The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this response to Health Canada's Proposed Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act (Menthol), as found in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on November 5, 2016.
The CMA believes that the federal government has an important role in prevention and smoking cessation, particularly among youth, to end smoking within Canada. As early as 2008, the CMA called for the federal government to ban menthol in tobacco products. In 2014, the CMA submitted a brief to Health Canada on the proposal to amend the Tobacco Act to restrict the use of additives in tobacco products. One of the CMA's concerns at that time was that the Act excluded menthol as a flavouring agent in tobacco products.
Therefore, the CMA strongly supports Health Canada's proposed order to prohibit menthol in cigarettes, blunt wraps and cigars. The proposed order has the ability to deter youth from smoking since menthol makes smoking more palatable by masking the harshness of tobacco smoke. This may lead to not only a decline in youth smokers but a decline in the number of smokers in the overall Canadian population as well.
The CMA issued its first warning to the public about the dangers of tobacco in 1954, and we continue to advocate for stronger measures to control smoking. Banning the use of menthol is one step towards achieving this goal.
Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC
Vice-President, Medical Professionalism
Canadian Medical Association
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the review of the Pan-Canadian health organizations (PCHOs). The CMA has had the opportunity to interact with all of them at one time or another. This review is timely, as there is a burning issue: Canada continues to languish near the bottom of the Commonwealth Fund's 11-country rankings, and the leading edge of the baby boom will reach age 75 in 2021, at which point per capita health care costs in Canada will escalate.
We will discuss major unmet needs, make some general observations and offer two recommendations. References are provided in the bibliography.
National focal point for quality: Our impression is that none of the PCHOs is pursuing a comprehensive approach to quality improvement (QI) consistent with the framework set out by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its 2001 report Crossing the Quality Chasm. The framework is built around the need for health care to be safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable. To our knowledge Accreditation Canada is the only national organization that has adopted such a framework, but their QI mandate is to set standards and accredit health care organizations although it could potentially play an expanded role. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute has done an excellent job of highlighting the importance of patient safety, but that is only one of the six dimensions outlined in the IOM framework.
Work needs to be done in Canada to address each of the other five dimensions. In terms of effective care, although the concept of evidence-based medicine was pioneered in Canada, we do not have a national developer of guidance to clinicians like the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). It is noted that there are some localized efforts in this area, such as Alberta's Toward Optimized Practice program, and the CMA Infobase maintained by CMA Joule contains some 1,200 clinical practice guidelines. Patient-centred care will be discussed below. Since the expiry of the 2004 Health Accord and the Wait Times Reduction Fund (WTRF), which the CMA spent years trying to get on the policy agenda, timely access to care has fallen out of the spotlight. The Wait Time Alliance did its best to promote the expansion and adoption of wait time benchmarks beyond the five treatments initially included in the WTRF, with very limited success. It is no surprise that according to the Commonwealth Fund's 2016 survey of 11 countries, Canadians faced the longest waiting times for a specialist appointment. In terms of efficiency there has been a rapid uptake of the Choosing Wisely Canada initiative by medical organizations, but the campaign could benefit from resources to conduct a thorough evaluation of its impact. The dimension of equitable care will be considered below as part of the discussion of social determinants of health. At least six provinces have established health quality councils, and if they had a national focal point for their efforts they could cross-pollinate their expertise and learnings with respect to all six of the Institute of Medicine's dimensions of care.
National patient voice - While it is encouraging to see the emphasis on patient and family-centred care among the PCHOs, the lack of an organized national patient voice is a key gap. Previously the Consumers' Association of Canada provided an articulate patient/consumer voice on health issues, and indeed it was one of the seven charter members of the Health Action Lobby in 1991. However, the association's ability to speak in this capacity was greatly diminished after its federal funding dried up in the 1990s. At present there are various patient groups sponsored by health charities and industry but they tend to focus on specific interests. Patients Canada, an organization established in 2011, is showing promise, but with annual expenditures of just under $130,000 in 2014 it is insufficiently resourced to function as a national patient voice representing all regions of the country. There is a need for an independent go-to focal point that can speak on behalf of patients on national issues and that can help national health organizations with their advocacy and policy development initiatives. With better resources, Patients Canada might be able to play this role.
Health equity - Given the impact of health inequalities in Canada they have a relatively low profile on the national scene, aside from the inequity between the health status of Canada's Indigenous Peoples and that of the general population. For example, Mackenbach and colleagues estimated that socio-economic inequalities accounted for 20% of health care costs in the European Union in 2004. There is little reason to imagine that the situation in Canada would be much different, but health inequalities have not been a preoccupation of the PCHOs. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has done some good work in helping the federal government to meet its commitments in regard to the World Health Organization's 2011 Rio Political Declaration on Social Determinants of Health and it also funds the National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health, but these efforts have little profile outside of the public health community. The pronounced socio-economic gradient across virtually all causes of morbidity and mortality tends to be overlooked in the pursuit of strategies to address individual diseases. PHAC's Health Inequalities Data Tool shows that that the Canadian crude mortality rates for circulatory system disease and lung cancer in the lowest income quintile for census metropolitan areas are 1.6 and 1.7 times the rates in the highest income quintile, respectively. There are groups in Canada such as the Wellesley Institute and Health Providers Against Poverty that focus on health equity issues, and Canada should look at the leadership role being played by Sir Michael Marmot's Institute of Health Equity at University College London in England.
Driving innovation - The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health is widely recognized for its work evaluating drugs and technologies but it is not in the business of promoting system-wide implementation. The Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation (David Naylor, Chair) recommended the establishment of a Healthcare Innovation Agency and a Healthcare Innovation Fund with the objective of effecting "sustainable and systemic changes in the delivery of health services to Canadians." More recently, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology called for a national conference on robotics, artificial intelligence and 3D printing that would give rise to working groups and a secretariat with a view to integrating these technologies into health care systems across Canada. One can cite examples where Canada has developed innovative technologies but has not made them mainstream. For example, telemedicine was pioneered by the late Dr. Maxwell House in Newfoundland in the mid-1970s. It is now being used regularly for clinical sessions, but the logical extension to telehome monitoring is barely in its infancy. According to the 2015 Canadian Telehealth Report there were 411,778 telehealth clinical sessions in 2014, but there were just 3,803 patients being monitored through telehomecare. Furthermore. the number of telehealth clinical sessions represents just 0.15% of the 270.3 million physician services reported by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) in 2015-16. In contrast, Kaiser Permanente reported in 2016 that 52% of the 110 million physician-member interactions in the previous year took place through virtual means.
One example of the use of a fund to bring about sustainable change was the two-step process that began with the establishment of the $150 million Health Transition Fund following the 1997 report of the National Forum on Health and the $800 million Primary Health Care Transition Fund that was part of the 2000 Health Accord. These resulted in the sustained adoption of new models of primary care delivery in Ontario and Alberta. It is noteworthy that the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement is doing interesting work in spreading and scaling up innovative treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The need for a dedicated entity to drive innovation is illustrated by the experience of the Health Care Innovation Working Group, which was struck by the premiers in 2012 and which included the unprecedented participation of professional associations including the CMA. The group released an ambitious report in the summer of 2012, but the effort was run by senior bureaucrats and association staff "off the sides of their desks" and has essentially stalled. Such a body could also play a role in sharing innovations across jurisdictions.
Enhanced analytical capability - Since the demise of the Economic Council of Canada (ECC) in the 1990s Canada's national analytical capability in health care has diminished. The ECC employed health economists like the late Ludwig Auer who undertook detailed analysis of health sector data to examine issues like hospital productivity. CIHI does an excellent job of turning out reports such National Health Expenditure (NHEX) Trends in Canada, but these are not sufficient for an in-depth examination of a $242 billion industry. As journalist André Picard commented on the 2017 NHEX release, "We don't actually know how much we spend on administration, because it is hidden in places like hospital spending ... nor do we know the cost of labour ... we should certainly have a better idea of how much we spend on nurses, physician assistants, personal support workers, laboratory technologists and technicians and so on."
Looking ahead, the widespread adoption of electronic medical records is going to present a major analytical opportunity and challenge. In 2008 PHAC provided a grant to the College of Family Physicians of Canada to establish the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) and subsequently provided additional funding until 2015. The goal of CPCSSN was to establish a database on eight chronic diseases and neurologic conditions by extracting de-identified patient information from electronic medical records. As of the last update, in October 2016, CPCSSN now includes 11 university-affiliated primary care research networks and almost 1,200 physicians contributing data from 1.5 million patients. A recent report concludes that CPCSSN's diagnostic algorithms show excellent sensitivity and specificity for hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy and parkinsonism. The CMA highlighted CPCSSN in its submission to the Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation as being worthy of ongoing federal support.
We would like to make three general observations. First, the future of the PHCOs should not be decided in isolation. Instead, we believe that the big picture of federal funding for the advancement of health and health care should be considered, including the investments that the federal government is making in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research.
Second, the CMA's engagement with the PCHOs has been haphazard. While we have had the opportunity to participate in consultations and technical and working groups with the PCHOs, these interactions have generally fallen short of what we would consider to be early, meaningful and ongoing engagement.
Third, the PCHOs have developed considerable expertise within their mandates and spheres of activity. They could almost certainly harness their potential to mount a synergistic effort to successfully address pressing national issues that might otherwise seem almost impossible to confront, such as seniors care.
The CMA respectfully offers two recommendations:
1. That the government's implementation plan following the PCHO review include mechanisms to address the following needs:
* for a national focal point that promotes a comprehensive approach to quality health care;
* for a well-resourced national patient voice that advocates for patient- and family-centred health care;
* for greater recognition of the importance of the social determinants of health and health equity;
* for a national mechanism to drive the sustainable adoption of innovative technologies in health care across Canada; and
* for advanced analytical capabilities to conduct in-depth assessments of funding mechanisms and advance the collection and analysis of data generated by electronic medical records.
2. That the federal government challenge the PCHOs and other federal agencies to work with the provincial/territorial governments and stakeholders to develop and implement a national action plan to address the health and health care of Canada's seniors.
Accreditation Canada. Client- and family-centred care in the Qmentum program. Ottawa: Accreditation Canada; 2015.
Advisory Board. A milestone: Kaiser now interacts more with patients virtually than in-person. Washington, DC: Advisory Board; 2016 Oct 13. Available: www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2016/10/13/kaiser-telehealth (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation. Unleashing innovation: excellent healthcare for Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Health; 2015. Available: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/health-system-systeme-sante/report-healthcare-innovation-rapport-soins/alt/report-healthcare-innovation-rapport-soins-eng.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Birtwhistle R. Update from CPCSSN. Can Fam Physician 2016;62(10):851.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Physician Database. Table B.1 Number of services, by physician specialty, national groupin system strata and province/territory, 2015-2016. Ottawa: The Institute; 2017.
Canadian Medical Association. CPG Infobase: clinical practice guidelines. Ottawa: The Association; 2017. Available: www.cma.ca/En/Pages/clinical-practice-guidelines.aspx (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Canadian Medical Association. Submission to Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation. Ottawa: The Association; 2014. Available: www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/CMA-Submission-Adv-Panel-on-HC-Innovation.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Canada's Health Informatics Association. 2015 Canadian telehealth report. Toronto: The Association; 2015. Available: https://livecare.ca/sites/default/files/2015%20TeleHealth-Public-eBook-Final-10-9-15-secured.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Health Providers Against Poverty(HPAP). Canada: HPAP; 2017. Available: https://healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Institute of Health Equity. London: Institute of Health Equity; 2017. Available: www.instituteofhealthequity.org (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Mackenbach J, Meerding W, Kunst A. Economic costs of health inequalities in the European Union. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011;65(5):412-9.
National Academy of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Improving health and social care through evidence-based guidance. London: NICE; 2017. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/ (Accessed 24 November 2017).
Osborn R, Squires D, Doty M, Sarnak S, Schneider E. In new survey of eleven countries, US adults still struggle with access to and affordability of health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(12):2327-6.
Patients Canada. Toronto: Patients Canada, 2017. Available: www.patientscanada.ca/ (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Picard A. It's time for a data-driven approach to health care. Globe and Mail 2017 Nov 7. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-time-for-a-data-driven-approach-to-health-care/article36858079/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health (NCCDH). Antigonish, NS: NCCDH; 2017. Available: /www.nccdh.ca/ (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Public Health Agency of Canada. Health inequalities data tool - public health infobase. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2017. Available: https://infobase.phac-aspc.gc.ca/health-inequalities/ (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Schneider E, Sarnak D, Squires D, Shah A, Doty M. Mirror, mirror 2017: international comparison reflects flaws and opportunities for better U.S. health care. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund; 2017. Available: www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2017/jul/schneider_mirror_mirror_2017.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 13).
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Challenge ahead: integrating robotics, artificial intelligence and 3D printing technologies into Canada's healthcare systems. Ottawa: The Senate; 2017. Available: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SOCI/reports/RoboticsAI3DFinal_Web_e.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Tinkham & Associates LLP. Financial statements of Patients Canada. Toronto: Tinkham & Associates LLP; 31 Dec 2014. Available: www.patientscanada.ca/site/patients_canada/assets/pdf/patientscanada-financialstatements-2014.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Toward Optimized Practice (TOP). Edmonton, AB: TOP; 2017. Available: www.topalbertadoctors.org/home/ (accessed 2017 Nov 13).
Wellesley Institute. Toronto: Wellesley Institute; 2017. Available: www.wellesleyinstitute.com/about (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Williamson T, Green M, Birtwhistle R, Khan S, Garies S, Wong S, Natarajan N, Manca D, Drummond N. Validating the 8 CPCSSN case definitions for chronic disease surveillance in a primary care database of electronic health records. Ann Fam Med 2014;12(4):367-72.
World Health Organization. Rio political declaration on social determinants of health. Geneva: The Organization; 2011. Available: www.who.int/sdhconference/declaration/Rio_political_declaration.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 2017 Nov 10).
Canadians are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. This is due in large part to Canada’s health care system, the people working in it, research and medical school excellence, public and private investments and the many advances that have been made over the decades in medicine. However, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is deeply concerned that Canada’s health care system isn’t keeping up with the health care needs of older Canadians.
When publicly funded health care was created about 50 years ago, Canada’s population was just over 20 million and the average life expectancy was 71. Today, our population is over 30 million and the average life expectancy is 10 years longer. The aging of our population is both an immense success story and the most pressing policy imperative of our time.
Our submission and recommendations focus on seniors care. We believe the ability of our country to meet the health care needs of this segment of our population is indeed of such high priority that we have come to these consultations with this single issue in mind.
While daunting, the task ahead is by no means impossible and will ultimately result in numerous health and financial benefits. By providing the means to expand long-term care and home care capacity, the Government of Canada will improve health care for seniors and others, create new jobs and add billions of dollars annually to the Gross Domestic Product. Furtherbed demand will vary over this period, peaking in 2032 and beginning to decline thereafter. The five-year projection for beds is as follows:
Table 1: Projected shortage in long-term
care beds, 2017–2021
Number of additional
Year beds required
*Note: the figure for additional beds required in 2017 includes 8,420 beds’ worth of demand that is currently unmet, in the form of patients in alternate level of care beds in hospitals.
The Conference Board estimated the cost to construct 10,500 beds (the average number of new beds required per year from 2017 to 2035) at $3.4 billion per year and $63.7 billion in total, on the basis of a cost estimate of $320,000 per bed (all figures in 2017 dollars). These figures include both public and private spending. This forecast does not include the significant investments required to renovate and retrofit the existing stock of residential facilities.
The average number of new long-term care beds needed in Canada every year up to 2035 is 10,500. The Conference Board of Canada estimates the cost of this to be $3.4 billion per year, for a total public and private expenditure of $63.7 billion. This forecast does not include the investments needed to renovate and retrofit existing long-term care homes.
Construction of new residential care models and renovation/retrofitting of existing facilities will provide significant economic opportunities for many communities across Canada. The construction and maintenance of 10,500 new residential care beds will yield direct economic benefits that include a $1.4 billion annual average contribution to GDP supporting 14,600 jobs yearly during the capital investment phase and a $5.3 billion annual average contribution to GDP supporting an average of 58,300 jobs annually during the facility operation phase. By comparison, nursing homes and residential care facilities employed about 412,000 people in 2016. These investments would also close the significant gap between the projected residential care bed shortages and currently planned investment. When indirect economic contributions are included, the average estimated annual contribution to Canada’s GDP from the construction and operation of the new beds reaches $12.4 billion, supporting an average of 130,000 jobs annually between 2017 and 2035 (in construction, care provision and other sectors).
This bed projection provides a sense of the immense challenge Canada faces in addressing the needs of a vulnerable segment of its population of older seniors. A recent report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicated that residential care capacity will need to double over the next 20 years (assuming no change in how care is currently provided), necessitating a transformation in how seniors care is provided in Canada across the continuum of care.13
Efforts to de-hospitalize the system and deal with Canada’s aging population should be part of an overall national seniors strategy. Such a strategy was called for previously by the CMA, other organizations (e.g., the National Association of Federal Retirees), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance14 and over 50,000 Canadians.15
Fixing seniors care will contribute to the renewal of the entire health system and will improve the productivity of health care delivery across the country. The differing fiscal capacities of the provinces in the current economic climate will mean that improvements in seniors care will advance at an uneven pace. The federal government can provide significant pan-Canadian assistance by investing in residential care infrastructure models.
# of jobs contributions
Capitalinvestment phase Operation phase 14,600 58,300 $1.4 billion $5.3 billion
With indirect contributions 130,000 $12.4 billion
The CMA recommends that the federal government provide targeted funding to support the development of a pan-Canadian seniors strategy to address the needs of the aging population.
The CMA recommends that the federal government include capital investment in residential care infrastructure, including retrofit and renovation, as part of its commitment to invest in social infrastructure.
Caregivers are the backbone of any care system. A 2012 Statistics Canada study found that 5.4 million Canadians provided care to a senior family member or friend. While this care was most often received by a senior in their own residence, 62% of caregivers said the care recipients lived in a home separate from the caregiver’s home.16 Age-related needs are the most common reason for care requirements.17 Caregivers are of all ages; for instance, 27% of caregivers were between the ages of 15 and 29 years.18 One study has forecast that the number of Canadians requiring care will double over the next 30 years.19
Work $5.5 in lost absence: productivity
Personal upwards of or more out-of-a yearpocket: $2,000
A Statistics Canada study found that 56% of caregivers living with the care recipient provided at least 10 hours of care a week. Approximately 22% of caregivers helping a resident in a care facility also provided at least 10 hours of care a week. The chief condition for which care was provided was dementia or Alzheimer’s disease (25%).16
The cost to employers in lost productivity because of caregiving-related absenteeism is estimated at $5.5 billion annually.20 Caregivers also report high out-of-pocket expenses. This is especially true for those living with the care recipient: over 25% spend at least $2,000 annually on out-of-pocket expenses.16
Caregivers require a range of supports including education/training, peer support, respite care and financial assistance. Canadians want governments to do more to help seniors and their family caregivers.21 The federal government’s new combined Canada Caregiver Credit (CCC) is a nonrefundable credit to individuals caring for dependent relatives with infirmities (including persons with disabilities). The CCC will be more accessible and will extend tax relief to more caregivers by including dependent relatives who do not live with their caregivers and by increasing the income threshold.
Notwithstanding these changes and the greater flexibility for caregivers to use Employment Insurance benefits, caregivers will require more support. The CMA recommends making the new CCC a refundable tax credit for caregivers whose tax owing is less than the total credit, resulting in a refund payment to provide further financial support for low-income families.
The CMA recommends that the federal government improve awareness of the new Canada Caregiver Credit and amend it to make it a refundable tax credit for caregivers.
The federal government’s commitment to provide $6 billion over 10 years to the provinces and territories for home care, including support for caregivers, is a welcomed step toward improving opportunities for seniors to remain in their homes. As with previous bilateral funding agreements, it will be important to establish clear operating principles between the parties to oversee the funding implementation including support for caregivers.
The CMA recommends that the federal government develop explicit operating principles for the home care funding that has been negotiated with the provinces and territories to recognize funding for caregivers and respite care as eligible areas of investment.
The federal government’s recent funding investment in home care and mental health is a recognition that Canada has under-invested in home and community-based care to date. Other countries have more supportive systems and programs in place — systems and programs that Canada should consider.
The CMA recommends the federal government convene an all-party parliamentary international study that includes stakeholders to examine the approaches taken to mitigate the inappropriate use of acute care for elderly persons and provide support for caregivers.
he CMA recognizes the federal government’s commitment to help Canadians be as productive as possible in their workplaces and in their communities. Implementing these recommendations as an integrated package is essential to stitching together the elements of community-based and residential care for seniors. In addition to making a meaningful contribution to meeting the future care needs of Canada’s aging population, these recommendations will mitigate the impacts of economic pressures on individuals as well as jurisdictions. The CMA would welcome the opportunity to provide further information and its rationale for each recommendation.
Simpson C. Code Gridlock: Why Canada needs a national seniors strategy. Address to the Canadian Club of Ottawa by Dr. Christopher Simpson, President, Canadian Medical Association; 2014 Nov. 18; Ottawa, Ontario. Available: https://www.cma.ca/En/Lists/Medias/Code_Gridlock_ final.pdf (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Seniors and alternate level of care: building on our knowledge. Ottawa: The Institute; 2012 Nov. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/ free_products/ALC_AIB_EN.pdf (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
3 Access to Care, Cancer Care Ontario. Alternate level of care (ALC) [Prepared for the Ontario Hospital Association]. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association (OHA); 2016 May.
4 McCloskey R, Jarrett P, Stewart C, et al. Alternate level of care patients in hospitals: What does dementia have to do with this? Can Geriatr J. 2014 Sep 5;17(3):88–94.
5 North East Local Health Integration Network. HOME First shifts care of seniors to HOME. LHINfo Minute, Northeastern Ontario Health Care Update. Sudbury: The Network; 2011. Cited by Home Care Ontario. Facts & figures - publicly funded home care. Hamilton: Home Care Ontario; 2017 Jun. Available: http://www. homecareontario.ca/home-care-services/facts-figures/ publiclyfundedhomecare (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
6 Sponagle J. Nunavut struggles to care for elders closer to home. CBC News. 2017 Jun 5. Available: http://www.cbc. ca/news/canada/north/nunavut-seniors-plan-1.4145757 (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
7 Health Quality Ontario. Wait times for long-term care homes. Toronto: Health Quality Ontario; 2017. Available: http://www.hqontario.ca/System-Performance/Long
Term-Care-Home-Performance/Wait-Times (accessed 2017 Jun 22).
8 Alzheimer Society Canada. The Canadian Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia Partnership: a collective vision for a national dementia strategy for Canada. Toronto: Alzheimer Society Canada; undated. Available: http:// www.alzheimer.ca/~/media/Files/national/Advocacy/ CADDP_Strategic_Objectives_e.pdf (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
9 Public Health Agency of Canada. The Chief Public Health Officer’s report on the state of public health in Canada, 2014: public health in the future. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2014. Available: https://www.canada. ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/ cphorsphc-respcacsp/2014/assets/pdf/2014-eng.pdf (accessed 2016 Sep 19).
10 Statistics Canada. Population projections: Canada, the provinces and territories, 2013 to 2063. The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2014 Sep 17. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140917/ dq140917a-eng.htm (accessed 2016 Sep 19).
11 The Conference Board of Canada. A cost-benefit analysis of meeting the demand for long-term care beds. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada; forthcoming.
12 Lazurko M, Hearn B. Canadian continuing care scenarios 1999–2041. KPMG final project report to FPT Advisory Committee on Health Services. Ottawa: KPMG; 2000. Cited by Canadian Healthcare Association. New directions for facility-based long-term care. Ottawa: The Association; 2009. Available: https://www.advantageontario.ca/ oanhssdocs/Issue_Positions/External_Resources/ Sept2009_New_Directions_for_Facility_Based_LTC.pdf (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
13 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Seniors in transition: exploring pathways across the care continuum. Ottawa: The Institute; 2017. Available: https://www.cihi. ca/sites/default/files/document/seniors-in-transition
report-2017-en.pdf (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
14 Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Getting ready: for a new generation of active seniors. First interim report. Ottawa: The Senate; 2017 Jun. Available: https:// sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/NFFN/Reports/ NFFN_Final19th_Aging_e.pdf (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
15 Canadian Medical Association. Demand a plan. Ottawa: The Association; 2017. Available: http://www.demandaplan.ca/ (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
16 Turcotte M, Sawaya C. Senior care: differences by type of housing. Insights on Canadian society. Cat. No. 75-006
X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2015 Feb 25. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/ article/14142-eng.pdf (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
17 Sinha M. Portrait of caregivers, 2012. Spotlight on Canadians: results from the General Social Survey. Cat. No. 89-652-X – No. 001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2013 Sep. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652
x/89-652-x2013001-eng.htm (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
18 Bleakney A. Young Canadians providing care. Spotlight on Canadians: results from the General Social Survey. Cat. No. 89-652-X – No. 003. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2014 Sep. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652
x/89-652-x2014003-eng.htm (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
19 Carrière Y, Keefe J, Légaré J, et al. Projecting the future availability of the informal support network of the elderly population and assessing its impact on home care services. Demography Division Research Paper Cat. No. 91F0015M – No. 009. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2008. Available: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/ statcan/91F0015M/91f0015m2008009-eng.pdf (accessed 2017 Jun 30).
20 Ceridian Canada. Double duty: the caregiving crisis in the workplace [Blog post]. Ottawa: Ceridian Canada, 2015 Nov 5. Available: http://www.ceridian.ca/blog/2015/11/ double-duty-the-caregiving-crisis-in-the-workplace/ (accessed 2016 Sep 22).
21 Ipsos Public Affairs, HealthCareCAN, National Health Leadership Conference. National Health Leadership Conference report. Toronto: Ipsos Public Affairs; 2016 Jun 6. Available: http://www.nhlc-cnls.ca/assets/2016%20 Ottawa/NHLCIpsosReportJune1.pdf (accessed 2016 Jun 6).
Re: Standing Committee on Health’s study on violence faced by healthcare workers
Dear Mr. Casey:
I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) to submit recommendations for
consideration by the Standing Committee on Health (the Committee) as part of the study on violence
faced by healthcare workers.
The CMA is deeply concerned with the state of workplace safety in all health care settings, including
hospitals, long-term care, and home care settings. As in all experiences of violence, it is
unacceptable for healthcare workers to be victims of violence in the provision of care to patients.
While there is limited data nationally to understand the incidence of violence against healthcare
workers, anecdotal evidence suggests that these experiences are increasing in frequency and severity.
A 2010 survey of members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada shockingly found that, in
the previous month, nearly one-third of respondents had been exposed to some form of aggressive
behaviour from a patient (90%) or patient’s family (70%). The study concluded that “Canadian family
physicians in active practice are subjected to regular abuse from their patients or family members of
These concerns were brought to the CMA’s General Council in 2015, where our members passed a
resolution calling for:
“the federal government to amend the Criminal Code by making it a specific criminal offence to
assault health care providers performing their duties.”
The CMA is prioritizing initiatives that support physician health and wellness. Increasingly, there is a
recognition of the role of the workplace, primarily health care settings, and safe working conditions as
having an important influence of physician health and wellness.
1 Miedema BB, Hamilton R, Tatemichi S et al. Monthly incidence rates of abusive encounters for Canadian family physicians by patients and their families. Int J Family
Med. 2010; 2010: 387202. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3275928/pdf/IJFM2010-387202.pdf (accessed 2019 May 9).
Mr. Bill Casey
Addressing violence against providers in healthcare settings will require action from both federal and
provincial/territorial governments. In light of the above, the CMA respectfully submits the following
recommendations for consideration by the Committee in its study on violence against healthcare
1) The CMA recommends that the Committee on Health support the call to amend the Criminal
Code of Canada to introduce a new criminal offence for assault against a healthcare
provider performing their duty.
2) The CMA recommends that the Committee on Health support establishing monitoring of
violence against healthcare workers, that is consistent across jurisdictions, and have an active
role in responding appropriately to trends.
3) The CMA recommends that the Committee on Health support federal leadership in a pan-
Canadian approach to support workplace safety in healthcare settings, including
collaborating with the provinces and territories to improve violence prevention.
Finally, the CMA welcomes and supports the petition recently tabled in the House of Commons by
Dr. Doug Eyolfson, calling for the Minister of Health “to develop a pan-Canadian prevention strategy
to address growing incidents of violence against health care workers.”
In closing, the CMA is encouraged that the Committee is undertaking this study. I look forward to the
Committee’s report on this topic and the opportunity to collaborate on federal and
provincial/territorial action in this matter.
F. Gigi Osler, BScMed, MD, FRCSC
c.c.: Marilyn Gladu, M.P., Vice Chair, Standing Committee on Health
Don Davies, M.P., Vice Chair Standing Committee on Health