reveal gaps in service delivery, and the establishment of targets should allow governments to better calculate sustainable funding levels needed to build capacity in the mental health, mental illness and addiction fields. As important as it is to ensure that mental health and addiction services within the health system are available, accessible and adequately resourced we must not lose sight of the fact that to effectively address mental health, mental illness and addiction issues services from a broad range of government sectors are required. Therefore the proposed Associate Deputy Minister for Mental Health must be accountable to ensure collaboration across sectors within the federal government. As in public health in general, a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the various levels and sectors of government and health providers involved in the provision of mental health, mental illness and addiction services would allow for greater accountability. The CMA therefore recommends: 9. That performance indicators for mental health services and support, based on the work of the F/P/T Advisory Network on Mental Health, are incorporated in the federal, provincial and territorial reporting of comparable indicators on health status, health outcomes and quality of services called for in the 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal. 10. The federal, provincial and territorial governments establish resource targets based on national standards for access to services and minimum wait times to determine and commit to sustainable funding levels. 11. That the Health Council of Canada report on the performance of the mental health, mental illness and addiction system. CONCLUSION The CMA welcomes the spotlight that the Committee has shone on the mental health, mental illness and addiction system in Canada and has been pleased to provide input on behalf of the physicians of Canada. The neglect of those impacted by mental illness and addiction must not be allowed to continue. It is unconscionable that millions of Canadians do not have access to the programs, treatments or supports that would ease their suffering. The federal government must recognize its responsibility towards these Canadians, embrace its leadership role and ensure that the mental health, mental illness and addiction system is placed on an equal footing within the health care system in Canada. Physicians are an integral part of the mental health, mental illness and addiction field. We are eager to work with governments and other concerned stakeholders to bring to fruition a national mental health strategy with mental health goals and an associated action plan that can effectively address the concerns of today and prepare the mental health, mental illness and addiction system for the future. CMA recommendations on Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction 1. That the federal government create and adequately resource a Centre for Mental Health within Health Canada led by an Associate Deputy Minister with a mandate to initiate and coordinate activity across all federal departments to address the federal government’s responsibilities to specific populations under its direct jurisdiction, to oversee national policies and programs that impact on mental health, mental illness and addiction, and to support intergovernmental collaboration. 2. That the federal government re-establish and adequately resource the F/P/T Advisory Network on Mental Health with a broader mandate to encompass mental health, mental illness and addiction. 3. That the federal government work with the provinces, territories and the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health to establish a Pan Canadian Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Network to develop a national mental health strategy, mental health goals and action plan; and serve as a forum for inter-provincial cooperation and collaboration on mental health, mental illness and addiction. 4. That the federal government, through the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction, undertake a program of surveillance and research to determine actual availability of services for mental health, mental illness and addiction across the country. 5. That the federal government in consultation with provincial and territorial governments, health care providers and patients/clients establish national standards and targets for access to services. 6. That the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction and the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research within Canadian Institutes of Health Research establish a joint competition for research on ways of integrating the delivery of mental health services between institutions and community settings. 7. That the federal government undertakes an evaluation of those Health Transition Fund and Primary Health Care Transition Fund projects in the mental health, mental illness and addiction field to determine the feasibility and scalability of collaborative care initiatives. 8. That the federal government works with the provinces and territories to develop a health human resource strategy for the field of mental health, mental illness and addiction. 9. That performance indicators for mental health services and support, based on the work of the F/P/T Advisory Network on Mental Health, are incorporated in the federal, provincial and territorial reporting of comparable indicators on health status, health outcomes and quality of services called for in the 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal. 10. The federal, provincial and territorial governments establish resource targets based on national standards for access to services and minimum wait times to determine and commit to sustainable funding levels. 11. That the Health Council of Canada report on the performance of the mental health, mental illness and addiction system. 1 Stephens T and Joubert N, The Economic Burden of Mental Health Problems in Canada, Chronic Disease in Canada, 2001:22 (1) 18-23. 2 Health Canada. A Report on Mental Illnesses in Canada. Ottawa, Canada 2002. 3 Health Care Access and Canadians, Ipsos-Reid for the CMA, 2004. 4 2004 National Report Card on the Sustainability of Health Care, Ipsos-Reid for the CMA, 2004. 5 Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (13th edition), Critical Issues Bulletin, The Fraser Institute, October 2003. 6 National Physician Survey, Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, College of Family Physicians of Canada, 2004, (http://www.cfpc.ca/nps/English/home.asp), accessed April 6, 2005. 7 Better Access Better Health: Accessible, Available and Sustainable Health Care For Patients, CMA September 2004 , attached as Appendix I.
Documents
Less detail

"More Doctors. More Care:" A Promise Yet Unfulfilled - The Canadian Medical Association's brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health concerning health human resources

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9438
Date
2009-04-28
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Health human resources
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2009-04-28
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Health human resources
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health makes 12 practical recommendations within the jurisdiction of the federal government for investing in the capacity needed to expand and retain our practising physician population. These recommendations are a clarion call for pan-Canadian planning and innovative thinking to meet an ever-increasing demand for physician services from the Canadian public. CMA's research on Health Care Transformation has shown that a commitment to ensuring an adequate supply of health human resources (HHR) is a common trait shared by high-performing European health systems. The last federal election campaign saw most political parties pledge to urgently address HHR shortages. Now is the time to keep those election commitments. A. Capacity Cuts to medical school enrolment in the 1990s contributed to Canada's significant shortage of physicians. Growing demand for physician services, the aging of the physician population and changing practice styles among younger physicians are further compounding the problem. Seriously addressing HHR shortages is crucial to transforming Canada's health care system into one that is truly patient focused. Canada should strive for self-sufficiency in physician supply and do more to repatriate Canadians studying and practising medicine abroad. The CMA supports bringing into practice qualified international medical graduates (IMGs) already in Canada. IMGs should be assessed according to the same evaluation standards as Canadian graduates and more should be done to reduce the backlog in assessing IMGs. With recent increases to medical school enrolment, more support must also be given for the capital infrastructure and faculty required to ensure the highest standard of medical education. B. Retention Competition for physicians is an issue with both international and inter-provincial/territorial facets. The revised Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and bilateral agreements will ease the movement of health professionals across jurisdictions, but may exacerbate retention difficulties in underserviced areas. Canada should be active in retaining and repatriating our health care professionals, particularly since the predicted physician shortage in the United States may result in a return to the physician out-migration seen in the 1990s. C. Innovation Canada must do more to encourage innovation within our health care system. Collaborative care - including care delivered with the assistance of Physician Assistants (PAs) - and advances in information technology hold the promise of helping create a more efficient health care system that provides higher quality care. Introduction Canada has suffered from a significant physician shortage since the mid-1990s. Nationally, we rank 26th of 30 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries in physician-to-population ratio. We would need 20,000 new physicians just to meet the OECD average. Figure 1: Physicians per 1000 population (including residents) Source: OECD 2008 Health Data; CMA Physician Resources Evaluation Template During the 2008 federal election campaign, four of the five parties represented in the House of Commons recognized the urgency of this situation and promised measures that would address HHR shortages. Following through on these promises is critical if we are to transform Canada's health care system into one that truly puts the needs of patients first. Research conducted for CMA's Health Care Transformation initiative demonstrates that European countries whose health care systems outperform our own all share a strong commitment to HHR, as demonstrated by their higher physician-to-population rankings. A. Capacity First-year medical school enrolment was already in decline when health ministers imposed a further 10% cut resulting in a low of 1,577 places in 1997. While there have been substantial increases since then, it took a decade to rebound. In 2007, first-year enrolment stood at 2,569 - 63% higher than a decade earlier. If we had left our domestic production unchanged, we would have almost 1,300 more physicians than we have today. Canada remains well behind other industrialized countries in the education and training of physicians. In 2005, Canada graduated 5.8 physicians per 100,000 population, 40% below the 9.6 average for the OECD. Currently, between 4 and 5 million Canadians do not have a family physician. Over one-third of all Canadian physicians are over the age of 55. Many will either retire soon or reduce their practice workload. Most are not accepting new patients. Ironically, advances in medicine and lifestyle that are helping Canadians live better and longer also mean increased demand for health care professionals. An aging population with high expectations of the health care system is increasing pressure on health care providers to ensure they maintain a high quality of life through their elder years. A growing culture of 'health consumerism,' facilitated by the Internet has resulted in a very knowledgeable patient population that expects top quality care delivered in a timely manner by the appropriate health professional. Advances in medical diagnostics and technology, new and evolving diseases and increasingly complex protocols and guidelines for medical care all increase the demand for physician services. Declining mortality rates for patients with diseases such as cancer have increased treatment of what have become 'chronic' diseases. In a collaborative care setting, physicians often take responsibility for the most complex patients. There is evidence of a cultural change among physicians to place greater importance on their home life by working less. This trend may have a positive effect on the health of the profession but it means Canada will need more physicians to provide the same volume of services. Greater coordination among jurisdictions is needed to facilitate HHR planning on a national scale. Canada's doctors and other health professions are ready to assist policy-makers in their planning and coordination to better meet the health care needs of Canadians. During the 2008 federal election campaign, most political parties recognized the urgency of addressing HHR shortages. The Conservative Party, specifically, promised to fund 50 new residency positions to increase supply of physicians in areas of priority need. Recommendation 1: The federal government should fulfill its promise to fund 50 new residency positions at a cost of $10 million per year for four years. Support for IMGs The CMA fully supports bringing into practice qualified IMGs already in Canada. Canada has historically benefited from a steady flow of IMGs to our country. In fact, close to one quarter of all physicians in Canada and over 50% of doctors in Saskatchewan are IMGs. Many areas in Canada would have no physicians if not for the contribution of these practitioners. While IMGs are a boon to Canada, actively recruiting from developing countries is not an acceptable solution to our physician shortage. Canada must strive for greater self-sufficiency in the education and training of physicians. In fact, self-sufficiency is a key principle of the government's Advisory Committee on Health Delivery and Human Resources' Framework for Collaborative Pan-Canadian Health Human Resources Planning. CMA supports online assessment tools and websites that provide information to foreign-trained physicians so they know what standards they must meet once they arrive in Canada. In 2006, over 1700 people used the online assessment tool established by the Medical Council of Canada (MCC). CMA also supports applying the same evaluation standards to international graduates as it does to graduates of Canadian medical schools. Despite a four-fold increase in the number of IMGs in ministry-funded postgraduate training programs over the last decade, there is still a backlog of IMGs awaiting entry into these programs. About 1300 IMGs applied for a postgraduate training position last year but only 350 (27%) were successful. CMA recommends that funding be made available to provinces for use in mentoring IMGs towards licensure. This could lower costs for the IMGs, pay the community preceptors, cover operational costs and defray other expenses. It is estimated that up to 1500 Canadians are studying medicine abroad. Two-thirds of these IMGs want to come home to complete their postgraduate training. Canada turns away four good applicants for every student accepted into medical school. Increased training opportunities for all groups of IMGs will ensure that Canada fully utilizes the skills and knowledge of its citizens who have studied medicine. Recommendation 2: The federal government should make $5 million (over five years), available to provinces/territories to address the backlog of IMGs through community preceptorship programs that mentor and assess IMGs for integration into the physician community. Recommendation 3: The federal government should take concrete steps to ensure Canada becomes self-sufficient when it comes to the supply of health care professionals. Recommendation 4: The federal government should continue to fund information tools such as the IMG-Canada website to better inform offshore physicians. Infrastructure and faculty Canada's teaching centres have had to absorb increases in operational and infrastructure costs to accommodate increased enrolment. This includes instructors, space, overhead and supplies. While it appears that the number of faculty members has kept pace with the increased number of medical students, part-time faculty now make up a much larger proportion of the total than 10 years ago. i In addition to the traditional academic centres, much of the training of doctors now occurs in a community environment. Mentoring is provided by physicians who may have less experience or resources than do those in the larger centres. Those who teach often experience lost productivity in their practice and receive little or no remuneration. This deficiency must be addressed to achieve a sustainable educational workforce. Recommendation 5: The federal government should implement a Health Human Resources Infrastructure 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; and * Resources that improve Canada's data collection and management capacity in the area of health human resources. B. Retention of Canadian Physicians Competition for physicians is both an international and an inter-jurisdictional challenge. The new Agreement on Internal Trade within Canada and numerous bilateral agreements will no doubt ease the movement of health professionals. This may exacerbate the already difficult task of retaining physicians in underserviced areas. On the positive side, it is hoped this will facilitate the movement of physicians who provide short-term relief for physicians needing time off for continued professional development and vacation (i.e., locum tenens). Repatriation As the political situation and health care plans evolve south of our border, Canada should remain active in the quest to retain the health professionals we have educated and trained and make it easier for those who have emigrated to return to practice in Canada. The Conservative Party committed in the 2008 election campaign to create a repatriation fund for Canadian physicians practising abroad. The federal government should keep this important commitment. Migration to the United States peaked in the late 1990s when Canada lost between 600 and 700 physicians per year. While some physicians returned to Canada each year, our net losses for this period were over 400 per year. Today we are enjoying small net gains each year but this may not last given the predicted shortages in the U.S. of between 80,000 and 100,000 physicians in the years ahead. We can expect U.S. recruiters to ramp up activities in Canada in the near future. Recommendation 6: The federal government should fulfill its election promise to establish a fund of $5 million per year over four years to help Canadian physicians living abroad who wish to relocate to Canada. It is thought this initiative could bring back as many as 300 Canadian physicians over four years. Recommendation 7: The federal government should establish a Health Professional Repatriation Program in the amount of $30 million over 3 years that would include the following: * A secretariat within Health Canada that would include a clearinghouse function on issues associated with health care workers returning to practise in Canada. * An ad campaign in the United States. * A program of one-time relocation grants for returning health professionals. Physician Health and Well Being Ultimately, we hope that healthier physicians will create a more vibrant profession. Hopefully these healthier physicians will in turn create a more healthful professional environment that will support their ability to provide patient care of the highest quality. Through programs and conferences, the CMA has contributed to growing efforts to reduce the stigma surrounding physician ill-health and to support a new, healthier culture for the profession. Given the myriad other issues that contribute to our doctor shortage, it is clear that Canada cannot afford to lose a single physician to ill health. Our research shows that the most stressful aspect of the medical profession is being on call after hours. Physicians average 50 hours a week in the usual settings of office, hospital or clinic but then 70% are on call for another 30 hours per week. In small communities, physicians are often on call all the time. A quarter of all physicians face some form of mental health challenge that makes their work difficult. This is higher than the 1 in 5 Canadians that will face a mental illness over their lifetime.ii The ongoing pressures experienced by overworked physicians can result in stress related disorders and burn-out and are frequently a precursor to more significant physical and mental health problems. If not addressed early, these conditions can lead to physicians taking prolonged periods of time off work, changing their practice patterns or leaving the practice of medicine altogether. Prevention programs are the key to assisting physicians before they are at significant risk. The CMA visited such a program in Norway which has been shown to significantly reduce burn-out and reduce the subsequent time-off work related to stressiii. A program to enhance physician resiliency and prevent stress related disorders, based on the Norway model, could be expanded to include services for all health professionals. The potential impact would be improved provider health and morale, reduced sick days and fewer long-term leaves. Recommendation 8: The federal government should invest in research directed at assessing the quality of work life among health workers through an interprofessional survey at a cost of $1.5 million. Recommendation 9: The federal government should explore the feasibility of developing a 'made in Canada' Resiliency Program for Health Professionals that would include the development of a feasibility study, including a business case, and a pilot curriculum, at a cost of $500,000. C. Innovation While Canada must do more to increase both our supply and retention of HHR, we must also encourage innovation within our health care system to make better use of our existing health resources. Collaborative models of interprofessional care and advances in information technology hold the promise of helping create a more efficient health care system that provides higher quality care. Physician Assistants Increasingly physicians are working in interprofessional teams that may include professions that are relatively new to Canada's health workforce such as physician assistants (PAs). The CMA accredits PA curricula and has held two conferences to promote the use of PAs in all levels of care. Recommendation 10: The federal government should fund a study to evaluate the impact of physician assistants on access to health care and to determine their cost effectiveness relative to other providers at cost of $150,000. Technology to Support Health Care Delivery Information technology will continue to create a more efficient and effective health care system. It will lead to more patient safety, more Canadians finding a physician, better care, cost avoidance such as eliminating duplicate tests and the establishment of collaborative interprofessional health care teams. Canada's adoption of electronic medical records lags behind other OECD countries. We only spend a third of the OECD average on information technology in our hospitals. The adoption of EMRs in community settings (primary care, home care and long-term care facilities) also trails most other countries (Figure 2iv). This is not due to any general resistance by providers, but rather a combination of: a lack of evidence on how best to use electronic records to improve care delivery; a need to improve the return on investment for physicians by providing value-added solutions such as greater connectivity to lab results, drug data and colleagues; the time it takes to implement a new electronic record capability and a lack of funds to acquire new technology. Recent investments in Canada Health Infoway (CHI) will help address some of these issues but it is estimated that for Canada to have a fully automated health care delivery system we need to invest $ 10 to $12 billionv. An overall investment of $2 billion is required to fully IT enable the community-based health care delivery sector. While Budget 2009 provided $500 million to CHI for EMRs, more is still required. Recommendation 11: The federal government should provide a further investment of $500 million for new technology to fully enable all points of care in the community settings and an enhanced change management program to speed up EMR adoption. Recommendation 12: The federal government should create a $10-million fund to establish an applied research program for the next five years that will provide evidence on how best to integrate information technology into the health care delivery system. D. Conclusion Canada's doctors believe that we can build a health care system where all Canadians can get timely access to quality health care services regardless of their ability to pay. Developing a comprehensive HHR strategy that assures an adequate supply of all health care providers, including physicians, is a pillar of achieving timely access to high quality care. Building such a system requires that we shift our attitude and move to implement new strategies, new ideas and new thinking. That new thinking must begin with a commitment to act now to address Canada's physician shortage. A promise made must be a promise fulfilled. References i Canada's Health Care Providers 2007, Ottawa: CIHI, 2007 ii Frank E. Canadian physicians healthy - national survey finds. A report from the 2008 International Conference on Physician Health. London, UK Nov 2008. iii Isaksson Ro, K et al. Counselling for burnout in Norwegian doctors : One year cohort study. BMJ. November 2008. Vol 337, 1146-9. iv * Count of 14: EMR, EMR access other doctors, outside office, patient; routine use electronic ordering tests, prescriptions, access test results, access hospital records; computer for reminders, Rx alerts, prompt test results; easy to list diagnosis; medications, patients due for care. v Vision 2015 - Advancing Canada's Next Generation of Healthcare, Canada Health Infoway, 2008
Documents
Less detail

National pharmacare in Canada: Getting there from here

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11959
Date
2016-06-01
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2016-06-01
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
On behalf of 83,000 physician members, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health study on the Development of a National Pharmacare Program. Recognizing that the term “pharmacare” is used in different contexts, for the purposes of this brief, pharmacare is defined as a program whereby Canadians have comparable access to medically necessary prescription medications, irrespective of their ability to pay, wherever they live in Canada. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Founded in 1867, the CMA’s mission is helping physicians care for patients. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease/injury prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. Key Facts According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), in 2014, of the estimated $28.8 billion spent in Canada on prescription medications (representing 13.4% of total health spending), governmentsi accounted for 42.0%, and private insurers and out-of-pocket (OOP) payment accounted for 35.8% and 22.2% respectively.1 The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada’s physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and over 60 national medical organizations. i Includes federal. Social security fund and provincial/territorial spending 1 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Prescribed drug spending in Canada, 2013: a focus on public drug programs. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/Prescribed%20Drug%20Spending%20in%20Canada_2014_EN.pdf. Accessed 05/15/16. 2 Royal Commission on Health Services. Report Volume One. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964. 3 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Health Expenditure Database 1975 to 2015. Table D 3.1.1-D3.13.1 https://www.cihi.ca/en/spending-and-health-workforce/spending/national-health-expenditure-trends. Accessed 05/08/16. 4 Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 203-0022 Survey of household spending (SHS), household spending, Canada, regions and provinces, by household income quintile. Accessed 05/18/16. 5 Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada. 2014-15 Report Card on Cancer in Canada. http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/reportcard/2014/Report%20Card%20on%20Cancer%20in%20Canada%202014-2015.pdf. Accessed 05/08/16. 6 Canadian Cancer Society. Cancer drug access for Canadians. http://www.colorectal-cancer.ca/IMG/pdf/cancer_drug_access_report_en.pdf. Accessed 05/08/16. 7Schoen C, Osborn R, Squires D, Doty M. Access, affordability, and insurance complexity are often worse in the United States compared to ten other countries. Health Affairs 2013;32(12):2205-15. 8 Himmelstein D, Woolhandler S, Sarra J, Guyatt G. Health issues and health care expenses in Canadian bankruptices and insolvencies. International Journal of Health Services 2014;44(1):7-23. 9 Law M, Cheng L, Dhalla I, Heard D, Morgan S. The effect of cost on adherence to prescription medications in Canada. CMAJ 2012. 184)3):297-302. 10 Tamblyn R, Eguale T, Huang A, Winslade N, Doran P. The incidence and determinants of primary nonadherence with prescribed medication in primary care. Ann Inter Med 2014;160:441-50. Pharmacare is clearly part of the unfinished business of Medicare. Numerous authors have pointed out that Canada is the only developed country that does not include prescription medications as part of its universal health program. Table 1 below shows how Canada compares with the 22 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the proportion of public spending for major categories of health expenditure in 2012. Table 1. Public spending as % of total spending: Major health spending categories, Canada and 22 OECD country average, 2012 % Public Spending Prescription Drugs Hospitals Doctors’ Offices Canada 42 91 99 OECD Average 70 88 72 Source: OECD.Stat, Doctors’ offices figure for Sweden is 2009 In the case of prescription medications, Canada was more than one-third (40%) below the OECD average. The Patchwork Quilt of Public-Private Coverage In 1964 the Hall Commission recommended 50/50 cost-sharing between the federal and provincial governments toward the establishment of a prescription drug program, with a $1.00 charge for each prescription. At the time, prescription medications represented 6.5% of spending on personal health services.2 This recommendation was not implemented. It might be further added that the Hall report contained 25 forward-looking recommendations on pharmaceuticals that remain current to this day, including bulk purchasing, generic substitution and a national formulary.2 As a result of the lack of inclusion of prescription medications in Medicare, there is wide variation today in public per capita spending on prescription drugs across the provinces. It may be seen in Table 2 that, for 2014, CIHI has estimated that public per capita expenditure ranged from $219 in British Columbia and $255 in Prince Edward Island (PE) to $369 in Saskatchewan and $437 in Quebec.3 CIHI does not provide estimates of private per capita prescription drug spending (private insurance plus OOP) below the national level. Table 2: Spending on prescription drugs: Selected indicators by province and territory, 2014 Province/ Territory Public spendinga ($ million) Public per capita spendinga ($ ) Private insuranceb ($ million) Average household out-of-pocketc $ NL 156.7 297 177 454 PE 37.3 255 32 516 NS 302.2 321 337 429 NB 210.8 280 284 477 QC 3,588.7 437 2,369 466 ON 4,730.4 346 4,626 324 MB 411.3 321 249 516 SK 415.4 369 192 514 AB 1,383.7 336 1,065 409 BC 1,015.8 219 894 456 YT 14.0 383 - - NT 17.5 400 - - NU 13.6 372 - - Territories 45.1 385 23 - Canada 12,297.4 334d 10,247 408 a CIHI, National Health Expenditure Database 1975-2015, includes all public funding sources b Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association c Statistics Canada, Survey of Household Spending, 2014 d Provincial/territorial average Table 2 also shows the significant role of private insurance in every region of Canada. Data provided by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, shown in Column 3 of Table 2, show that private health insurance companies paid out $10.2 billion for prescription drug claims in 2014, representing 83% of the $12.3 billion paid for by governments. In three provinces — Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — the amount paid by private insurance exceeds that paid by governments. Table 2 also shows that there is wide variation in average household OOP spending on prescription drugs, according to Statistics Canada’s Survey of Household Spending (SHS). In 2014 this ranged from a low of $324 in Ontario to a high of $516 in PE and Manitoba.4 Even more striking variation is evident when looking at household out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs by income quintile (detailed data not shown). According to the 2014 SHS the poorest one-fifth (lowest income quintile) of PE households spent more than twice as much ($645) OOP on prescription drugs than the poorest one-fifth in Ontario ($300).4 Aside from overall differences in public spending there are also differences in which medications are covered, particularly in the case of cancer drugs. The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada reported in 2014 that four provinces have fully funded access to cancer medications taken at home. In Ontario and Atlantic Canada however, cancer drugs that must be taken in a hospital setting and are on the provincial formulary are fully funded by the provincial government; if the drug is taken outside of hospital (oral or injectable), the patient and family may have to pay significant costs out-of-pocket.5 More generally the Canadian Cancer Society has reported that persons moving from one province to another may find that a medication covered in their former province may not be covered in the new one. 6 Other sources confirm that prescription medication spending is an issue for many Canadians. On the Commonwealth Fund’s 2013 International Health Policy Survey, 8% of the Canadian respondents said that they had either not filled a prescription or skipped doses because of cost issues.7 Himmelstein et al. reported on a survey of Canadians who experienced bankruptcy between 2008 and 2010. They found that 74.5% of the respondents who had had a medical bill within the last two years reported that prescription drugs was their biggest medical expense.8 At least two Canadian studies have documented the impact that out-of-pocket costs, lack of insurance and low income have on non-adherenceii to prescription regimens. Law et al. examined cost-related non-adherence in the 2007 Canadian Community Health Survey and found that those without drug insurance were more than four times as likely to report non-adherence than those with insurance. The predicted rate of non-adherence among those with high household incomes and drug insurance was almost 10 times as high as that among those with low incomes and no insurance (35.6% vs. 3.6%).9 Based on a large-scale study of the incidence of primary non-adherence (defined as not filing a new prescription within nine months) in a group of some 70,000 Quebec patients, Tamblyn et al. reported that there was a 63% reduction in the odds of non-adherence among those with free medication over those with the maximum level of co-payment. They also reported that the odds of non-adherence increased with the cost of the medication prescribed.10 ii Non-adherence can be defined as doing something to make a medication last longer or failing to fill or renew a prescription. Previous Pharmacare Proposals In a recent monograph Katherine Boothe has contrasted the development of national prescription medication programs in Australia and the United Kingdom with the failure to do so in Canada.11 11 Boothe K. Ideas and the pace of change: national pharmaceutical insurance in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. 12 National Forum on Health. Directions for a pharmaceutical policy in Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/renewal-renouv/1997-nfoh-fnss-v2/index-eng.php. Accessed 05/18/16. 13 National Forum on Health. Canada health action: building on the legacy. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 1997. 14 Bank of Canada. Inflation calculator. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/?page_moved=1. Accessed 05/18/16. 15 Statistics Canada. Table 051-0001 Estimates of population, by age group and sex for July 1, Canada, provinces and territories. Accessed 05/15/16. 16 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure database 1975 to 2015. Table C.3.1. Public health expenditure by use of funds, Canada, 1975 to 2015. https://www.cihi.ca/en/spending-and-health-workforce/spending/national-health-expenditure-trends. Accessed 05/25/16. 17 Berry C. Voluntary medical insurance and prepayment. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965. 18 Receiver General for Canada. Volume I Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada, 1969. 19 Receiver General for Canada. Volume I Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972. 20 Privy Council Office. Speech from the Throne to open the first session thirty-sixth Parliament of Canada. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information&sub=publications&doc=aarchives/sft-ddt/1997-eng.htm. Accessed 05/18/16. 21 Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The health of Canadians – the federal role. Volume six: recommendations for reform. Ottawa, 2002. 22 Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada. Ottawa, 2002. 23 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. 2003 First Ministers’ accord on health care renewal. http://www.scics.gc.ca/CMFiles/800039004_e1GTC-352011-6102.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 24 Council of the Federation. Premiers’ action plan for better health care: resolving issues in the spirit of true federalism. Communiqué July 30, 2004. http://canadaspremiers.ca/phocadownload/newsroom-2004/healtheng.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 25 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. A 10-year plan to strengthen health care. http://www.scics.gc.ca/CMFiles/800042005_e1JXB-342011-6611.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 26 National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. National Pharmaceuticals Strategy progress report. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/2006-nps-snpp/2006-nps-snpp-eng.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 27 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Backgrounder: national pharmaceutical strategy decision points. http://www.scics.gc.ca/english/conferences.asp?a=viewdocument&id=112. Accessed 05/18/16. 28 Canada’s Premiers. The pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance: April 2016 Update. http://www.pmprovincesterritoires.ca/en/initiatives/358-pan-canadian-pharmaceutical-alliance. Accessed 05/18/16. 29 Canadian Medical Association. General Council Resolution GC15-C16, August 26, 2015. 30 Gagnon M. The economic case for universal pharmacare. 2010. https://s3.amazonaws.com/policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2010/09/Universal_Pharmacare.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 31 Gagnon M. A roadmap to a rational pharmacare policy in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, 2014. 32 Morgan S, Law M, Daw J, Abraham L, Martin D. Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. CMAJ. 2015 Apr 21;187(7):491-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.141564. 33 Morgan S, Martin D, Gagnon M, Mintzes B, Daw, J, Lexchin, J. Pharmacare 2020. The future of drug coverage in Canada. http://pharmacare2020.ca/assets/pdf/The_Future_of_Drug_Coverage_in_Canada.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 34 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC15-C19, August 26, 2015. 35 Conference Board of Canada. Federal policy action to support the health care needs of Canada’s aging population. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/conference-board-rep-sept-2015-embargo-en.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 36 Government of the United Kingdom. Written statement to Parliament NHS charges from April 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nhs-charges-from-april-2016. Accessed 05/18/16. 37 Appleby J. Prescription charges: are they worth it? BMJ 2014;348:g3944 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3944. Among the several Canadian attempts that she describes, the most activity occurred in the decade following the National Forum on Health (NFH), which was struck in 1994 and reported in 1997. A NFH working group paper on pharmaceutical policy recommended first dollar coverage for prescription medications, but acknowledged that it could not occur overnight: “over time we propose to shift private funding on prescribed pharmaceuticals (estimated at $3.6 billion in 1994) to public funding”.12 The NFH included this recommendation in its final report, noting that “the absorption of currently operating plans by a public system may involve transfer of funding sources as well as administrative apparatus”.13 It is instructive to place the 1994 prescription drug expenditure cited by the NFH in today’s context. According to the Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator, the $6.5 billion in 1994 would have cost $9.5 billion in 2014.14 CIHI estimates that actual spending in 2014 was $28.7 billion1 – 203% above the level of 1994 spending, compared to population growth of 23% over the same time period.15 Annual prescription drug spending increases averaged 7.3% over the period, although they have averaged just over 1% since 2009. 16 A significant shift from private to public funding is not without precedent. A study prepared for the Hall Commission estimated that 9.6 million Canadians, representing 53% of the total population, had some form of not-for-profit or commercial insurance coverage for medical and/or surgical services in 1961.17 With the passage of the Medical Care Act in 1966 these plans were all displaced as the provinces joined Medicare. The funding shift did not occur overnight, although it did move quickly. In the first year, 1968/69, Ottawa paid out $33 million to the provinces pursuant to the Medical Care Act, which grew quickly to $181 million in 1969/70, and reaching $576.5 million in 1971/72.18,19 Since the 1997 NFH report the closest that the federal government has come to acting on pharmacare was a commitment in the 1997 Speech from the Throne to “develop a national plan, timetable and a fiscal framework for providing Canadians with better access to medically necessary drugs”, but nothing further was ever made public.20 Pharmacare was subsequently examined in two national studies, both of which recommended federal involvement in reimbursing “catastrophic” prescription drug expenditures above a threshold of household income. The Senate study on the State of the Health Care System in Canada, chaired by Michael Kirby, was authorized in March 2001 and the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, headed by Roy Romanow, was approved in April 2001. Both issued their final reports in 2002. The Kirby plan was designed so as to avoid the necessity of eliminating existing private plans or the provincial/territorial public plans, not unlike the approach taken by Quebec in 1997. In the Kirby plan, in the case of public plans, personal prescription medication expenses for any family would be capped at 3% of total family income. The federal government would then pay 90% of prescription drug expenses in excess of $5,000. In the case of private plans, sponsors would have to agree to limit out-of-pocket costs to $1,500 per year, or 3% of family incomes, whichever was less. The federal government would then agree to pay 90% of drug costs in excess of $5,000 per year. Both public and private plans would be responsible for the difference between out-of-pocket costs and $5,000, and private plans would be encouraged to pool their risk. Kirby estimated that this plan would cost approximately $500 million per year.21 The Romanow Commission recommended a $1 billion Catastrophic Drug Transfer through which the federal government would reimburse 50% of the costs of provincial and territorial drug insurance plans above a threshold of $1,500 per person per year.22 The advantage of these proposals is that they are fully scalable. The federal government could adjust either the out-of-pocket household income threshold, the ceiling above which it would assume costs, or the percentage of costs that it would pay above the ceiling. Following the Kirby and Romanow reports there was a back and forth exchange between the federal and provincial-territorial (PT) governments on a plan for catastrophic coverage. In their February 2003 Accord, First Ministers agreed to ensure that Canadians would have reasonable access to catastrophic drug coverage by March 2006.23 At their annual summer meeting in 2004 the Premiers later called on the federal government to “assume full financial responsibility for a comprehensive drug program for all Canadians”, with compensation to Quebec for its drug program.24 In the September 2004 Health Accord, First Ministers directed health ministers to develop a nine-point National Pharmaceuticals Strategy (NPS), including costing options for catastrophic coverage.25 A federal-provincial-territorial Ministerial Task Force on the NPS was struck and a progress report was issued in June 2006. The estimates of catastrophic spending were markedly higher than those of the Kirby and Romanow reports. Using a variable percentage of income threshold it estimated that, based on public plan costs, only catastrophic spending represented 42% of total prescription drug spending. If private plan costs were also considered, catastrophic spending would represent 55% of total prescription drug spending. This report proposed four options for catastrophic coverage with estimates for new public funding ranging from $1.4 to $4.7 billion.26 Although no account of the methods was provided it is evident that a significant proportion of existing plan costs were included in the estimates of catastrophic expenditure. At their September 2008 meeting, the PT health ministers called for a national standard for drug coverage not to exceed 5% of net income and for the federal government to share 50/50 in the estimated $5.03 billion cost.27 The uncertainty about the projected cost of a pharmacare plan resulting from widely varying estimates has doubtless contributed to a reluctance of governments to engage on advancing this issue. Recent Developments At the PT level, there has been a concerted effort on price negotiations during the past few years through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) that was established in 2010. As of March 31, 2015, the pCPA reported that price reductions in generic and brand-name prescription medications result in annual savings of an estimated $490 million.28 The federal drug plans are now participating in the pCPA and the CMA has recommended that the pCPA should also invite the participation of private health insurance companies.29 The prospect of savings through lower prices has been foundational to two recent studies that have made the case that a single public payer pharmacare program with little or no co-payment is affordable. The first was by Marc-André Gagnon in 2010. The proposal was developed on the basis of a review of cross-provincial and international practices in pharmaceutical policy. The review formed the basis of a set of 11 assumptions that were used to develop four scenarios that resulted in estimates of prescription drug cost savings over the 2008 baseline expenditure of $25.1 billion that ranged to $2.7 billion to $10.7 billion.30 In a 2014 update Gagnon estimated that a first dollar coverage program would save 10% to 41% of prescription drug costs, representing savings of as much as $11.4 billion annually on a 2012-13 base of $27.7 billion.31 Steve Morgan and colleagues (2015) have estimated that a universal public plan with small co-payments could reduce prescription drug spending by $7.3 billion.32 Subsequently, in Pharmacare 2020 Morgan et al. set out five recommendations calling for the implementation of a single payer system with a publicly accountable management agency by 2020.33 Taking a First Step Forward At its 2015 annual meeting, the CMA adopted a policy resolution that supports the development of an equitable and comprehensive national pharmacare program.34 Reflecting on the experience of the past 40 years since the enactment of the Established Programs Financing Act in 1977 that eliminated 50:50 cost-sharing, it seems highly unlikely that the federal government would take on a new open-ended program in the health and social arena, cost-shared or not. However, notwithstanding the progress of the pCPA, we are unlikely to address the significant access gaps in prescription medication coverage without the involvement of the federal government. These are fiscally challenging times for both levels of government, with budget deficits expected for several years to come. As noted previously, the Kirby and Romanow proposals for a federal funding role in pharmacare are scalable. In 2015 the CMA commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to model the cost of covering prescription medication expenditure beyond a household spending threshold of $1,500 or 3% of gross household income, based on Statistics Canada’s 2013 Survey of Household Spending. The projected costs over the 2016 to 2020 are shown in Table 3 below. The cost to the federal government of covering the entire amount above the ($1,500 – 3%) threshold would be $1.6 billion in 2016.35 Recommendation 1: The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health request the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct a detailed examination of the financial burden of prescription medication coverage across Canada and to develop costing options for a federal contribution to a national pharmacare program. Recommendation 2: As a positive step toward comprehensive, universal coverage for prescription medications, the Canadian Medical Association recommends that the federal government establish a cost-shared program of coverage for prescription medications. First dollar coverage? The issue of co-payment arises in most discussions of pharmacare. Hall recommended a $1.00 prescription charge in 1964. In England, which does include prescription medications in the National Health Service (NHS), the current prescription charge is £8.40, although the government has previously noted that 90% of prescription items are provided free of charge.36 Appleby has noted however that the NHS’s in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have eliminated prescription charges.37One observational study of dispensing rates in Wales found that the overall impact of removing prescription charges was minimal.38 Table 4 shows the total volume of prescriptions dispensed in Scotland over the period 2009-2015, which straddles the removal of prescription charges on April 1, 2011. It indicates that percentage increases in the annual dispensing volume diminished after 2012 and the increase observed in 2015 was just 1.4%. It should be added, however, that patient charges accounted for less than 4% of Scotland’s dispensing expenditures in 2010.39 It will be interesting to see the results of further studies in these jurisdictions. 38 Cohen D, Alam M, Dunstan F, Myles S, Hughes D, Routledge P. Abolition of prescription copayments in Wales: an observational study on dispensing rates. Value in Health 2010;13(5):675-80. 39 ISD Scotland. Prescribing and medicines. Data tables. http://www.isdscotland.scot.nhs.uk/Health-Topics/Prescribing-and-Medicines/Publications/data-tables.asp?Co=Y. Accessed 05/15/16. 40 Canadian Medical Association. A prescription for optimal prescribing. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-01.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 41 Canadian Medical Association. Vision for e-prescribing; a joint statement by the Canadian Medical Associaiton and the Canadian Pharmacists Association. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD13-02.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. 42 Department of Finance Canada. Growing the middle class. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf. Accessed 05/18/16. Table 4 Prescription Dispensing in Scotland, 2009 – 2015 Year Number of Prescriptions % increase from previous year (million) 2009 88.4 3.8 2010 91.0 3.0 2011 93.8 3.1 2012 96.6 3.0 2013 98.4 1.9 2014 100.6 2.2 2015 102.0 1.4 Source: annual tabulations - Remuneration and reimbursement details for all prescribing made in Scotland.39 Other Elements of a National Pharmaceuticals Strategy It was noted previously that the Hall Report contained 25 recommendations on pharmaceuticals, and the 2004 Health Accord called for a 9-point National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. Two of the NPS points that the CMA would emphasize are the need to influence prescribing behaviour and the need to advance electronic prescribing (e-prescribing). The CMA refers to the first of these points as “optimal prescribing” and defines it as the prescription of a medication that is: the most clinically appropriate for the patient’s condition; safe and effective; part of a comprehensive treatment plan; and the most cost-effective available to best meet the patient’s needs. Toward this end the CMA has identified principles and recommendations to promote optimal prescribing, including the need for current information on cost and cost-effectiveness.40 The CMA believes that e-prescribing has the potential to improve patient safety, to support clinical decision-making and medication management, and to increase awareness of cost and cost-effectiveness considerations. In 2012 the CMA and the Canadian Pharmacists Association adopted a joint vision statement calling for e-prescribing to be the means by which prescriptions are generated for Canadians by 2015.41 Clearly that date has come and gone and we are not there yet. The current state primarily consists of demonstration projects and “workarounds”. The CMA was pleased to see an amount of $50 million allocated to Canada Health Infoway in the 2016 federal budget to support the advancement of e-prescribing and telehomecare.42 Finally the CMA remains very concerned about ongoing shortages of prescription drugs. We would caution that whatever measures governments might take to implement a pharmacare program these must not exacerbate drug shortages. Recommendation 3: The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Federal/Provincial/Territorial health Ministers direct their officials to convene a working group on a comprehensive National Pharmaceuticals Strategy that will consult widely with stakeholders representing patients, prescribers, and the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries to report with recommendations by spring 2017. Conclusion In conclusion, few would argue that prescription medications are less vital to the health and health care of Canadians than hospital and medical services. We would not have had the Medicare program that Canadians cherish today without the leadership and financial contribution of the federal government, and similarly without it now we will not have any form of a national pharmacare program.
Documents
Less detail

A new mission for health care in Canada: Addressing the needs of an aging population. 2016 pre-budget submission to the Minister of Finance

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11803
Date
2016-02-09
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2016-02-09
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to confirm its strong support for the federal government's health and social policy commitments, as identified in the ministerial mandate letters. In this brief, the CMA outlines seven recommendations for meaningful and essential federal action to ensure Canada is prepared to meet the health care needs of its aging population. The CMA's recommendations are designed to be implemented in the 2016-17 fiscal year in order to deliver immediate support to the provinces and territories and directly to Canadians. Immediate implementation of these recommendations is essential given the current and increasing shortages being experienced across the continuum of care in jurisdictions across Canada. In 2014, the CMA initiated a broad consultative initiative on the challenges in seniors care, as summarized in the report A Policy Framework to Guide a National Seniors Strategy for Canada. This report highlights the significant challenges currently being experienced in seniors care and emphasizes the need for increased federal engagement. Finally, if implemented, the CMA's recommendations will contribute to the federal government's strategic commitments in health, notably the commitment to the development of a new Health Accord. 1) Demographic Imperative for Increased Federal Engagement in Health Canada is a nation on the threshold of great change. This change will be driven primarily by the economic and social implications of the major demographic shift already underway. The added uncertainties of the global economy only emphasize the imperative for federal action and leadership. In 2015, for the first time in Canada's history, persons aged 65 years and older outnumbered those under the age of 15 years.1 Seniors are projected to represent over 20% of the population by 2024 and up to 25% of the population by 2036.2 It is increasingly being recognized that the projected surge in demand for services for seniors that will coincide with slower economic growth and lower government revenue will add pressure to the budgets of provincial and territorial governments.3 Today, while seniors account for about one-sixth of the population, they consume approximately half of public health spending.4 Based on current trends and approaches, seniors care is forecast to consume almost 62% of provincial/territorial health budgets by 2036.5 The latest National Health Expenditures report by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) projects that health spending in 2015 was to exceed $219 billion, or 10.9% of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP).6 To better understand the significance of health spending in the national context, consider that total federal program spending is 13.4% of GDP.7 Finally, health budgets are now averaging 38% of provincial and territorial global budgets.8 Alarmingly, the latest fiscal sustainability report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer explains that the demands of Canada's aging population will result in "steadily deteriorating finances" for the provinces and territories, who "cannot meet the challenges of population aging under current policy."9 Taken together, the indicators summarized above establish a clear imperative and national interest for greater federal engagement, leadership and support for the provision of health care in Canada. 2) Responses to Pre-Budget Consultation Questions Question 1: How can we better support our middle class? A) Federal Action to Help Reduce the Cost of Prescription Medication The CMA strongly encourages the federal government to support measures aimed at reducing the cost of prescription medication in Canada. A key initiative underway is the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance led by the provinces and territories. The CMA supports the federal government's recent announcement that it will partner with the provinces and territories as part of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. In light of the fact that the majority of working age Canadians have coverage for prescription medication through private insurers10, the CMA recommends that the federal government support inviting the private health insurance industry to participate in the work of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. Prescription medication has a critical role as part of a high-quality, patient-centred and cost-effective health care system. Canada stands out as the only country with universal health care without universal pharmaceutical coverage.11 It is an unfortunate reality that the affordability of prescription medication has emerged as a key barrier to access to care for many Canadians. According to the Angus Reid Institute, more than one in five Canadians (23%) report that they or someone in their household did not take medication as prescribed because of the cost during the past 12 months.12 Statistics Canada's Survey of Household Spending reveals that households headed by a senior spend $724 per year on prescription medications, the highest among all age groups and over 60% more than the average household.13 Another recent study found that 7% of Canadian seniors reported skipping medication or not filling a prescription because of the cost.14 The CMA has long called on the federal government to implement a system of catastrophic coverage for prescription medication to ensure Canadians do not experience undue financial harm and to reduce the cost barriers of treatment. As a positive step toward comprehensive, universal coverage for prescription medication, the CMA recommends that the federal government establish a new funding program for catastrophic coverage of prescription medication. The program would cover prescription medication costs above $1,500 or 3% of gross household income on an annual basis. Research commissioned by the CMA estimates this would cost $1.57 billion in 2016-17 (Table 1). Table 1: Projected cost of federal contribution to cover catastrophic prescription medication costs, by age cohort, 2016-2020 ($ million)15 Age Cohort 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Share of total cost Under 35 years 113.3 116.3 119.4 122.5 125.2 7% 35 to 44 years 177.2 183.5 190.5 197.8 204.3 11% 45 to 54 years 290.2 291.9 298.0 299.2 301.0 18% 55 to 64 years 383.7 400.6 417.6 433.1 444.6 25% 65 to 74 years 309.2 328.5 348.4 369.8 391.6 21% 75 years + 303.0 315.5 329.8 345.2 360.1 20% All ages 1,566.8 1,617.9 1,670.5 1,724.2 1,773.1 100% B) Deliver Immediate Federal Support to Canada's Unpaid Caregivers There are approximately 8.1 million Canadians serving as informal, unpaid caregivers with a critical role in Canada's health and social sector.16 The Conference Board of Canada reports that in 2007, informal caregivers contributed over 1.5 billion hours of home care - more than 10 times the number of paid hours in the same year.17 The economic contribution of informal caregivers was estimated to be about $25 billion in 2009.18 This same study estimated that informal caregivers incurred over $80 million in out-of-pocket expenses related to caregiving in 2009. Despite their tremendous value and important role, only a small fraction of caregivers caring for a parent receive any form of government support.19 Only 5% of caregivers providing care to parents reported receiving financial assistance, while 28% reported needing more assistance than they received.20 It is clear that Canadian caregivers require more support. As a first step, the CMA recommends that the federal government amend the Caregiver and Family Caregiver Tax Credits to make them refundable. This would provide an increased amount of financial support for family caregivers. It is estimated that this measure would cost $90.8 million in 2016-17.21 C) Implement a new Home Care Innovation Fund The CMA strongly supports the federal government's significant commitment to deliver more and better home care services, as released in the mandate letter for the Minister of Health. Accessible, integrated home care has an important role in Canada's health sector, including addressing alternate level of care (ALC) patients waiting in hospital for home care or long-term care. As highlighted by CIHI, the majority of the almost 1 million Canadians receiving home care are aged 65 or older.22 As population aging progresses, demand for home care can be expected to increase. Despite its importance, it is widely recognized that there are shortages across the home care sector.23 While there are innovations occurring in the sector, financing is a key barrier to scaling up and expanding services. To deliver the federal government's commitment to increasing the availability of home care, the CMA recommends the establishment of a new targeted home care innovation fund. As outlined in the Liberal Party of Canada's election platform, the CMA recommends that the fund deliver $3 billion over four years, including $400 million in the 2016-17 fiscal year. Question 2: What infrastructure needs can best help grow the economy...and meet your priorities locally? Deliver Federal Investment to the Long-term Care Sector as part of Social Infrastructure All jurisdictions across Canada are facing shortages in the continuing care sector. Despite the increased availability of home care, research commissioned for the CMA indicates that demand for continuing care facilities will surge as the demographic shift progresses.24 In 2012, it was reported that wait times for access to a long-term care facility in Canada ranged from 27 to over 230 days. More than 50% of ALC patients are in these hospital beds because of the lack of availability of long-term care beds25. Due to the significant difference in the cost of hospital care (approximately $846 per day) versus long-term care ($126 per day), the CMA estimates that the shortages in the long-term care sector represent an inefficiency cost to the health care system of $2.3 billion a year.26 Despite the recognized need for infrastructure investment in the continuing care sector, to date, this sector has been unduly excluded from federal investment in infrastructure, namely the Building Canada Plan. The CMA recommends that the federal government include capital investment in continuing care infrastructure, including retrofit and renovation, as part of its commitment to invest in social infrastructure. Based on previous estimates, the CMA recommends that $540 million be allocated for 2016-17 (Table 2), if implemented on a cost-share basis. Table 2: Estimated cost to address forecasted shortage in long-term care beds, 2016-20 ($ million)27 Forecasted shortage in long term care beds Estimated cost to address shortage Federal share to address shortage in long term care beds (based on 1/3 contribution) 2016 6,028 1,621.5 540.5 2017 6,604 1,776.5 592.2 2018 8,015 2,156.0 718.7 2019 8,656 2,328.5 776.2 2020 8,910 2,396.8 798.9 Total 38,213 10,279.3 3,426.4 In addition to improved delivery of health care resources, capital investment in the long-term care sector would provide an important contribution to economic growth. According to previous estimates by the Conference Board of Canada, the capital investment needed to meet the gaps from 2013 to 2047 would yield direct economic benefits on an annual basis that include $1.23 billion contribution to GDP and 14,141 high value jobs during the capital investment phase and $637 million contribution to GDP and 11,604 high value jobs during the facility operation phase (based on an average annual capital investment). Question 3: How can we create economic growth, protect the environment, and meet local priorities while ensuring that the most vulnerable don't get left behind? Deliver new Funding to Support the Provinces and Territories in Meeting Seniors Care Needs Canada's provincial and territorial leaders are struggling to meet health care needs in light of the demographic shift. This past July, the premiers issued a statement calling for the federal government to increase the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) to 25% of provincial and territorial health care costs to address the needs of an aging population. It is recognized that as an equal per-capita based transfer, the CHT does not currently account for population segments with increased health needs, specifically seniors. The CMA was pleased that this issue was recognized by the Prime Minister in his letter last spring to Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard. However, the CMA is concerned that an approach to modify the transfer formula would potentially delay the delivery of federal support to meet the needs of an aging population. As such, rather than the transfer formula, the CMA has developed an approach that delivers support to jurisdictions endeavoring to meet the needs of their aging populations while respecting the transfer arrangement already in place. The CMA commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to calculate the amount for the top-up to the CHT using a needs-based projection. The amount of the top-up for each jurisdiction is based on the projected increase in health care spending associated with an aging population. To support the innovation and transformation needed to address the health needs of the aging population, the CMA recommends that the federal government deliver additional funding on an annual basis beginning in 2016-17 to the provinces and territories by means of a demographic-based top-up to the Canada Health Transfer (Table 3). For the fiscal year 2016-17, this top-up would require $1.6 billion in federal investment. Table 3: Allocation of the federal demographic-based top-up, 2016-20 ($million)28 Jurisdiction 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 All of Canada 1,602.1 1,663.6 1,724.2 1,765.8 1,879.0 Ontario 652.2 677.9 692.1 708.6 731.6 Quebec 405.8 413.7 418.8 429.0 459.5 British Columbia 251.6 258.7 270.3 270.1 291.3 Alberta 118.5 123.3 138.9 141.5 157.5 Nova Scotia 53.6 58.6 62.3 64.4 66.6 New Brunswick 45.9 50.7 52.2 54.1 57.2 Newfoundland and Labrador 29.7 30.5 33.6 36.6. 46.1 Manitoba 28.6 30.6 33.5 32.5 36.6 Saskatchewan 3.5 4.9 7.3 12.7 15.4 Prince Edward Island 9.1 9.7 10.6 10.9 11.5 Yukon 1.4 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.5 Question 4: Are the Government's new priorities and initiatives realistic; will they help grow the economy? Ensure Tax Equity for Canada's Medical Professionals is Maintained Among the federal government's commitments is the objective to decrease the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. The CMA supports this commitment to support small businesses, such as medical practices, in recognition of the significant challenges facing this sector. However, it is not clear whether as part of this commitment the federal government intends to alter the Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) framework. The federal government's framing of this commitment, as released in the mandate letter for the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, has led to confusion and concern. Canada's physicians are highly skilled professionals, providing an important public service and making a significant contribution to our country's knowledge economy. Canadian physicians are directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, and invest millions of dollars in local communities, ensuring that Canadians are able to access the care they need, as close to their homes as possible. In light of the design of Canada's health care system, the majority of physicians are self-employed professionals and effectively small business owners. As self-employed small business owners, they typically do not have access to pensions or health benefits. In addition, as employers, they are responsible for these benefits for their employees. In addition to managing the many costs associated with running a medical practice, Canadian physicians must manage challenges not faced by many other small businesses. As highly-skilled professionals, physicians typically enter the workforce with significant debt levels and at a later stage in life. For some, entering practice after training requires significant investment in a clinic or a practice. Finally, it is important to recognize that physicians cannot pass on the increased costs introduced by governments, such as changes to the CCPC framework, onto patients, as other businesses would do with clients. For a significant proportion of Canada's physicians, the CCPC framework represents a measure of tax equity for individuals taking on significant personal financial burden and liability as part of our public health care system. As well, in many cases, practices would not make economic sense if the provisions of the CCPC regime were not in place. Given the importance of the CCPC framework to medical practice, changes to this framework have the potential to yield unintended consequences in health resources, including the possibility of reduced access to much needed care. The CMA recommends that the federal government maintain tax equity for medical professionals by affirming its commitment to the existing framework governing Canadian-Controlled Private Corporations. 3) Conclusion The CMA recognizes that the federal government must grapple with an uncertain economic forecast and is prioritizing measures that will support economic growth. The CMA strongly encourages the federal government to adopt the seven recommendations outlined in this submission as part of these efforts. In addition to making a meaningful contribution to meeting the future care needs of Canada's aging population, these recommendations will mitigate the impacts of economic pressures on individuals as well as jurisdictions. The CMA would welcome the opportunity to provide further information and its rationale for each recommendation. Summary of Recommendations 1. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish a new funding program for catastrophic coverage of prescription medication; this would be a positive step toward comprehensive, universal coverage for prescription medication. 2. The CMA recommends that the federal government support inviting the private health insurance industry to participate in the work of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. 3. The CMA recommends that the federal government amend the Caregiver and Family Caregiver Tax Credits to make them refundable. 4. To deliver the federal government's commitment to increasing the availability of home care, the CMA recommends the establishment of a new targeted home care innovation fund. 5. The CMA recommends that the federal government include capital investment in continuing care infrastructure, including retrofit and renovation, as part of its commitment to invest in social infrastructure. 6. The CMA recommends that the federal government deliver additional funding on an annual basis beginning in 2016-17 to the provinces and territories by means of a demographic-based top-up to the Canada Health Transfer. 7. The CMA recommends that the federal government maintain tax equity for medical professionals by affirming its commitment to the existing framework governing Canadian-Controlled Private Corporations. References 1 Statistics Canada. Population projections: Canada, the provinces and territories, 2013 to 2063. The Daily, Wednesday, September 17, 2014. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140917/dq140917a-eng.htm 2 Statistics Canada. Canada year book 2012, seniors. Available: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/seniors-aines/seniors-aines-eng.htm 3 Conference Board of Canada. A difficult road ahead: Canada's economic and fiscal prospects. Available: http://canadaspremiers.ca/phocadownload/publications/conf_bd_difficultroadahead_aug_2014.pdf. 4 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure trends, 1975 to 2014. Ottawa: The Institute; 2014. Available: www.cihi.ca/web/resource/en/nhex_2014_report_en.pdf 5 Calculation by the Canadian Medical Association, based on Statistics Canada's M1 population projection and the Canadian Institute for Health Information age-sex profile of provincial-territorial health spending. 6 CIHI. National Health Expenditure Trends,1975 to 2015. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/nhex_trends_narrative_report_2015_en.pdf. 7 Finance Canada. Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections 2015. http://www.budget.gc.ca/efp-peb/2015/pub/efp-peb-15-en.pdf. 8 CIHI. National Health Expenditure Trends,1975 to 2015. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/nhex_trends_narrative_report_2015_en.pdf. 9 Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Fiscal sustainability report 2015. Ottawa: The Office; 2015. Available: www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/FSR_2015_EN.pdf 10 IBM for the Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. Pan Canadian Drugs Negotiations Report. Available at: http://canadaspremiers.ca/phocadownload/pcpa/pan_canadian_drugs_negotiations_report_march22_2014.pdf . 11 Morgan SG, Martin D, Gagnon MA, Mintzes B, Daw JR, Lexchin J. Pharmacare 2020: The future of drug coverage in Canada. Vancouver: Pharmaceutical Policy Research Collaboration, University of British Columbia; 2015. Available: http://pharmacare2020.ca/assets/pdf/The_Future_of_Drug_Coverage_in_Canada.pdf 12 Angus Reid Institute. Prescription drug access and affordability an issue for nearly a quarter of Canadian households. Available: http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015.07.09-Pharma.pdf 13 Statistics Canada. Survey of household spending. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2013. 14 Canadian Institute for Health Information. How Canada compares: results From The Commonwealth Fund 2014 International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults. Available: www.cihi.ca/en/health-system-performance/performance-reporting/international/commonwealth-survey-2014 15 Conference Board of Canada. Research commissioned for the CMA, July 2015. 16 Statistics Canada. Family caregivers: What are the consequences? Available: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11858-eng.htm 17 Conference Board of Canada. Home and community care in Canada: an economic footprint. Ottawa: The Board; 2012. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/cashc/research/2012/homecommunitycare.aspx 18 Hollander MJ, Liu G, Chappeel NL. Who cares and how much? The imputed economic contribution to the Canadian health care system of middle aged and older unpaid caregivers providing care to the elderly. Healthc Q. 2009;12(2):42-59. 19 Government of Canada. Report from the Employer Panel for Caregivers: when work and caregiving collide, how employers can support their employees who are caregivers. Available: www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/seniors/reports/cec.shtml 20 Ibid. 21 Conference Board of Canada. Research commissioned for the CMA, July 2015. 22 CIHI. Seniors and alternate level of care: building on our knowledge. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/ALC_AIB_EN.pdf. 23 CMA. A policy framework to guide a national seniors strategy for Canada. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/about-us/gc2015/policy-framework-to-guide-seniors_en.pdf. 24 Conference Board of Canada. Research commissioned for the CMA, January 2013. 25 CIHI. Seniors and alternate level of care: building on our knowledge. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/ALC_AIB_EN.pdf 26 CMA. CMA Submission: The need for health infrastructure in Canada. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Health-Infrastructure_en.pdf. 27 Ibid. 28 Conference Board of Canada. Research commissioned for the CMA, July 2015.
Documents
Less detail

18 records – page 1 of 2.