Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


5 records – page 1 of 1.

Bill C-45: The Cannabis Act

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13861
Date
2018-04-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2018-04-18
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The CMA is pleased to provide this submission to the Senate Standing Committee, Social Affairs, Science &Technology on Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act. The CMA has long-standing concerns about the health risks associated with consuming cannabis,i particularly in its smoked form.1,2 Children and youth are especially at risk for cannabis-related harms, given their brains are undergoing rapid and extensive development. The CMA's approach to cannabis is grounded in broad public health policy. It includes promotion of health and prevention of drug dependence and addiction; access to assessment, counselling and treatment services; and a harm reduction perspective. The CMA believes that harm reduction encompasses policies, goals, strategies and programs directed at decreasing adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use for the individual, the community and the society while allowing the user to continue to use drugs, not precluding abstinence.3,4 Specifically, the CMA recommends a multi-faceted cannabis public health strategy that prioritizes impactful and realistic goals before, and certainly no later than, any legalization of cannabis.5 We propose that the first goal should be to develop educational interventions for children, teenagers and young adults. Other goals relate to data collection; monitoring and surveillance; ensuring a proportionate balance between enforcement harms and the direct and indirect harms caused by cannabis use; and research. There is an ongoing need for research into the medicinal and harmful effects of cannabis use. As noted by the Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines, 6 there is limited evidence on such subjects as synthetic cannabinoids; practices like "deep inhalation" to increase the psychoactive effects of cannabis; and the combination of risky behaviours, like early-onset and frequent use, associated with experiencing acute or chronic health problems.6 Since 2002, the CMA has taken a public health perspective regarding cannabis and other illegal drugs. More recently, the CMA endorsed the Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines, and we submitted 22 recommendations to the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation ("the Task Force").7 Overview According to the recent Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, cannabis is the most used illicit drug in Canada.8 In particular, 25%-30% of adolescents or youth report past-year cannabis use.9 This concerns the CMA. The increasing rate of high usage, despite the fact that non-medical use of cannabis is illegal, coupled with cannabis' increased potency (from 2% in 1980 to 20% in 2015 in the United States),10 the complexity and versatility of the cannabis plant,ii the variable quality of the end product, and variations in the frequency, age of initiation and method of use make it difficult to study the full health impacts and produce replicable, reliable scientific results. The CMA submits, therefore, that any legalization of cannabis for non-medical use must be guided by a comprehensive cannabis public health strategy and include a strong legal-regulatory framework emphasizing harm reduction principles. Given that the Task Force employed a minimizing of harms approach11 and given how the proposed legislation aligns with the Task Force's recommendations,12 the bill addresses several aspects of a legal-regulatory framework "to provide legal access to cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution and sale."13 This work provides the starting point for creating a national cannabis public health strategy. The CMA has long called for a comprehensive drug strategy that addresses addiction, prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction.3 There are, however, key public health initiatives that the Canadian government has not adequately addressed and should be implemented before, or no later than, the implementation of legislation. One such initiative is education. Education is required to develop awareness among Canadians of the health, social and economic harms of cannabis use especially in young people. Supporting a Legal-Regulatory Framework that Advances Public Health and Protection of Children and Youth From a health perspective, allowing any use of cannabis by people under 25 years of age, and certainly those under 21 years of age, is challenging for physicians given the effects on the developing brain.1,3,14 The neurotoxic effect of cannabis, especially with persistent use, on the adolescent brain is more severe than on the adult brain.15,16 Further, neurological studies have shown that adolescent-onset cannabis use produces greater deficits in executive functioning and verbal IQ and greater impairment of learning and memory than adult-onset use.17,18 This underscores the importance of protecting the brain during development. Since current scientific evidence indicates that brain development is not completed until about 25 years of age,19 this would be the ideal minimum age for legal cannabis use. Youth and young adults are among the highest users of cannabis in Canada. Despite non-medical use of cannabis being illegal in Canada since 1923, usage has increased over the past few decades. The CMA recognizes that a blanket prohibition of possession for teenagers and young adults would not reflect current reality or a harm reduction approach.3 Harm reduction is not one of polarities rather it is about ensuring the quality and integrity of human life and acknowledging where the individual is at within his/her community and society at large.5 The possibility that a young person might incur a lifelong criminal record for periodic use or possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use means that the long-term social and economic harms of cannabis use can be disproportionate to the drug's physiological harm. The Canadian government has recognized this disproportionality for over 15 years. Since 2001, there have been two parliamentary committee reportsiii and two billsiv introduced to decriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis (30 g). It was recommended that small amounts of cannabis possession be a "ticketable" offence rather than a criminal one. Given all of the above, the CMA recommends that the age of legalization should be 21 years of age and that the quantities and the potency of cannabis be more restricted to those under age 25. Supporting a Comprehensive Cannabis Public Health Strategy with a Strong, Effective Education Component The CMA recognizes that Bill C-45 repeals the prohibition against simple possession while increasing penalties against the distribution and sale of cannabis to young people, but this is not enough to support a harm reduction approach. We note that the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy, with its $38 million budget, is intended to help reduce smoking rates and change Canadians' perceptions toward tobacco.20 Similarly, there are extensive education programs concerning the dangers of alcohol, particularly for young people.v The government of Canada has proposed a modest commitment of $9.6 million to a public awareness campaign to inform Canadians, especially youth, of the risks of cannabis consumption, and to surveillance activities.21 A harm reduction strategy should include a hierarchy of goals with an immediate focus on groups with pressing needs. The CMA submits that young people should be targeted first with education. The lifetime risk of dependence to cannabis is estimated at 9%, increasing to almost 17% in those who initiate use in adolescence.22 In 2012, about 1.3% of people aged 15 years and over met the criteria for cannabis abuse or dependence - double the rate for any other drug - because of the high prevalence of cannabis use.23 The strategy should include the development of educational interventions, including skills-based training programs, social marketing interventions and mass media campaigns. Education should focus not only on cannabis' general risks but also on its special risks for the young and its harmful effects on them. This is critical given that for many, the perception is that (i) legalization of possession for both adults and young people translates into normalization of use and (ii) government control over the source of cannabis for sale translates into safety of use. Complicating this has been the fear-mongering messaging associated with illegal drugs. The evidence shows that fewer adolescents today believe that cannabis use has any serious health risks24 and that enforcement policies have not been a deterrent.25 Having an appropriate education strategy rolled out before legalization of possession would reduce the numbers of uninformed young recreational users. It would also provide time to engage in meaningful research on the impact of the drug on youth. Such strategies have been successful in the past; for example, the long-termvi Federal Tobacco Control Strategy has been credited with helping reduce smoking rates to an all-time low in Canada.26 The Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines were developed as a "science-based information tool for cannabis users to modify their use toward reducing at least some of the health risks."6 The CMA urges the government to support the widespread dissemination of this tool and incorporation of its messages into educational efforts. Other strategies must include plain packaging and labelling with health information and health warnings. Supporting a One-System Approach. Alternatively, a Review of Legislation in Five Years The CMA believes that once the act is in force, there will be little need for two systems (i.e., one for medical and one for non-medical cannabis use). Cannabis will be available for those who wish to use it for medicinal purposes, either with or without medical authorization (some people may self-medicate with cannabis to alleviate symptoms but may be reluctant to raise the issue with their family physician for fear of being stigmatized), and for those who wish to use it for other purposes. The medical profession does not need to continue to be involved as a gatekeeper once cannabis is legal for all, especially given that cannabis has not undergone Health Canada's usual pharmaceutical regulatory approval process. The Task Force's discussion reflects the tension it heard between those who advocated for one system and those who did not. One concern raised by patients was about the stigma attached to entering retail outlets selling non-medical cannabis. The CMA submits that this concern would be alleviated if the federal government continued the online purchase and mail order system that is currently in place. Given that there is a lack of consensus and insufficient data to calculate how much of the demand for cannabis will be associated with medical authorization, the Task Force recommended that two systems be established, with an obligation to review - specifically, a program evaluation of the medical access framework in five years.11 If there are two systems, then in the alternative, the CMA recommends a review of the legislation within five years. This would allow time to ensure that the provisions of the act are meeting their intended purposes, as determined by research on the efficacy of educational efforts and other research. Five-year legislative reviews have been previously employed, especially where legislation must balance individual choice with protecting public health and public safety.vii For example, like Bill C-45, the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is to protect public health and public safety.27 Its review within five years is viewed as allowing for a thorough, evidence-based analysis to ensure that the provisions and operations of the act are meeting their intended purpose(s).viii Furthermore, a harm reduction approach lends itself to systematic evaluation of the approach's short- and long-term impact on the reduction of harms.5 The CMA, therefore, submits that if a two-system approach is implemented when the legislation is enacted, the legislation should be amended to include the requirement for evaluation within five years of enactment. Criteria for evaluation may include the number of users in the medical system and the number of physicians authorizing medical cannabis use. The CMA would expect to be involved in the determination of such criteria and evaluation process. Conclusion Support has risen steadily in Canada and internationally for the removal of criminal sanctions for simple cannabis possession, as well as for the legalization and regulation of cannabis' production, distribution and sale. The CMA has long-standing concerns about the health risks associated with consuming cannabis, especially by children and youth in its smoked form. Weighing societal trends against the health effects of cannabis, the CMA supports a broad legal-regulatory framework as part of a comprehensive and properly sequenced public health approach of harm reduction. Recommendations 1. The CMA recommends that the legalization age be amended to 21 years of age, to better protect the most vulnerable population, youth, from the developmental neurological harms associated with cannabis use. 2. The CMA recommends that a comprehensive cannabis public health strategy with a strong, effective health education component be implemented before, and no later than, the enactment of any legislation legalizing cannabis. 3a. The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for medical and non-medical use of cannabis, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire cannabis in a legal manner (e.g., those below the minimum age). 3b. Alternatively, the CMA recommends that the legislation be amended to include a clause to review the legislation, including a review of having two regimes, within five years. i The term cannabis is used as in Bill C-45: that is, referring to the cannabis plant or any substance or mixture that contains any part of the plant. ii The plant contains at least 750 chemicals, of which there are over 100 different cannabinoids. Madras BK. Update of cannabis and its medical use. Agenda item 6.2. 37th Meeting of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization; 2015. Available: www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/6_2_cannabis_update.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). iii House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (2001) and the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (2002). iv An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Bill C-38), which later was reintroduced as Bill C-10 in 2003. v For example, the Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP), a federal contributions program, is delivered by Health Canada to strengthen responses to drug and substance use issues in Canada. See Government of Canada. Substance Use and Addictions Program. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2017. Available: www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy/funding/substance-abuse-addictions-program.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27). vi The Federal Tobacco Control Strategy was initiated in 2001 for 10 years and renewed in 2012 for another five years. vii Several federal acts contain review provisions. Some examples include the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC b1996, c 19, s 9 (five-year review); the Preclearance Act, SC 1999, c 20, s 39 (five-year review); the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5, s 273.601(1) (seven-year review); the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, SC 2005, c 46, s 54 (five-year review); and the Red Tape Reduction Act, SC 2015, c 12 (five-year review). viii The 2012 amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were adopted from Bill S-10, which died on order papers in March 2011. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reviewed Bill S-10 and recommended that the review period should be extended from two to five years as two years is not sufficient to allow for a comprehensive review. See Debates of the Senate, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, No 147:66 (2010 Nov 17) at 1550; see also Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Eleventh Report: Bill S-10, An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, with Amendments (2010 Nov 4). 1 Canadian Medical Association. Health risks and harms associated with the use of marijuana. CMA submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: The Association; 27 May 2014. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Brief-Marijuana-Health_Committee_May27-2014-FINAL.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 2 Canadian Medical Association. A public health perspective on cannabis and other illegal drugs. CMA submission to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa: The Association; 11 Mar 2002. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/BriefPDF/BR2002-08.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 3 Canadian Medical Association. Bill C-2 An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Respect for Communities Act). CMA submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Ottawa: The Association; 28 Oct 2014. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/CMA_Brief_C-2_Respect%C3%A9-for_Communities_Act-English.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 4 Harm Reduction International. What is harm reduction? A position statement from Harm Reduction International. London, UK: Harm Reduction International; 2017. Available: www.hri.global/what-is-harm-reduction (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 5 Riley D, O'Hare P. Harm reduction: history, definition and practice. In: Inciardi JA, Harrison LD, editors. Harm reduction: national and international perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000. 6 Fischer B, Russel C, Sabioni P, et al. Lower-risk cannabis use guidelines: a comprehensive update of evidence and recommendations. Am J Public Health 2017;107(8):e1-e12. 7 Canadian Medical Association. Legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. CMA submission to the Government of Canada - Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. Ottawa: The Association; 2016 Aug 29. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/2016-aug-29-cma-submission-legalization-and-regulation-of-marijuana-e.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 8 Government of Canada. Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CTADS): 2015 summary. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2017. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-tobacco-alcohol-drugs-survey/2015-summary.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 9 Health Canada. Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS): summary of results for 2012. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2014. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/drug-prevention-treatment/drug-alcohol-use-statistics/canadian-alcohol-drug-use-monitoring-survey-summary-results-2012.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 10 World Health Organization. The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/251056/1/9789241510240-eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 11 Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. A framework for the legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada: final report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2016. 12 Government of Canada. Legislative background: an Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (Bill C-45). Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2017. 13 An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, Bill C-45, First Reading 2017 Apr 13. 14 Crean RD, Crane NA, Mason BJ. An evidence based review of acute and long-term effects of cannabis use on executive cognitive functions. J Addict Med 2011;5(1):1-8. 15 Meier MH, Caspi A, Ambler A, et al. Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109(40):E2657-64 16 Crépault JF, Rehm J, Fischer B. The cannabis policy framework by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: a proposal for a public health approach to cannabis policy in Canada. Int J Drug Policy 2016;34:1-4. 17 Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, et al. Early-onset cannabis use and cognitive deficits: What is the nature of the association? Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;69(3):303-310. 18 Gruber SA, Sagar KA, Dahlgren MK, et al. Age of onset of marijuana use and executive function. Psychol Addict Behav 2011;26(3):496-506. 19 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2017. 20 Canadian Cancer Society. 2017 federal pre-budget submission. Canadian Cancer Society submission to the Standing Committee on Finance. 2014 Aug. Available: www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/FINA/Brief/BR8398102/br-external/CanadianCancerSociety-e.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 21 Health Canada. Backgrounder: legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis: the facts. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2017. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/04/backgrounder_legalizingandstrictlyregulatingcannabisthefacts.html (accessed 2017 Jul 27) 22 Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet 2009;374(9698):1383-91. 23 Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health, 2012. The Daily. 2013 Sep 18. Statistics Canada cat. No. 11-001-X. Available: www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130918/dq130918a-eng.htm (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 24 Miech RA, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg, JE. Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2010. Vol 1: Secondary students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2011. 25 Spithoff S, Kahan M. Cannabis and Canadian youth: evidence, not ideology. Can Fam Physician 2014;60(9):785-7. 26 Health Canada. Strong foundation, renewed focus: an overview of Canada's Federal Tobacco Control Strategy 2012-2017. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2012. Available: www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/health-canada/migration/healthy-canadians/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/tobacco-strategy-2012-2017-strategie-tabagisme/alt/tobacco-strategy-2012-2017-strategie-tabagisme-eng.pdf (accessed 2017 Jul 27). 27 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, s 9.
Documents
Less detail

CMA’s Recommendations for Bill S-5 An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13918
Date
2018-02-15
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2018-02-15
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health care and patient safety
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health for its study of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-Smokers Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We support the government’s effort to implement a new legislative and regulatory framework to address vaping products and related matters. Vaping products, such as electronic cigarettes (or e-cigarettes) replicate the act and taste of smoking but do not contain tobacco. We also recognize that the federal government is attempting to find a balance between regulating vaping devices and making them available to adults. Canada’s physicians, who see the devastating effects of tobacco use every day in their practices, have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. The CMA has always supported strong, comprehensive tobacco control legislation, enacted and enforced by all levels of government, and we continue to do so. Our most recent efforts centred on our participation in the 2016 Endgame Summit, held late last year in Kingston, Ontario. This brief will focus on three areas: supporting population health; the importance of protecting youth; and, the promotion of vaping products. Overview Tobacco is an addictive and hazardous product, and a leading cause of preventable disease and death in Canada. Smoking has been on the decline in Canada the most recent Canadian Community Health Survey reports that 17.7% of the population aged 12 and older were current daily or occasional smokers in 2015 (5.3 million smokers); that is down from 18.1% in 2014.1 Many strong laws and regulations have already been enacted but some areas remain to be addressed and strengthened especially as the 1 Statistics Canada. Smoking, 2015. Health Fact Sheets. Statistics Canada Cat. 82-625-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2016. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2017001/article/14770-eng.htm (accessed 2018 Feb 1). 2 Czoli CD, Hammond D, White CM. Electronic cigarettes in Canada: Prevalence of use and perceptions among youth and young adults. Can J Public Health. 2014;105(2):e97-e102. 3 Filippos FT, Laverty AA, Gerovasili V, et al. Two-year trends and predictors of e-cigarette use in 27 European Union member states. Tob Control. 2017;26:98-104. 4 Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: A systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(10):1926–36. 5 O’Leary R, MacDonald M, Stockwell T, Reist D. Clearing the air: A systematic review on the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and vapour devices. Victoria, BC: Centre for Addictions Research of BC; 2017. Available: http://ectaofcanada.com/clearing-the-air-a-systematic-review-on-the-harms-and-benefits-of-e-cigarettes-and-vapour-devices/ (accessed 2018 Feb 1). 6 El Dib R, Suzumura EA, Akl EA, Gomaa H, Agarwal A, Chang Y, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017 23;7:e012680. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337697/pdf/bmjopen-2016-012680.pdf (accessed 2018 Feb 1). 7 Shahab L, Goniewicz M, Blount B, et al. Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term e- cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: A cross sectional study. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2017;166(6):390-400. 8 Collier R. E-cigs have lower levels of harmful toxins. CMAJ. 2017 Feb 27;189:E331. 9 Sleiman M, Logue J, Montesinos VN, et al. Emissions from electronic cigarettes: Key parameters affecting the release of harmful chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology. 2016 Jul 27;50(17):9644-9651. 10 England LJ, Bunnell RE, Pechacek TF, Tong VT, McAfee TA. Nicotine and the developing human: A neglected element in the electronic cigarette debate. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Aug;49(2):286-93. 11 Foulds J. Use of Electronic Cigarettes by Adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Dec;57(6):569-70. 12 Khoury M, Manlhiot C, Fan CP, Gibson D, Stearne K, Chahal N, et al. Reported electronic cigarette use among adolescents in the Niagara region of Ontario. CMAJ. 2016 Aug 9;188(11):794-800. 13 U.S. National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization. The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA- 8029A. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; and Geneva, CH: World Health Organization; 2016. 14 Miech R, Patrick ME, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD. E-cigarette use as a predictor of cigarette smoking: results from a 1-year follow-up of a national sample of 12th grade students. Tob Control. 2017 Dec;26(e2):e106–11. 15 Primack BA, Soneji S, Stoolmiller M, Fine MJ, Sargent JD. Progression to traditional cigarette smoking after electronic cigarette use among US adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Nov;169(11):1018–23. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800740/pdf/nihms768746.pdf (accessed 2018 Feb 1). 16 Hoe J, Thrul J, Ling P. Qualitative analysis of young adult ENDS users’ expectations and experiences. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e014990. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353280/pdf/bmjopen-2016-014990.pdf (accessed 2018 Feb 1). 17 Fairchild AL, Bayer R, Colgrove J. The renormalization of smoking? E-cigarettes and the tobacco “endgame.” N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 23;370:4 Available: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1313940 (accessed 2018 Feb 1). 18 Choi K, Grana R, Bernat D. Electronic nicotine delivery systems and acceptability of adult cigarette smoking among Florida youth: Renormalization of smoking? J Adolesc Health. 2017 May;60(5):592–8. tobacco industry continues to evolve. Electronic cigarettes and vaping represents the next step in that evolution. While Canada is to be congratulated on its success to date, it needs to maintain an environment that encourages Canadians to remain tobacco-free if smoking prevalence is to be reduced further in Canada. The CMA believes it is incumbent on all levels of government in Canada to keep working on comprehensive, coordinated and effective tobacco control strategies, including vaping products, to achieve that goal. Supporting Population Health The arrival of vaping products in Canada placed them in a “grey zone” with respect to legislation and regulation. Clarification of their status is crucial from a public health perspective because of their growing popularity, particularly among youth.2 E-cigarettes have both defenders and opponents. Proponents say they are safer than tobacco cigarettes since they do not contain the tar and other toxic ingredients that are the cause of tobacco related disease. Indeed, some believe they serve a useful purpose as a harm reduction tool or cessation aid (though it is forbidden to market them as such since that claim has never been approved by Health Canada). Opponents are concerned that the nicotine delivered via e-cigarettes is addictive and that the cigarettes may contain other toxic ingredients such as nitrosamines. Also, they worry that acceptance of e-cigarettes will undermine efforts to de-normalize smoking, and that they may be a gateway to the use of tobacco by people who might otherwise have remained smoke-free. This issue will be addressed later in this brief. This difference of opinion certainly highlights the need for more research into the harms and benefits of vaping products and the factors that cause people to use them.3 Encouraging smokers to move from combustible tobacco products to a less harmful form of nicotine may be a positive step. However the current available evidence is not yet sufficient to establish them as a reliable cessation method. A systematic review published by M. Malas et al. (2016) concluded that while “a majority of studies demonstrate a positive relationship between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, the evidence remains inconclusive due to the low quality of the research published to date.”4 Indeed, some are helped by these devices to quit smoking but “more carefully designed and scientifically sound studies are urgently needed to establish unequivocally the long-term cessation effects of e-cigarettes and to better understand how and when e-cigarettes may be helpful.”4 The authors found that the evidence examining e-cigarettes as an aid to quitting smoking was determined to be “very low to low.”4 A similar result was found for their use in reducing smoking; the quality of the evidence was revealed as being “very low to moderate.”4 This conclusion is supported by another review conducted by the University of Victoria (2017). It too indicates that there are not enough studies available to fully determine the efficacy of vaping devices as a tobacco cessation device.5 This review also noted that there is “encouraging evidence that vapour devices can be at least as effective as other nicotine replacements.”5 Another review by R. El Dib et al. (2017) reinforces these findings. Limited evidence was also found with respect to the impact of electronic devices to aide cessation. They also noted that the data available from randomized control trials are of “low certainty” and the “observational studies are of very low certainty.”6 The wide range of devices available makes it very difficult to test which are the most effective in helping cessation efforts. Many of the studies are on older devices so it is possible that as second-generation technology becomes available they will prove to be more successful. In view of this uncertainty, the CMA calls for more scientific research into the potential effectiveness and value of these devices as cessation aids. Physicians need to be confident that if they recommend such therapy to their patients it will have the desired outcome. To that end, we are pleased that Health Canada will continue to require manufacturers to apply for authorization under the Food and Drugs Act to sell products containing nicotine and make therapeutic claims. Risk and Safety In addition to the discussion concerning the usefulness of vaping devices as cessation devices, concerns from a public health standpoint involve the aerosol or vapour produced by heating the liquids used in these devices, and the nicotine some may contain. The tube of an e-cigarette contains heat-producing batteries and a chamber holding liquid. When heated, the liquid is turned into vapour which is drawn into the lungs. Ingredients vary by brand but many contain nicotine and/or flavourings that are intended to boost their appeal to young people. The CMA is concerned that not enough is known about the safety of the ingredients in the liquids being used in vaping devices. While it is the case that because e-cigarettes heat rather than burn the key constituent, they produce less harmful toxins and are much safer than conventional cigarettes. Research in the UK suggested that “long-term Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT)-only and e-cigarette-only use, but not dual-use of NRTs or e-cigarettes with combustible cigarettes, is associated with substantially reduced levels of measured carcinogens and toxins relative to smoking only combustible cigarettes.”7 However, this study has been criticized because “it only looked at a few toxins and didn’t test for any toxins that could be produced by e- cigarettes.”8 The variety of flavourings and delivery systems available make it imperative that the risks associated with these products be fully understood. As one study noted “analysis of e-liquids and vapours emitted by e-cigarettes led to the identification of several compounds of concern due to their potentially harmful effects on users and passively exposed non-users.”9 The study found that the emissions were associated with both cancer and non-cancer health impacts and required further study.9 There is another aspect of the public health question surrounding vaping devices. There is data to support the idea that “nicotine exposure during periods of developmental vulnerability (e.g., fetal through adolescent stages) has multiple adverse health consequences, including impaired fetal brain and lung development.”10 Therefore it is imperative that pregnant women and youth be protected. There is not enough known about the effects of long-term exposure to the nicotine inhaled through vaping devices at this time.11 Recommendations: 1) Given the scarcity of research on e-cigarettes the Canadian Medical Association calls for ongoing research into the potential harms of electronic cigarette use, including the use of flavourings and nicotine. 2) The CMA calls for more scientific research into the potential effectiveness and value of these devices as cessation aids. 3) The Canadian Medical Association supports efforts to expand smoke-free policies to include a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes in areas where smoking is prohibited. Protecting Youth The CMA is encouraged by the government’s desire to protect youth from developing nicotine addiction and inducements to use tobacco products. Young people are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure, and to tobacco industry marketing tactics. The CMA supports continued health promotion and social marketing programs aimed at addressing the reasons why young people use tobacco and have been drawn to vaping devices, discouraging them from starting to use them and persuading them to quit, and raising their awareness of tobacco industry marketing tactics so that they can recognize and counteract them. These programs should be available continuously in schools and should begin in the earliest grades. The “cool/fun/new” factor that seems to have developed around vaping devices among youth make such programs all the more imperative.12 The CMA recommends a ban on the sale of all electronic cigarettes to Canadians younger than the minimum age for tobacco consumption in their province or territory. We are pleased to see that Bill S-5 aims to restrict access to youth, including prohibiting the sale of both tobacco and vaping products in vending machines as well as prohibiting sales of quantities that do not comply with the regulations. In fact, the CMA recommends tightening the licensing system to limit the number of outlets where tobacco products, including vaping devices, can be purchased. The more restricted is availability, the easier it is to regulate. The CMA considers prohibiting the promotion of flavours in vaping products that may appeal to youth, such as soft drinks and cannabis, to be a positive step. A recent report published by the World Health Organization and the US National Cancer Institute indicated that websites dedicated to retailing e-cigarettes “contain themes that may appeal to young people, including images or claims of modernity, enhanced social status or social activity, romance, and the use of e-cigarettes by celebrities.”13 We are therefore pleased that sales of vaping products via the internet will be restricted through prohibiting the sending and delivering of such products to someone under the age of 18. This will be critical to limiting the tobacco industry’s reach with respect to youth. There have also been arguments around whether vaping products will serve as gateways to the use of combusted tobacco products. The University of Victoria (2017) paper suggests this isn’t the case; it notes that “there is no evidence of any gateway effect whereby youth who experiment with vapour devices are, as a result, more likely to take up tobacco use.”5) They base this on the decline in youth smoking while rates of the use of vaping devices rise.Error! Bookmark not defined. Others contend that vaping is indeed a gateway, saying it acts as a “one-way bridge to cigarette smoking among youth. Vaping as a risk factor for future smoking is a strong, scientifically-based rationale for restricting access to e-cigarettes.”14 Further, in a “national sample of US adolescents and young adults, use of e-cigarettes at baseline was associated with progression to traditional cigarette smoking. These findings support regulations to limit sales and decrease the appeal of e- cigarettes to adolescents and young adults.”15 However, there may be a role for vaping products in relation to young users. A New Zealand study conducted among young adults that examined how electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) were used to recreate or replace smoking habits. It found that study participants “used ENDS to construct rituals that recreated or replaced smoking attributes, and that varied in the emphasis given to device appearance.”16 Further, it was suggested that ascertaining how “ENDS users create new rituals and the components they privilege within these could help promote full transition from smoking to ENDS and identify those at greatest risk of dual use or relapse to cigarette smoking.”16 The CMA believes that further research is needed on the question of the use of vaping products as a gateway for youth into combustible tobacco products. Recommendations: 4) The Canadian Medical Association recommends a ban on the sale of all electronic cigarettes to Canadians younger than the minimum age for tobacco consumption in their province or territory. 5) The Canadian Medical Association calls for ongoing research into the potential harms and benefits of electronic cigarette use among youth. 6) The Canadian Medical Association recommends tightening the licensing system to limit the number of outlets where tobacco products, including vaping devices, can be purchased. Promotion of Vaping Products The CMA has been a leader in advocating for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products for many years. We established our position in 1986 when we passed a resolution at our General Council in Vancouver recommending to the federal government “that all tobacco products be sold in plain packages of standard size with the words “this product is injurious to your health” printed in the same size lettering as the brand name, and that no extraneous information be printed on the package.” The CMA would like to see the proposed plain packing provisions for tobacco be extended to vaping products as well. The inclusion of the health warning messages on vaping products is a good first step but efforts should be made to ensure that they are of similar size and type as those on tobacco as soon as possible. The restrictions being applied to the promotion of vaping products is a positive step, especially those that could be aimed at youth, but they do not go far enough. The CMA believes the restrictions on promotion should be the same as those for tobacco products. As the WHO/U.S. National Cancer Institute has already demonstrated, e- cigarette retailers are very good at using social media to promote their products, relying on appeals to lifestyle changes to encourage the use of their products. The CMA is also concerned that e-cigarette advertising could appear in locations and on mediums popular with children and youth if they are not prohibited explicitly in the regulations. This would include television and radio advertisements during times and programs popular with children and youth, billboards near schools, hockey arenas, and on promotional products such as t-shirts and ball caps. As efforts continue to reduce the use of combustible tobacco products there is growing concern that the rising popularity of vaping products will lead to a “renormalization” of smoking. In fact, worry has been expressed that the manner they have been promoted “threaten(s) to reverse the successful, decades-long public health campaign to de- normalize smoking.”17 A recent US study indicated that students that use vaping products themselves, exposure to advertising of these devices, and living with other users of vaping products is “associated with acceptability of cigarette smoking, particularly among never smokers.”18 Further research is needed to explore these findings. Recommendations: 7) The Canadian Medical Association recommends similar plain packaging provisions proposed for tobacco be extended to vaping products. 8) Health warning messages on vaping products should be of similar size and type as those on tobacco as soon as possible 9) The Canadian Medical Association believes the restrictions on promotion of vaping products and devices should be the same as those for tobacco products. Conclusion Tobacco is an addictive and hazardous product, and a leading cause of preventable disease and death in Canada. Our members see the devastating effects of tobacco use every day in their practices and to that end the CMA has been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The tobacco industry continues to evolve and vaping represents the next step in that evolution. The CMA believes it is incumbent on all levels of government in Canada to keep working on comprehensive, coordinated and effective tobacco control strategies, including vaping products, to achieve that goal. Bill S-5 is another step in that journey. Researchers have identified potential benefits as well as harms associated with these products that require much more scrutiny. The association of the tobacco industry with these products means that strong regulations, enforcement, and oversight are needed. Recommendations: 1) Given the scarcity of research on e-cigarettes the Canadian Medical Association calls for ongoing research into the potential harms of electronic cigarette use, including the use of flavourings and nicotine. 2) The CMA calls for more scientific research into the potential effectiveness and value of these devices as cessation aids.. 3) The Canadian Medical Association supports efforts to expand smoke-free policies to include a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes in areas where smoking is prohibited. 4) The Canadian Medical Association recommends a ban on the sale of all electronic cigarettes to Canadians younger than the minimum age for tobacco consumption in their province or territory. 5) The Canadian Medical Association calls for ongoing research into the potential harms and benefits of electronic cigarette use among youth. 6) The Canadian Medical Association recommends tightening the licensing system to limit the number of outlets where tobacco products, including vaping devices, can be purchased. 7) The Canadian Medical Association recommends similar plain packaging provisions proposed for tobacco be extended to vaping products. 8) Health warning messages on vaping products should be of similar size and type as those on tobacco as soon as possible 9) The Canadian Medical Association believes the restrictions on promotion of vaping products and devices should be the same as those for tobacco products.
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

The Right Drugs, at the Right Times, for the Right Prices: Toward a Prescription Drug Policy for Canada : CMA Presentation to House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1955
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2003-11-06
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2003-11-06
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Every year, three hundred million prescriptions – about 10 for every man, woman and child – are filled in Canada. Prescription drugs have benefited both the health of Canadians, and the health care system itself; they have meant dramatically improved quality of life for many Canadians, and have saved the country a great deal in hospitalization, social benefits and other expenses. However, it could be questioned whether all of Canada’s prescription drug use is appropriate; patients may be receiving too few medications, too many medications or suboptimal medications for their conditions. In addition, prescription drugs carry a price tag of their own. Since 1975, expenditures on prescription medication have risen faster than any other category in the health sector in Canada, and more is now spent on prescription drugs than on physician services. Governments, health care providers, drug manufacturers and the public must constantly strive to ensure that Canadians receive optimal and appropriate prescription drug therapy: the right drugs, at the right times, for the right prices. A considered, coherent, comprehensive, “made in Canada” approach to prescription drug policy should: * Put the health of the patient first; * Promote and enhance quality prescribing; * Respect, sustain and enhance the therapeutic relationship between patients and health professionals; * Promote patient compliance with drug therapy; * Respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. Prescription drug policy in Canada should address: Access: to * efficacious new drugs within an appropriate time; * coverage for medically necessary drugs for catastrophic care; * generic drugs at reasonable prices; * a patient/physician consultation as part of the prescribing process; * continued research and development capacity in Canada. Information for health care providers and the public that is balanced and accurate. Safety: through mechanisms for the systematic monitoring of prescription drugs and their effects. Canada’s doctors are committed to working with others to ensure that Canadians receive the right drugs, at the right times, for the right prices. Summary of CMA Recommendations: 1. That the federal government implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce review times to a level at or better than that in other OECD countries. 2. That the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on drugs and delivery mechanisms that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 3. That Health Canada apply a priority review process to all drugs that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 4. That governments and insurance providers conduct research to identify the current gaps in prescription drug coverage for all Canadians, and develop policy options for providing this coverage, including consideration of the roles of public and private payers. 5. That the federal government monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of prescription medications to ensure their continued availability to Canadians. 6. That prescribing of medication be done within the context of the therapeutic relationship which exists between the patient and the physician. 7. That brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA) not be permitted in Canada. 8. That the federal government enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act to the full extent of the law. 9. That the federal government develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. 10. That all stakeholders join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in prescribing. 11. That government accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a systems approach to support a culture of safety. 12. That a post-marketing surveillance system be implemented to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. PURPOSE The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has prepared this submission for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health’s review of prescription drugs in Canada. We applaud this review and welcome the opportunity to present the views of Canada’s medical community. Our vision is simple: that all Canadians should receive, if appropriate, the right drugs for their conditions, at the right times, for the right prices. Governments, health care providers, drug manufacturers and the public should all work together to develop a “made in Canada” prescription drug policy to realize this vision. This policy must be considered, coherent and comprehensive, and should: * Put the health of the patient first; * Promote and enhance quality prescribing; * Respect, sustain and enhance the therapeutic relationship between patients and health professionals; * Promote patient compliance with drug therapy; * Respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. In developing this policy we consider it particularly important to address the issues of: Access to quality health care In this context, the CMA’s vision of a National Access Strategy includes appropriate access to * efficacious new drugs within an appropriate time, * coverage for medically necessary drugs for catastrophic care, * generic drugs at reasonable prices, * a patient/physician consultation as part of the prescribing process, * continued research and development capacity in Canada. * Information for health care providers and the public that is balanced and accurate. * Safety: through mechanisms for the systematic monitoring of prescription drugs and their effects. Canada’s doctors look forward to working with others to realize our vision. In this submission we will discuss the steps that the CMA recommends be taken. INTRODUCTION The value of prescription medications Prescription drugs play an important role in preventing and treating health conditions. Every year, three hundred million prescriptions – about 10 for every man, woman and child – are filled in Canada1. In recent years, powerful new medications have meant dramatically improved quality of life, or substantial change in modes and patterns of treatment, for many Canadians. Anti-retroviral treatment has saved thousands of people with HIV infection from rapid, fatal progression to AIDS. Thanks to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) millions of people with chronic depression who might otherwise have been incapacitated or institutionalized can lead normal, productive lives in the community. Drugs to treat peptic ulcer disease have changed its treatment profile from one based mainly on surgery to a largely medical one. Though the cumulative savings on hospital care, lost workforce productivity, social benefits and disability insurance payments due to prescription drug use have not been quantified, they have undoubtedly been significant. Areas of Concern In short, prescription drugs have benefited both the health of Canadians, and the health care system itself. However, they have also created concerns that must be addressed. Utilization: is it Appropriate? Experts have questioned whether all of Canada’s prescription drug use is appropriate: are patients receiving too many medications, too few medications, or suboptimal medications for their conditions? Over-utilization of prescription drugs has been a topic of some attention, but under-utilization also exists. For example, as many as 60% of people with high blood pressure may not be receiving treatment; many of these people do not even know they have the condition.2 In addition, patient compliance with prescription drug therapy is increasingly recognized as a problem, especially for long-term or chronic conditions. Compliance is a potential issue in all treatments but is of special concern in conditions where few clinical symptoms are present: for example in hypertension, where lack of treatment over the long term may result in kidney damage, vascular and opthalmological damage, stroke or heart disease. One study found that only 50% of patients comply with long-term drug therapy, and an even smaller percentage comply with lifestyle alterations.3 Partial compliance with antibiotic therapy for infectious diseases is well recognized as one cause of anti-microbial resistance to common infectious pathogens. Cost: is it too high? More is now spent on prescription medicine than on physician services. Since 1975, expenditures on prescription medication have risen faster than any other category;4 during the 1990’s they rose more than twice as quickly as overall spending on health care.5 In 2002 retail spending on drugs in Canada (prescribed and non-prescribed) was estimated to be at least 16% of total health care spending. Prescription medication accounts for 80% of this category, up from 70.3% in 1990. What drives drug expenditure in Canada? There is considerable debate on this subject, but some of the drivers are believed to be: * Increased utilization: as the population ages there is an increased prevalence of conditions such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis, which often require pharmacological treatment. * Newer (patented) drugs, which are more expensive than generics, dominate the prescription market. Between 1995 and 2000, five drug categories (including cholesterol lowering agents, high blood pressure drugs, acid-reducing agents and anti-depressants) contributed significantly to the overall rise in drug costs.5 These categories are dominated by newer, patented drugs, many of which are heavily promoted. * Prices of generic drugs, though lower than those of patented drugs, are higher in Canada than in some other countries. For example, generic drug prices are 26% lower in Germany and 68% lower in New Zealand.6 * Marketing practices such as mass media direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) in the United States, and its attendant “spillover” into the Canadian marketplace, may contribute to increased utilization. In Canada the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) maintains price controls on brand-name drugs. Similar price-control mechanisms exist in European Union countries. However, no such controls exist for generic medications in Canada. All in all, prescription medications can be costly for Canadians, especially for those who lack any kind of insurance coverage. The Role of Physicians and the Canadian Medical Association Canada’s doctors are committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to the right drugs, at the right times, at the right prices, to help them achieve the right results – in other words, the best possible health outcomes. The goal of drug therapy is to improve patients’ health and quality of life by preventing, eliminating or controlling diseases or symptoms. Patients, physicians and pharmacists must work in collaboration to achieve this goal. The physician’s role in drug therapy goes well beyond the act of writing out a prescription; it encompasses: * Diagnosing diseases, assessing the need for drug therapy and designing the medication regime; * Working with patients to set treatment goals and monitor progress toward them; * Monitoring the patient’s response to drug therapy, revising the care plan when necessary to support compliance and achieve the best possible health outcomes; * Sharing with the patient specific information about the diseases and the drug therapy, including its effects and potential side effects (including, in some cases, the potential for prescription drug addiction).7 The CMA’s activity has been focused on promoting excellence in prescribing, and on disseminating drug information to physicians.8 In 1999, the CMA worked with Health Canada and the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) to convene an expert roundtable on the subject of “Best Practices in Prescribing”. This was but one effort of the profession to explore why some therapies appear to be under-prescribed, while others may be over-prescribed. CMA has developed principles on the issues of physician information and of providing information on prescription drugs to consumers; both these documents will be discussed later in this submission. CMA and CPhA have also developed a joint policy statement on approaches to enhancing the quality of drug therapy (attached as Appendix I). In addition CMA is co-funding, with the Canadian Institute of Health Research, an interdisciplinary research team focussed on Drug Policy Futures. The team’s identified areas of study include: financing and public expectations; improving quality; health care evaluation and technology assessment; and public advice-seeking in the era of e-health. The CMA publishes Drugs of Choice, a definitive Canadian guide to first- and second-line drug therapies for hundreds of clinical conditions. It is now in its third edition. In addition CMA maintains an extensive database of clinical practice guidelines, including prescribing guidelines, available to physicians and the public through the CMA Web site, and has developed an on line course for physicians on Safe Medication Practices. The cma.ca web site also provides access to a Canadian online drug database that can be downloaded and used with state-of-the-art PDA (personal device) technology at the point of clinical care. CMA’S PRIORITIES FOR ACTION A) Access to quality health care CMA’s history of advocating for access to needed health care services goes back many years. In 2004, a National Access Strategy will be one of the association’s highest-priority activities. With respect to prescription drugs there are several access-related problems: slow approval of new drugs, uneven insurance coverage, and the possible consequences of cross-border shopping on the availability of drugs in Canada. i) Drug Approvals: The Right Drug at the Right Time CMA recommends: 1. That the federal government implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce review times to a level at or better than that in other OECD countries. 2. That the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on drugs and delivery mechanisms that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 3. That Health Canada apply a priority review process to drugs that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. Stakeholders have repeatedly drawn attention to the slowness of Canada’s drug review process. Between 1996 and 1998 Canadian approval times (median 518 days) were significantly longer than Sweden (median 371 days), the UK (median 308 days) and the United States (median 369 days). These have not improved significantly even after Health Canada implemented a cost-recovery approach to funding the drug review process. Delays in the drug review process mean delays in access to new, potentially life-saving medications. For example, 15 other countries approved Singulair, a major breakthrough in asthma therapy, before it was approved in Canada, even though the drug was developed in Montreal! Approximately 10% of children between 5 and 14 years of age have asthma and could have benefited from this relatively safe drug. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a medication for treatment of acute stroke, was approved for use in the United States in 1996 but was not approved in Canada until 1999. Canada’s long drug review times are mainly attributed to lack of resources at Health Canada. CMA recommends that Canada implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce these times to an appropriate level. The 2003 federal budget announcement of $190 million over five years to improve the timeliness of the regulatory process was encouraging. We hope that this will soon translate into a significant reduction in drug review times. Many drugs submitted for approval are not genuinely innovative; some are virtual copies of drugs already on the market. Others, however, could offer substantial improvement over what is currently available. They could be more clinically effective; or they could have fewer side effects; or their mechanism of delivery could increase compliance (for example, medication that can be taken only once a day instead of three or four times a day). CMA recommends that the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on products and delivery mechanisms that offer substantial additional benefit to Canadian patients. It seems logical that drugs that offer benefits not yet available to Canadians should reach patients who need them more quickly. Recently, Health Canada implemented a priority review process for drugs to treat serious, life threatening or debilitating conditions, for which there is substantial evidence that the drug is a significant improvement over existing therapies. This is a promising step. CMA recommends that Health Canada apply a priority review process to all drugs deemed to offer substantial improvement over what is already on the market. This will also serve as an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to emphasize drugs that offer substantial benefit in their research and development plans. ii) Coverage: Making the System Work CMA recommends: 4. That governments and insurance providers conduct research to identify the current gaps in prescription drug coverage for Canadians, and develop policy options for providing this coverage, including consideration of the roles of public and private payers. Coverage for all Canadians. Prescription drugs are Canada’s most notable example of a public/ private partnership in health services delivery. Our country’s blend of public and private drug insurance coverage has worked reasonably well; but there is room for improvement. The Canada Health Act’s mandate covers “drugs, biologicals and related preparations when administered in the hospital”. Provincial and territorial drug programs vary with most covering only seniors and people on social assistance.9 Many Canadians get their drug coverage through private plans offered by their employers. But many people in Canada lack any kind of drug coverage. We do not know exactly how many. According to a report prepared for the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, 2% to 4% of Canadians have no coverage, but other reports place the number closer to 10%.10,11 At a minimum, 1 million to 3 million Canadians are in need of basic prescription drug coverage. Drug therapy may be more cost-efficient than some forms of hospital care. Is the current health care system promoting inefficiency by covering hospital services more completely than prescription drug therapy? In 1997 the National Forum on Health recommended that drugs become part of the publicly funded system. However, such a system would be prohibitively expensive; estimates range from $12.4 billion for a combined public and private model (with co-payments) to $13.8 billion for fully funded, public only model (no co-payments).12 The report of the Romanow Commission acknowledged this when it emphasized the need to “move in a gradual but deliberate and dedicated way to integrate prescription drugs more fully into the continuum of care”. For the short term, the report recommended a Catastrophic Drug Transfer to ensure that Canadians who face the greatest financial burden can continue to access the medications they need. The Trillium program in Ontario is an example of such a program. We need to know more about both the number of people who need drug coverage and the best means of providing them with it. As a first step, CMA recommends that the government, insurance providers and all partners in the public and private sectors conduct research to more accurately identify current gaps in prescription drug coverage, and develop policy options for bridging them. Given the ever larger role that prescription drug therapy is playing in health care in Canada, governments should consider expanding the current basket of “core services” to include prescription drugs. Under the Canada Health Act provinces and territories must ensure that medically necessary physician and hospital services are provided on a first-dollar basis. CMA has recommended that the scope of the basket of core services be updated regularly to reflect the realities of health care delivery and the needs of Canadians. Given the potential of prescription drugs to improve the system’s cost-effectiveness, we believe that Canadian governments must consider whether the concept of “core services” needs to be revised to reflect their importance, provided that this does not further compromise access to medically necessary hospital and physician services. Drug Pricing Policies: Toward a Policy for All Drugs in Canada. As mentioned previously, PMPRB controls the prices of brand-name patent medications in Canada. However, generic drug make up 40% of the drugs prescribed in this country. Canada has no mechanism to control the prices of generic drugs, as do some other countries (France, for example, has a decree stating that the price of a generic product must be at least 30% less than the price of the original patented brand.) 6 Most provinces have policies encouraging substitution of a brand drug by a comparable generic where appropriate. CMA believes it is time for Canadian governments to explore mechanisms for ensuring appropriate pricing of generic medications. Product Substitution: Making health the first priority. Even under their current system of limited coverage, federal and provincial governments have expressed concern about the cost of their drug programs, and implemented measures to reduce this cost. One of these is drug product substitution. Generic substitution, discussed in the previous section, is now commonplace; British Columbia has taken the concept further with its system of reference-based pricing. While CMA recognizes the motives behind drug product substitution, we believe that it should only be implemented if it does not jeopardize quality of care or patient confidentiality. Doctors would be happy to participate in discussion of initiatives around drug product substitution, to ensure that the health of the patient continues to be the highest priority to all stakeholders. iii) Access and Cross-Border Prescribing CMA recommends: 5. That the federal government monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of prescription medications to ensure their continued availability to Canadians. 6. That prescribing of medication be done within the context of the therapeutic relationship that exists between the patient and the physician. Prices of brand-name prescription drugs prices are higher in the US, where no price review body exists, than they are in Canada. As a result access to the need for prescription medication can pose considerable financial hardship, particularly for America’s elderly and poor. The rising cost of brand-name medications in the United States has led many Americans to look to Canada for less expensive alternatives. At least one US city, Springfield, Massachusetts, has begun a voluntary program to purchase prescription medication from Canada for its workers and retirees13 and the State of Illinois is examining the feasibility of following Springfield’s lead.14 US drug costs have also spurred a growth industry in Canada: Internet pharmacies. According to estimates in US media, approximately $650 million (US) worth of prescriptions are sold online every year.15 The prospect of accessing cheaper Canadian drugs is particularly appealing to elderly Americans who have turned to the Internet to purchase prescriptions they would be unable to afford at home. The burgeoning cross-border export of pharmaceuticals has had its consequences. Several brand-name multinational pharmaceutical manufactures have moved to stop or limit supplies to those Canadian pharmacies they believe are selling drugs over the Internet. They must now order directly from the manufacturer instead of from wholesalers.16 The brand-name companies have also held out the prospect of boycotting Canada in response to legislation passed by the US House of Representatives that would allow the importation of drugs by Americans.17 This legislation is now before the US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The US Food and Drug Administration has opposed importation on safety grounds. The CMA shares the increasingly prevalent concern that cross-border export will result in reduced access to prescription drugs in Canada, and damage the research and development capacity of brand-name prescription drug manufacturers in Canada. Therefore the CMA recommends that Canada monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of brand-name drugs to ensure their continued availability in this country. Many Internet pharmacies offer the services of physicians who will sign prescriptions without seeing the patient in a consultation. This is not acceptable to the CMA, or to the regulatory Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons or the Canadian Medical Protective Association. It is clear that, in principle, to form an appropriate therapeutic relationship a physician must take a history, perform an appropriate physical examination, and order and interpret appropriate diagnostic tests on her patients. The role of the physician in drug therapy is a complex one; to be most effective it requires a strong ongoing professional relationship between patient and physician. This relationship is the foundation of medical practice; it is key to a prescribing decision and it must be maintained. Our position is discussed in greater detail in CMA’s Statement on Internet Prescribing (attached as Appendix II). B) Consumer Drug Information: From DTCA to DTCI CMA recommends: 7. That brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA) not be permitted in Canada. 8. That the federal government enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act to the full extent of the law. 9. That the federal government develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. In the past few years an increasing amount of information on prescription medication has become available to consumers. Much of this reaches Canadians in the form of direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) for specific brands, transmitted across the border from the United States, where it is a billion-dollar-a-year business. DTCA is not legal in Canada, except for notification of price, quantity and the name of the drug. However, advertisers have taken advantage of loopholes in the law to promote brand-name drugs in this country – for example, the controversial television campaign for Viagra. DTCA is also transmitted by print and TV across the border from the United States, and worldwide through the Internet. There is a strong lobby for a relaxation of the DTCA restrictions in Canada. DTCA boosts sales of advertised drugs. In 1999, 25 drugs accounted for 40% of that year’s increase in retail drug spending in the US; all these drugs were advertised to the public.18 Further, DTCA adversely affects the patient/physician relationship. Doctors report feeling pressure and ambivalence when patients ask them to prescribe a specific brand-name drug. 19,20 About 20% of respondents to the CMA’s 2003 physician survey felt patients’ request for advertised drugs had a negative impact on the patient/physician relationship.21 Advocates for DTCA maintain that it provides “consumers” with the information they need to become partners in their own health care. They maintain that DTCA does not undermine the patient/physician relationship, because it does not alter the fact that ultimate prescribing authority remains in the hands of the physician. However, the CMA believes that direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is inappropriate. DTCA * does not communicate risk adequately, or provide enough information to allow the consumer to make appropriate drug selections. Generally it does not provide information about other products or therapies that could be used to treat the same condition, * stimulates demand by exaggerating the risks of a disease and generating unnecessary fear, * contributes to a culture of “overmedicalization” by treating normal human conditions such as aging and baldness as diseases, and offering “a pill for every ill”. Brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising should not be permitted in Canada. CMA calls on the federal government to enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act and its regulations to the full extent of the law. We believe that the public has a right to accurate, unbiased direct to consumer information (DTCI) on drugs and other therapies, to enable patients to make decisions regarding their own health care. This information may increase the appropriateness of prescription drug use. For example, it may encourage consumers to get treatment for conditions that are currently under-treated. However, there are more effective ways to provide this information than brand-name advertising. CMA has developed “Principles for Providing Information about Prescription Drugs to Consumers” as an alternative to DTCA; these are attached as Appendix III. We call on Canadian stakeholders, including governments, health professionals, consumer groups and industry, to work together to provide information for the public based on these principles. Further, the CMA calls on the federal government to develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. C) Safety: Ensuring Best Practices in Prescribing CMA recommends: 10. That all stakeholders join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in prescribing. 11. That government accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a systems approach to support a culture of safety. 12. That a post-marketing surveillance system be implemented to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. The health care system is complex, involving many inter-related and interdependent factors which could influence the frequency and intensity of medication incidents. Such “systems factors” might include * shortage of qualified health professionals (physicians, nurses and others), * inappropriate use of new technology, * unclear labeling or similar-looking drug preparations, * prescription drug misuse, including over-prescribing or under-prescribing of certain medications. Canada’s doctors are working to promote drug safety on a number of fronts. For example, CMA is working with governments at all levels to ensure that we do not “enrich the nation’s urine” through unnecessary prescribing. The Canadian Medical Association Journal regularly publishes research on prescribing practices. CMA also publishes Safe Medication Practices, a physician guide to patient safety; a companion online course is available on the cma.ca web site. We propose that the health care system work to create a culture that promotes optimal prescribing, by fostering outcomes research, creating supportive infrastructures, strengthening the capacity for post-marketing surveillance, and making the best possible use of technology. Our suggestions are discussed below. Closing the Care Gap. Given our present knowledge base, it is often difficult to ascertain whether current drug utilization patterns lead to improvements in health. For example, research on compliance with drug therapy, and the factors that improve it, is in its infancy and though we know that direct-to-consumer advertising affects drug sales we have yet to determine whether it affects health outcomes. A commitment to outcome-based research on drug utilization would help us find the answers to these and other questions. Research on prescribing patterns should respect the conditions outlined in CMA’s “Principles Concerning Physician Information” (attached as Appendix IV). The CMA calls on all stakeholders (governments, health professionals and the private sector) to join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in drug utilization and prescribing, and close care gaps when they are identified. Creating an infrastructure for safety. The CMA has no doubt of the overall quality of the prescription medications approved for use in Canada. However, the more drugs are used, the greater their potential for unintended harm. Studies in the United States have found that almost 2% of patients admitted to hospitals experienced a significant adverse drug event, and that the number of deaths due to medications increased over 200% over five years.22 Though studies are still in progress in Canada, we assume that rates of adverse medication events are similar in the two countries. The 2003 federal budget committed $10 million per year to establish a Patient Safety Institute to monitor and prevent medical incidents. This is an important step toward building a safer health care system, and Canada’s doctors are committed to moving this initiative forward. The CMA, with 11 other health care organizations, is a member of the Canadian Coalition on Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention. This initiative is led by Health Canada and has recently been funded through the Patient Safety Initiative. The federal government has also recently funded the Canadian Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention System to collect data on medication incidents and disseminate information designed to reduce their risk. The CMA believes that to be effective a patient safety initiative must * be voluntary, * be non-punitive; and * protect the privacy and confidentiality of physicians and patients. Further, efforts towards ensuring patient safety should address in a timely manner the “systems” issues referred to above, supporting and fostering a culture of safety. CMA is calling on governments to accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a “systems” approach. Strengthening Post-Marketing Surveillance. No matter how rigourous the drug approval and review process, it cannot identify all of a medication’s effects; many of these are only identified once the drug is in widespread use in the general population. A strong post-marketing surveillance system is needed to gather this knowledge and ensure patient safety. A post marketing surveillance system should include timely collection of data related to * adverse drug reactions, * medication incidents, * targeted drug effectiveness studies, * optimal utilization of medications. The goal of an enhanced post-marketing surveillance system is to monitor the ongoing safety and risk/benefit ratio of medications once they have been approved and are being used in the broad population. An ideal surveillance system would go beyond collecting and collating data, to analyze it and produce information that health care professionals and policy makers can use in decision-making at the population level. For example, data could be used to * communicate product related risks to health professionals and patients, * determine the incidence of adverse drug reactions and medication incidents in the Canadian population as a whole and various subgroups over time, as well as their health and economic impact. Currently post-marketing surveillance of drugs in Canada is inadequate, relying on reporting which is often erratic and inconsistent, and for which reporters are not compensated. Canada needs a coordinated post-marketing surveillance system to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. Surveillance should include medication incidents and adverse drug reactions, and should document and consider the effect of the “systems factors” contributing to these events. Making use of supportive technology. We mentioned that the current reporting system is erratic and inconsistent. An investment in supportive technology would reduce inconsistencies by increasing physicians’ capacity to report and even prevent medication incidents. Under the September 2000 federal/provincial Health Accord, the Government of Canada announced $500 million to expand the use of health information and communications technologies, including the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). One of the advantages cited for a pan-Canadian EHR is that it could reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events – for example, handwritten prescription and interpretation errors. Progress has been slow, but CMA will follow with interest the pilot EHR program just announced in Alberta. While we expect improvement in prescribing practices and outcomes under such programs, we expect them to respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the right of prescribers to the privacy of their prescribing information. Technology can also make real-time communication within the health care system much easier. and CMA strongly recommends an investment in systems that can link physicians to one another and to the rest of the health care system. In its 2003 brief to the Finance Committee’s pre budget hearings, CMA recommended that the federal government immediately fund dedicated Internet connectivity for all physicians in Canada. CMA has also repeatedly called for sustained and substantial investment in a “REAL” (rapid, effective, accessible and linked) Health Communications and Coordination Initiative to improve technical capacity to communicate with front-line health providers in real time. Real-time information is essential for effective day-to-day health care and will form the cornerstone of an adverse drug reaction communication program for the 21st century. Conclusion It is vital to Canada’s physicians that our patients receive the right medications for their condition, at the right times, at the right prices. CMA calls on the federal government and all other stakeholders to work together to develop a comprehensive “made in Canada” prescription drug policy to realize this vision – one that promotes optimal prescribing, puts the health of patients first, respects the relationships of patient and physician and of patient and pharmacist, and honours the principle of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. The reports of the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada and the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Social Affairs and Technology review discussed issues surrounding prescription drug policy in Canada. We hope that the review by this parliamentary committee will lead to prompt and decisive action. APPENDIX I CMA POLICY APPROACHES TO ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF DRUG THERAPY A JOINT STATEMENT BY THE CMA ANDTHE CANADIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION This joint statement was developed by the CMA and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, a national association of pharmacists, and includes the goal of drug therapy, strategies for collaboration to optimize drug therapy and physicians' and pharmacists' responsibilities in drug therapy. The statement recognizes the importance of patients, physicians and pharmacists working in close collaboration and partnership to achieve optimal outcomes from drug therapy. Goal of This Joint Statement The goal of this joint statement is to promote optimal drug therapy by enhancing communication and working relationships among patients, physicians and pharmacists. It is also meant to serve as an educational resource for pharmacists and physicians so that they will have a clearer understanding of each other's responsibilities in drug therapy. In the context of this statement, a "patient" may include a designated patient representative, such as a parent, spouse, other family member, patient advocate or health care provider. Physicians and pharmacists have a responsibility to work with their patients to achieve optimal outcomes by providing high-quality drug therapy. The important contribution of all members of the health care team and the need for cooperative working relationships are recognized; however, this statement focuses on the specific relationships among pharmacists, physicians and patients with respect to drug therapy. This statement is a general guide and is not intended to describe all aspects of physicians' or pharmacists' activities. It is not intended to be restrictive, nor should it inhibit positive developments in pharmacist-physician relationships or in their respective practices that contribute to optimal drug therapy. Furthermore, this statement should be used and interpreted in accordance with applicable legislation and other legal requirements. This statement will be reviewed and assessed regularly to ensure its continuing applicability to medical and pharmacy practices. Goal of Drug Therapy The goal of drug therapy is to improve patients' health and quality of life by preventing, eliminating or controlling diseases or symptoms. Optimal drug therapy is safe, effective, appropriate, affordable, cost-effective and tailored to meet the needs of patients, who participate, to the best of their ability, in making informed decisions about their therapy. Patients require access to necessary drug therapy and specific, unbiased drug information to meet their individual needs. Providing optimal drug therapy also requires a valid and accessible information base generated by basic, clinical, pharmaceutical and other scientific research. Working Together for Optimal Drug Therapy Physicians and pharmacists have complementary and supportive responsibilities in providing optimal drug therapy. To achieve this goal, and to ensure that patients receive consistent information, patients, pharmacists and physicians must work cooperatively and in partnership. This requires effective communication, respect, trust, and mutual recognition and understanding of each other's complementary responsibilities. The role of each profession in drug therapy depends on numerous factors, including the specific patient and his or her drug therapy, the prescription status of the drug concerned, the setting and the patient physician pharmacist relationship. However, it is recognized that, in general, each profession may focus on certain areas more than others. For example, when counselling patients on their drug therapy, a physician may focus on disease-specific counselling, goals of therapy, risks and benefits and rare side effects, whereas a pharmacist may focus on correct usage, treatment adherence, dosage, precautions, dietary restrictions and storage. Areas of overlap may include purpose, common side effects and their management and warnings regarding drug interactions and lifestyle concerns. Similarly, when monitoring drug therapy, a physician would focus on clinical progress toward treatment goals, whereas a pharmacist may focus on drug effects, interactions and treatment adherence; both would monitor adverse effects. Both professions should tailor drug therapy, including education, to meet the needs of individual patients. To provide continuity of care and to promote consistency in the information being provided, it is important that both pharmacists and physicians assess the patients' knowledge and identify and reinforce the educational component provided by the other. Strategies for Collaborating to Optimize Drug Therapy Patients, physicians and pharmacists need to work in close collaboration and partnership to achieve optimal drug therapy. Strategies to facilitate such teamwork include the following. Respecting and supporting patients' rights to make informed decisions regarding their drug therapy. Promoting knowledge, understanding and acceptance by physicians and pharmacists of their responsibilities in drug therapy and fostering widespread communication of these responsibilities so they are clearly understood by all. Supporting both professions' relationship with patients, and promoting a collaborative approach to drug therapy within the health care team. Care must be taken to maintain patients' trust and their relationship with other caregivers. Sharing relevant patient information for the enhancement of patient care, in accordance and compliance with all of the following: ethical standards to protect patient privacy, accepted medical and pharmacy practice, and the law. Patients should inform their physician and pharmacist of any information that may assist in providing optimal drug therapy. Increasing physicians' and pharmacists' awareness that it is important to make themselves readily available to each other to communicate about a patient for whom they are both providing care. Enhancing documentation (e.g., clearly written prescriptions and communication forms) and optimizing the use of technology (e.g., e-mail, voice mail and fax) in individual practices to enhance communication, improve efficiency and support consistency in information provided to patients. Developing effective communication and administrative procedures between health care institutions and community-based pharmacists and physicians to support continuity of care. Developing local communication channels and encouraging dialogue between the professions (e.g., through joint continuing education programs and local meetings) to promote a peer-review-based approach to local prescribing and drug-use issues. Teaching a collaborative approach to patient care as early as possible in the training of pharmacists and physicians. Developing effective communication channels and encouraging dialogue among patients, physicians and pharmacists at the regional, provincial, territorial and national levels to address issues such as drug-use policy, prescribing guidelines and continuing professional education. Collaborating in the development of technology to enhance communication in practices (e.g., shared patient databases relevant to drug therapy). Working jointly on committees and projects concerned with issues in drug therapy such as patient education, treatment adherence, formularies and practice guidelines, hospital-to-community care, cost-control strategies, sampling and other relevant policy issues concerning drug therapy. Fostering the development and utilization of a high-quality clinical and scientific information base to support evidence-based decision making. The Physician's Responsibilities Physicians and pharmacists recognize the following responsibilities in drug therapy as being within the scope of physicians' practice, on the basis of such factors as physicians' education and specialized skills, relationship with patients and practice environment. Some responsibilities may overlap with those of pharmacists (see The Pharmacist's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that practice environments within medicine may differ and may affect the physician's role. Assessing health status, diagnosing diseases, assessing the need for drug therapy and providing curative, preventive, palliative and rehabilitative drug therapy in consultation with patients and in collaboration with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care professionals, when appropriate. Working with patients to set therapeutic goals and monitor progress toward such goals in consultation with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care providers, when appropriate. Monitoring and assessing response to drug therapy, progress toward therapeutic goals and patient adherence to the therapeutic plan; when necessary, revising the plan on the basis of outcomes of current therapy and progress toward goals of therapy, in consultation with patients and in collaboration with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care providers, when appropriate. Carrying out surveillance of and assessing patients for adverse reactions to drugs and other unanticipated problems related to drug therapy, revising therapy and, when appropriate, reporting adverse reactions and other complications to health authorities. Providing specific information to patients and caregivers about diagnosis, indications and treatment goals, and the action, benefits, risks and potential side effects of drug therapy. Providing and sharing general and specific information and advice about disease and drugs with patients, caregivers, health care providers and the public. Maintaining adequate records of drug therapy for each patient, including, when applicable, goals of therapy, therapy prescribed, progress toward goals, revisions of therapy, a list of drugs (both prescription and over-the-counter drugs) currently taken, adverse reactions to therapy, history of known drug allergies, smoking history, occupational exposure or risk, known patterns of alcohol or substance use that may influence response to drugs, history of treatment adherence and attitudes toward drugs. Records should also document patient counselling and advice given, when appropriate. Ensuring safe procurement, storage, handling, preparation, distribution, dispensing and record keeping of drugs (in keeping with federal and provincial regulations and the CMA policy summary "Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Update 1994)" (Can Med Assoc J 1994;150:256A-C.) when the patient cannot reasonably receive such services from a pharmacist. Maintaining a high level of knowledge about drug therapy through critical appraisal of the literature and continuing professional development. Care must be provided in accordance with legislation and in an atmosphere of privacy, and patient confidentiality must be maintained. Care also should be provided in accordance with accepted scientific and ethical standards and procedures. The Pharmacist's Responsibilities Pharmacists and physicians recognize the following responsibilities as being within the scope of pharmacists' practice, on the basis of such factors as pharmacists' education and specialized skills, relationship with patients and practice environment. Some responsibilities may overlap with those of physicians (see The Physician's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that, in selected practice environments, the pharmacists' role may differ considerably. Evaluating the patients' drug-therapy record ("drug profile") and reviewing prescription orders to ensure that a prescribed therapy is safe and to identify, solve or prevent actual or potential drug-related problems or concerns. Examples include possible contraindications, drug interactions or therapeutic duplication, allergic reactions and patient nonadherence to treatment. Significant concerns should be discussed with the prescriber. Ensuring safe procurement, storage, preparation, distribution and dispensing of pharmaceutical products (in keeping with federal, provincial and other applicable regulations). Discussing actual or potential drug-related problems or concerns and the purpose of drug therapy with patients, in consultation with caregivers, physicians and health care providers, when appropriate. Monitoring drug therapy to identify drug-related problems or concerns, such as lack of symptomatic response, lack of adherence to treatment plans and suspected adverse effects. Significant concerns should be discussed with the physician. Advising patients and caregivers on the selection and use of nonprescription drugs and the management of minor symptoms or ailments. Directing patients to consult their physician for diagnosis and treatment when required. Pharmacists may be the first contact for health advice. Through basic patient assessment (i.e., observation and interview) they should identify the need for referral to a physician or an emergency department. Notifying physicians of actual or suspected adverse reactions to drugs and, when appropriate, reporting such reactions to health authorities. Providing specific information to patients and caregivers about drug therapy, taking into account patients' existing knowledge about their drug therapy. This information may include the name of the drug, its purpose, potential interactions or side effects, precautions, correct usage, methods to promote adherence to the treatment plan and any other health information appropriate to the needs of the patient. Providing and sharing general and specific drug-related information and advice with patients, caregivers, physicians, health care providers and the public. Maintaining adequate records of drug therapy to facilitate the prevention, identification and management of drug-related problems or concerns. These records should contain, but are not limited to, each patient's current and past drug therapy (including both prescribed and selected over-the-counter drugs), drug-allergy history, appropriate demographic data and, if known, the purpose of therapy and progress toward treatment goals, adverse reactions to therapy, the patient's history of adherence to treatment, attitudes toward drugs, smoking history, occupational exposure or risk, and known patterns of alcohol or substance use that may influence his or her response to drugs. Records should also document patient counselling and advice given, when appropriate. Maintaining a high level of knowledge about drug therapy through critical appraisal of the literature and continuing professional development. Care must be provided in accordance with legislation and in an atmosphere of privacy, and patient confidentiality must be maintained. Products and services should be provided in accordance with accepted scientific and ethical standards and procedures. APPENDIX II CMA POLICY Statement on Internet Prescribing The act of prescribing medication is a medical act carried out in the context of a patient-physician relationship. As such, it is subject to the clinical standards of practice, as well as the ethical guidelines of the medical profession and applicable law. Physicians should be aware of and comply with the legal requirements in their province or territory. If a physician wishes to sign a prescription for an individual who has not previously been his/her patient or a patient of his/her group practice or shared call group, basic principles of assessment and diagnosis must be applied. It is incumbent upon the physician to obtain an adequate history and perform an appropriate physical examination to reach a diagnosis which will ensure that the prescribed medications are appropriate. The physician should be expected to provide advice about any prescribed medication, and, where appropriate, would be expected to provide advice about appropriate monitoring requirements. The physician is advised to fully document the encounter. It is not acceptable for a physician to sign a prescription without properly assessing the patient. APPENDIX III CMA POLICY Principles for Providing Information about Prescription Drugs to Consumers Approved by the CMA Board of Directors, March 2003 Since the late 1990’s expenditures on direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs in the United States have increased many-fold. Though U.S.-style DTCA is not legal in Canada23, it reaches Canadians through cross-border transmission of print and broadcast media, and through the Internet. It is believed to have affected drug sales and patient behaviour in Canada. Other therapeutic products, such as vaccines and diagnostic tests, are also being marketed directly to the public. Proponents of DTCA argue that they are providing consumers with much-needed information on drugs and the conditions they treat. Others argue that the underlying intent of such advertising is to increase revenue or market share, and that it therefore cannot be interpreted as unbiased information. The CMA believes that consumers have a right to accurate information on prescription medications and other therapeutic interventions, to enable them to make informed decisions about their own health. This information is especially necessary as more and more Canadians live with chronic conditions, and as we anticipate the availability of new products that may accompany the “biological revolution”, e.g. gene therapies. The CMA recommends a review of current mechanisms, including mass media communications, for providing this information to the public. CMA believes that consumer information on prescription drugs should be provided according to the following principles. 24 Principle #1: The Goal is Good Health The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of consumer drug information should be its impact on the health and well-being of Canadians and the quality of health care. Principle #2: Ready Access Canadians should have ready access to credible, high-quality information about prescription drugs. The primary purpose of this information should be education; sales of drugs must not be a concern to the originator. Principle #3: Patient Involvement Consumer drug information should help Canadians make informed decisions regarding management of their health, and facilitate informed discussion with their physicians and other health professionals. CMA encourages Canadians to become educated about their own health and health care, and to appraise health information critically. Principle #4: Evidence-Based Content Consumer drug information should be evidence based, using generally accepted prescribing guidelines as a source where available. Principle #5: Appropriate Information Consumer drug information should be based as much as possible on drug classes and use of generic names; if discussing brand-name drugs the discussion should not be limited to a single specific brand, and brand names should always be preceded by generic names. It should provide information on the following: * indications for use of the drug * contraindications * side effects * relative cost. In addition, consumer drug information should discuss the drug in the context of overall management of the condition for which it is indicated (for example, information about other therapies, lifestyle management and coping strategies). Principle #6: Objectivity of Information Sources Consumer drug information should be provided in such a way as to minimize the impact of vested commercial interests on the information content. Possible sources include health care providers, or independent research agencies. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and patient or consumer groups can be valuable partners in this process but must not be the sole providers of information. Federal and provincial/territorial governments should provide appropriate sustaining support for the development and maintenance of up-to-date consumer drug information. Principle #7: Endorsement/ Accreditation Consumer drug information should be endorsed or accredited by a reputable and unbiased body. Information that is provided to the public through mass media channels should be pre-cleared by an independent board. Principle #8: Monitoring and Revision Consumer drug information should be continually monitored to ensure that it correctly reflects current evidence, and updated when research findings dictate. Principle #9: Physicians as Partners Consumer drug information should support and encourage open patient-physician communication, so that the resulting plan of care, including drug therapy, is mutually satisfactory. Physicians play a vital role in working with patients and other health-care providers to achieve optimal drug therapy, not only through writing prescriptions but through discussing proposed drugs and their use in the context of the overall management of the patient’s condition. In addition, physicians and other health care providers, and their associations, can play a valuable part in disseminating drug and other health information to the public. Principle #10: Research and Evaluation Ongoing research should be conducted into the impact of drug information and DTCA on the health care system, with particular emphasis on its effect on appropriateness of prescribing, and on health outcomes. APPENDIX IV CMA POLICY PRINCIPLES CONCERNING PHYSICIAN INFORMATION In an environment in which the capacity to capture, link and transmit information is growing and the need for fuller accountability is being created, the demand for physician information, and the number of people and organizations seeking to collect it, is increasing. Physician information, that is, information that includes personal health information about and information that relates or may relate to the professional activity of an identifiable physician or group of physicians, is valuable for a variety of purposes. The legitimacy and importance of these purposes varies a great deal, and therefore the rationale and rules related to the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information also varies. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) developed this policy to provide guiding principles to those who collect, use, have access to or disclose physician information. Such people are termed “custodians,” and they should be held publicly accountable. These principles complement and act in concert with the CMA Health Information Privacy Code,25 which holds patient health information sacrosanct. Physicians have legitimate interests in what information about them is collected, on what authority, by whom and for what purposes it is collected, and what safeguards and controls are in place. These interests include privacy and the right to exercise some control over the information; protection from the possibility that information will cause unwarranted harm, either at the individual or the group level; and assurance that interpretation of the information is accurate and unbiased. These legitimate interests extend to information about physicians that has been rendered in non-identifiable or aggregate format (e.g., to protect against the possibility of individual physicians being identified or of physician groups being unjustly stigmatized). Information in these formats, however, may be less sensitive than information from which an individual physician can be readily identified and, therefore, may warrant less protection. The purposes for the use of physician information may be more or less compelling. One compelling use is related to the fact that physicians, as members of a self-regulating profession, are professionally accountable to their patients, their profession and society. Physicians support this professional accountability purpose through the legislated mandate of their regulatory colleges. Physicians also recognize the importance of peer review in the context of professional development and maintenance of competence. The CMA supports the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. Purpose(s): The purpose(s) for the collection of physician information, and any other purpose(s) for which physician information may be subsequently used, accessed or disclosed, should be precisely specified at or before the collection. There should be a reasonable expectation that the information will achieve the stated purpose(s). The policy does not prevent the use of information for purposes that were not intended and not reasonably anticipated if principles 3 and 4 of this policy are met. 2. Consent: As a rule, information should be collected directly from the physician. Subject to principle 4, consent should be sought from the physician for the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information. The physician should be informed about all intended and anticipated uses, accesses or disclosures of the information. 3. Conditions for collection, use, access and disclosure: The information should: * be limited to the minimum necessary to carry out the stated purpose(s), * be in the least intrusive format required for the stated purpose(s), and its collection, use, access and disclosure should not infringe on the physician’s duty of confidentiality with respect to that information. 4. Use of information without consent: There may be justification for the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information without the physician’s consent if, in addition to the conditions in principle 3 being met, the custodian publicly demonstrates with respect to the purpose(s), generically construed, that: * the stated purpose(s) could not be met or would be seriously compromised if consent were required, * the stated purpose(s) is(are) of sufficient importance that the public interest outweighs to a substantial degree the physician’s right to privacy and right of consent in a free and democratic society, and * that the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information with respect to the stated purpose(s) always ensures justice and fairness to the physician by being consistent with principle 6 of this policy. 5. Physician’s access to his or her own information: Physicians have a right to view and ensure, in a timely manner, the accuracy of the information collected about them. This principle does not apply if there is reason to believe that the disclosure to the physician will cause substantial adverse effect to others. The onus is on the custodian to justify a denial of access. 6. Information quality and interpretation: Custodians must take reasonable steps to ensure that the information they collect, use, gain access to or disclose is accurate, complete and correct. Custodians must use valid and reliable collection methods and, as appropriate, involve physicians to interpret the information; these physicians must have practice characteristics and credentials similar to those of the physician whose information is being interpreted. 7. Security: Physical and human safeguards must exist to ensure the integrity and reliability of physician information and to protect against unauthorized collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information. 8. Retention and destruction: Physician information should be retained only for the length of time necessary to fulfill the specified purpose(s), after which time it should be destroyed. 9. Inquiries and complaints: Custodians must have in place a process whereby inquiries and complaints can be received, processed and adjudicated in a fair and timely way. The complaint process, including how to initiate a complaint, must be made known to physicians. 10. Openness and transparency: Custodians must have transparent and explicit record-keeping or database management policies, practices and systems that are open to public scrutiny, including the purpose(s) for the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information. The existence of any physician information record-keeping systems or database systems must be made known and available upon request to physicians. 11. Accountability: Custodians of physician information must ensure that they have proper authority and mandate to collect, use, gain access to or disclose physician information. Custodians must have policies and procedures in place that give effect to the principles in this document. Custodians must have a designated person who is responsible for monitoring practices and ensuring compliance with the policies and procedures. 1 Romanow R. Building on Values: the Future of Health Care in Canada. Report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; November 2002. 2 Chobanian et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 2003; 289. 3 Butler C, Rollnick S, Stott N. The practitioner, the patient and resistance to change. Recent Ideas on Compliance 1996;14(9):1357-62. 4 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health spending to top $112 billion in 2002, reports CIHI. Media release. December 18, 2002. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_18dec2002_e 5 Patent Medicine Prices Review Board. Pharmaceutical Trends, 1995/96 – 1999/00. Prepared for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Drug Prices; September 2001. 6 Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, A study of the Prices of the Top Selling Multiple Source Medicines in Canada. November 2002. 7 Approaches to Enhancing the Quality of Drug Therapy.” Joint policy of the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Pharmacists Association. 8 It should be noted that the CMA does not have the authority to enforce directives on physicians with regard to prescribing. The provincial and Territorial Colleges of Physicians handle licensing and regulatory matters. 9 Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan provide some coverage to all residents after the co-payments and deductibles are paid. Quebec provides universal coverage to those not in a private plan. 10 Fraser Group/Tristat Resources. Drug Expense Coverage in the Canadian Population – Protection from Severe Drug Expenses. CLHIA. August 2002. 11 Palmer D’Angelo Consulting Inc. National Pharmacare Cost Impact Update Study. Executive Summary. September 4, 2002. 12 Ibid 13 Tynan T. Cash-strapped Springfield, Mass., begins buying Canadian prescription drugs. Edmonton Journal July 29, 2003. http://www.canada.com/edmonton/story.asp?id=21FB8445-1143-4C13-B282-76F380CB4FE1 14 CBSNews.com. Illinois looks to Canada for drugs. CBS News September 15, 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/health/main565611.shtml 15Kedrosky P. Dangerous popularity of online pharmacies. National Post August 13, 2003. 16 Harris G. Pfizer moves to stem Canadian drug imports. New York Times August 7, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/07DRUG.html 17 Cusack B., Stinson S. US drug firms set to boycott Canada. National Post August 7, 2003. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=363CC2EA-1832-42F2-954C-0F52D1828E23 18 “Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising.” National Institute for Health Care Management Research. Washington, DC, 2001. 19 Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL at al. How does direct to consumer advertising affect prescribing? a survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. CMAJ 169 (2003): 405 –412. 20 Food and Drug Administration. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: physician survey preliminary results. Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac. 21Survey shows strong opposition to direct to consumer advertising. Accessed at http://www.cma.ca/cma/ 22 Canadian Coalition on Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention. A medication incident reporting and prevention system for Canada: business Plan. March 2002. 23 DTCA is not legal in Canada, except for notification of price, quantity and the name of the drug. However, “information-seeking” advertisements for prescription drugs, which may provide the name of the drug without mentioning its indications, or announce that treatments are available for specific indications without mentioning drugs by name, have appeared in Canadian mass media. 24 Though the paper applies primarily to prescription drug information, its principles are also applicable to health information in general. 25 Canadian Medical Association. Health Information Privacy Code. CMAJ 1998;159(8):997-1016.
Documents
Less detail

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

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