Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


13 records – page 1 of 2.

CMA response to patented medicines regulations consultations

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13690
Date
2017-06-28
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-06-28
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
To Whom It May Concern: The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide its comments with respect to Health Canada’s Patented Medicines Regulations Consultations. The CMA is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Founded in 1867, the CMA’s mission is helping physicians care for patients. 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. As the second-largest share of total health expenditures in Canada, forecast to be 16% in 2016, the cost of drugs is of significant concern to physicians.1 In 2014, 42.6% of prescribed drug spending ($12.5 billion) came from the public sector.2 Pharmaceuticals play an important role in overcoming disease and maintaining health but access to these drugs can be problematic outside of hospital care due to their cost. This is why the CMA has called for a pan-Canadian system of catastrophic coverage for prescription drugs.3 We viewed this as a step toward the development of comprehensive, universal coverage for prescription medicines in Canada.4 1 CIHI. National Health Expenditure Trends 1975-2016, December 15, 2016 2 Ibid 3 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). A New Vision for Health Care in Canada: Addressing the Needs of an Aging Population. 2016 Pre-budget Submission to the Minister of Finance. Ottawa: The Association; 2016 Feb 12 4 Ibid In its brief to the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry in August, 1984, the CMA stated that we “fully support the objective of providing prescription drugs to patients at the lowest possible cost that is consistent with wise health care delivery.”5 This remains our objective. This submission will address the proposed improvements to the regulations raised in the consultation document from a broad perspective. 5 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Brief to the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry August 15, 1984 6 Gray C. Patented drugs: Is the price right? CMAJ 1998 158:1645 7 Silversides A. Monitoring the price of new drugs CMAJ 2006 174(11):1548-1549 8 The Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry H.C. Eastman, Commissioner. Ottawa Minister of Supply and Services 1985 p. 347 9 Industry Canada. Pharmaceutical industry profile. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/lsg-pdsv.nsf/eng/h_hn01703.html (Accessed 2017 June 20) 10 Morgan SG, Leopold C, Wagner AK. Drivers of expenditures on primary care prescription drugs in 10 high-income countries with universal health coverage. CMAJ 2017;189:E794-9 Economic Considerations The ability of the PMPRB to monitor drug prices has long been the subject of review and concern.6,7 The CMA is pleased that the Government of Canada is undertaking this review to provide the Patented Medicines Prices review Board (PMPRB) with a new regulatory framework to protect Canadians from excessive prices and improving the regulatory process. The board needs to use every economic measure and tool at its disposal to ensure Canadians pay fair and equitable prescription drug prices. As the Eastman Commission pointed out in its 1985 report, “Canadian consumption is a small proportion of world consumption so that Canadian patent policy has little effect on the world-wide profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.”8 Indeed, Canadian pharmaceutical sales represent 2% of the global market which makes us the tenth largest world market.9 Yet our small size with respect to the global market has not shielded us from high prices. For example, a recent study found that although the volume of therapies purchased in Canada across six classes of “primary care medicines” was similar, we paid an estimated $2.3 billion more for them in 2015 than if these treatments had the “same average cost per day in Canada as in the nine comparator countries combined.”10 Prescription medication spending is an issue for many Canadians, especially when it has an impact on compliance with prescription regimes, an unintended consequence of the manner in which the board’s regulatory framework has been applied. 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.11 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.12 11 Schoen 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. 12 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. 13 Vebeeten D, Astiles P, Prada, G. Understanding Health and Social Services for seniors in Canada. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2015. 14 Ibid 15 Ibid 16 Morgan SG, Lee A. Cost-related non-adherence to prescribed medicines among older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of a survey in 11 developed countries BMJ Open 2017;7: e014287. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014287 (access 2017 Jun 16) 17 Zhang R., Martin D., Naylor CD., Regulator or regulatory shield? The case for reforming Canada’s Patented Medicines Prices review Board. CMAJ 2017 April 10;189:E515-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.161355 The CMA is especially worried about the impact high drug costs have on seniors in the absence of universal drug coverage. They have access to some level of drug coverage in all provinces and territories but it is not even.13 Eight provinces have an income-test that determines the deductibles they will pay while in two they pay a small portion of the cost with the province or a third-party insurer covering the rest.14 All three territories have plans for those who qualify but the provisions may be limited.15 A recent study found that older Canadian adults (55 and older) had the second-highest prevalence (8.3%) of cost-related non-adherence (CRNA) for prescribed medications.16 CRNA was higher among those with lower incomes and lower among those over 65. Finally, the CMA remains very concerned about ongoing shortages of prescription drugs. We would caution that whatever measures the government undertakes to strengthen and improve the PMPRB do not exacerbate drug shortages. International Comparisons The PMPRB’s current benchmark “that Canadian prices for patented drugs should be less than the median of prices in selected comparison countries” places us at a distinct disadvantage.17 As the authors note, “it puts Canada well above the OECD average by aligning Canada with countries that spend more from the outset.”18 The PMBRB should expand its range of comparator countries beyond those identified originally (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States) to include those OECD countries with middle to low patent drug pricing.19 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Ibid Furthermore, to ensure that the process is clear and transparent for Canadians, the PMPRB should “set prices closer to what comparator countries actually pay for their drugs as opposed to the “sticker” prices that most commonly represent the starting point for confidential negotiations.”20 Canadians deserve that much after years of paying such high prices for their patented medicines. The CMA is very concerned about the cost of medications. In the absence of universal drug coverage and, at a minimum, a pan-Canadian system of catastrophic coverage of prescription drug costs, a strengthened and robust regulatory framework for the pricing of patented medicines in Canada is crucial. The CMA calls on the federal government to revise the PMPRB regulations such that it provides Canadians with transparency and clarity around the setting of patented medicines prices while achieving the lowest costs possible and ensuring we continue to have access to a wide array of pharmaceutical products. Sincerely, Granger R. Avery, MB BS, FRRMS President
Documents
Less detail

Non-prescription availability of low-dose codeine products

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13734
Date
2017-11-7
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-11-7
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
Submission to the Health Canada consultation on the potential risks, benefits and impacts of changes to the regulations to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would require all products containing codeine to be sold by prescription only The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada's notice as published in the Canada Gazette, Part I1 for interested stakeholders to provide comments on the potential risks, benefits, and impacts of changes to the regulations to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would require all products containing codeine to be sold by prescription only. Codeine is a widely used narcotic analgesic in Canada - low dose formulations are currently sold without a prescription, when in combination with at least two other medications. It is not available for self-selection, but kept behind the counter in pharmacies. However, serious concerns have been raised about the safety of this practice in recent years.2,3,4 A literature review examining over the counter medicine abuse in several countries found that "there is a recognized problem internationally involving a range of medicines and potential harms," including codeine-based medicines.5 Doctors support patients in the management of acute and chronic pain, as well as addictions, and as such we have long been concerned about the harms associated with opioid use, including codeine. Codeine is considered to be "a poor analgesic in its own right," for which there are more suitable alternatives.6 In addition, genetic factors can substantially affect the metabolism of codeine into morphine, resulting in concentrations that vary from person to person. This can lead to potentially serious consequences, even at conventional doses, particularly in children.2 Codeine has the potential for dependence. Studies show an increase in non-therapeutic use of codeine, including over the counter formulations, leading to increases in morbidity and mortality as well as social costs. 7,8,9 An Australian study noted that "codeine-related deaths (with and without other drug toxicity) are increasing as the consumption of codeine-based products increases."10 Ontario data shows that over 500 people began methadone treatment for non-prescription codeine, between 2011 and 2014.3 In addition, over the counter codeine is often combined with acetaminophen or ASA, which also present concerns in terms of toxicity, particularly in higher doses. A review of the process examining the problems related to codeine-based over the counter formulations in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that each of their respective committees had decided, based on the existing evidence, "to minimize harm by using regulatory levers to restrict availability."11 Many European countries have also implemented a prescription-only status for products containing codeine, as well as some U.S. States. Some Canadian hospitals have removed codeine from their formularies, and Manitoba ended the over the counter sales last year12. Given this reality and, as part of the CMA's advocacy to reduce the harms related to opioid use, the CMA supports the requirement that all products containing codeine be sold by prescription only, as this is both a public health and a patient safety issue. Moving codeine to prescription-only will enable limiting its use and closer monitoring of patients with the view of preventing harms.10 A challenge for policy makers and prescribers is to ensure patients still have access to treatments that are appropriate for their clinical conditions.13 At the same time, we recognize that there could be unintended consequences when moving low-dose codeine to prescription-only status, particularly for those who have come to depend on its availability over-the-counter. Some may choose to seek out illicit markets for these products or purchase other, more powerful, narcotics as a substitute. Authorities must develop educational tools to inform people about less-harmful pain-relief options. As well, a reasonable timeframe for implementation of this measure should be given to allow for patients to find appropriate alternatives. The CMA continues to urge governments to increase access to services and treatment options for addiction and pain management, as well as harm reduction.14 1 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: Notice to interested parties - Non-prescription availability of low-dose codeine products. Canada Gazette Part I. 2017 Sep 09, 151(36). Available: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2017/2017-09-09/html/notice-avis-eng.php#ne3 (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 2 MacDonald N, MacLeod SM. Has the time come to phase out codeine? Can Med Assoc J 2010;182(17):1825. Available: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101411 (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 3 Yang J, Zlomislic D. Star investigation: Canada's invisible codeine problem. The Toronto Star. Jan. 17, 2015. Available: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/17/star-investigation-canadas-invisible-codeine-problem.html (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 4 MacKinnon, JIJ. Tighter regulations needed for over-the-counter codeine in Canada. Can Pharm J Rev Pharm Can, 2016;149(6):322-4. Available: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/17/1825 (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 5 Cooper RJ. Over-the-counter medicine abuse - a review of the literature. J Subst Use, 2013 Apr;18(2):82-107. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603170/pdf/JSU-18-82.pdf (accessed: 2017 Oct 23). 6 Vagg M. Four reasons why codeine should not be sold without a prescription. The Conversation. Apr. 30, 2015. Available: http://theconversation.com/four-reasons-why-codeine-should-not-be-sold-without-prescription-41025 (accessed: 2017 Oct 23). 7 Nielsen S, Cameron J, Pahoki S . Over the counter codeine dependence final report 2010. Victoria: Turning Point, 2010. Available: http://atdc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OTC_CODEINE_REPORT.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 8 Fischer B, Ialomiteanu A, Boak A, et al. Prevalence and key covariates of non-medical prescription opioid use among the general secondary student and adult populations in Ontario, Canada. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013;32(3):276-87. 9 Compton WM, Volkow ND. Major increases in opioid analgesic abuse in the United States: concerns and strategies. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006 Feb 01;81(2):103-7. 10Roxburgh A. et. al. Trends and characteristics of accidental and intentional codeine overdose deaths in Australia. Med J Aust 2015; 203(7): 299 11 Tobin CL, Dobbin M, McAvoy B. Regulatory responses to over-the-counter codeine analgesic misuse in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. N Z J Public Health 2013 Oct. 37(5): 483-488. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.12099/abstract (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 12 Zlomislic, D. & Yang, J. The Toronto Star. Jan 12, 2016. Available: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2016/01/13/manitoba-sets-new-rule-limiting-codeine.html (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 13 Canadian Medical Association. Opening Statement addressing the opioid crisis to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: The Association; 2016 Oct. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/hesa-opioid-study-opening-remarks-oct-18-2016-e.pdf (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 14 Canadian Medical Association. Harms Associated with Opioids and Other Psychoactive Prescription Drugs. CMA Policy, 2015. Ottawa: The Association; 2015. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/policies/cma_policy_harms_associated_with_opioids_and_other_psychoactive_prescription_drugs_pd15-06-e.pdf (accessed: 2017 Nov 7).
Documents
Less detail

Excise duty framework for cannabis products

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13799
Date
2017-12-07
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-12-07
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide its comments with respect to the Government of Canada's consultation on the Proposed Excise Duty Framework for Cannabis Products published November 10.1 In the move towards the legalization and regulation of cannabis, there are many economic interests at play; private corporations and different levels of government stand to benefit greatly with sales and considerable tax revenue.2 It is essential that the federal and provincial/territorial governments be held accountable to the public health and safety objectives set out for the new regime for legal access to cannabis, particularly that of protecting children and youth.3 It is fundamental that commercialization is rigorously controlled through taxation, regulation, monitoring and advertising controls. Final pricing must be such as to discourage the illegal production and trafficking of cannabis. However, a balance must be found with the use of taxation and pricing levers to discourage use. Revenues need to be clearly earmarked to cover the health and social costs of legalization. In some U.S. jurisdictions, for example, some of the revenue is directed to recovering the costs of regulatory programs as well as in substance use treatment programs, and for social programs. Most of the future tax revenues should be redistributed to the provinces and territories. This is because they have jurisdiction over services that will likely feel the impact with legalization, such as health care, education, social and other services, as well as enforcement of legislation and regulations. A public health approach to legalization will emphasize prevention, education and treatment initiatives which require adequate and reliable funding. It will also require strong surveillance and monitoring activities to adjust measures should unintended harms be detected. Resources need to be promptly available to address potential negative impacts. CMA recommends that the revenue resulting from the taxation of cannabis production and sales be earmarked to address health and social harms of cannabis use and its commercialization, in line with a public health approach to the legalization of cannabis. The proposal states that "Any cannabis products sold under the proposed Cannabis Act for medical purposes will be subject to the duty rates and conditions of the excise duty framework, which will become applicable as per the transitional rules (...) Cannabis products that are produced by an individual (or a designated person) for the individual's own medical purposes in accordance with the proposed Cannabis Act will not be subject to the excise duty. Seeds and seedlings used in this production will be subject to duty."1 The CMA is supportive of similar taxation treatment of cannabis products, regardless of whether they are used for medical or non-medical purposes. The CMA has long called for more research to better understand potential therapeutic indications of cannabis, as well as its risks.4 5 Physicians recognize that some individuals suffering from terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective may obtain relief with cannabis used for medical purposes. However, clinical evidence of medical benefits is limited and there is very limited guidance for the therapeutic use, including indications, potency, interactions with medications and adverse effects. Health Canada does not approve of cannabis as a medicine, as it has not gone through the approvals required by the regulatory process to be a pharmaceutical. It is important that there be support for cannabis research in order to develop products that can be held to pharmaceutical standards, as is the case with dronabinol (Marinol(r)), nabilone (Cesamet(r)) and THC/CBD (Sativex(r)). The experience of legalization for non-medical use in Colorado and Washington has shown that two separate regimes with distinct regulations can be very difficult to enforce given the different standards.6 A lower tax rate on cannabis for medical use could potentially provide an incentive for people to seek a medical authorization, and that was observed initially in Colorado.7 The CMA recommends that the same tax rates be applied to the production and sales of both the medical and the non-medical use of cannabis products. The move towards the legalization and regulation of cannabis will require a balanced approach to discourage the illegal production and trafficking of cannabis while also using taxation and pricing levers to discourage use. Much of the revenues raised should be redistributed to the provinces and territories to enable them to cover the health and social costs of legalization. A public health approach to legalization will emphasize prevention, education, treatment and surveillance initiatives which requires adequate and reliable funding. 1 Department of Finance Canada. Proposed excise duty framework for cannabis products. Ottawa: Department of Finance Canada; 2017. Available: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n17/data/17-114_1-eng.asp (accessed 2017 Dec 05). 2 Sen A, Wyonch R. Don't (over) tax that joint, my friend. Intelligence MEMOS. Ottawa: CD Howe Institute; 2017 Jul 19. Available: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/blog_Anindya%20and%20Rosalie_0719.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 06). 3 Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Ministry of Health. Toward the legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. Discussion paper. Ottawa: Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat; 2016. Available: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 05). 4 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). A public health perspective on cannabis and other illegal drugs. CMA Submission to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa: CMA; 2002. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/cannabis.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 05). 5 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Medical Marijuana. CMA Policy. Ottawa: CMA; 2011. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/PD11-02-e.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 05). 6 Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA). Cannabis regulation: Lessons learned in Colorado and Washington State. Ottawa: CCSA; 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 05). 7 Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Legalized cannabis: Fiscal considerations. Ottawa: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer; 2016. Available: http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2016/Legalized%20Cannabis/Legalized%20Canabis%20Fiscal%20Considerations_EN.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 05).
Documents
Less detail

Consultation on the renewal of Federal Tobacco Control Strategy

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13804
Date
2017-04-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-04-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
On behalf of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), I am responding to your request for consultation on renewal of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) and on the consultation document: “Seizing the Opportunity: The Future of Tobacco Control in Canada.” We are pleased that Health Canada is renewing the FTCS. 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. The decrease is welcome news but much more needs to be done to ensure the decline continues. We support the Endgame Summit’s goal of less than 5% tobacco use by 2035. It must be recognized that specific sub-populations, such as Indigenous populations, will require different targets along with prevalence reduction goals that recognize their unique circumstances and needs. Tobacco has ceremonial significance among Indigenous peoples; the harm associated with tobacco arises not from its ceremonial use but from its daily, repeated abuse. As the Summit suggests a renewed strategy must go beyond the traditional approaches of incremental stricter measures by focussing on the activities of the tobacco industry while offering more assistance to those affected by tobacco products. The whole-of-government approach recommended by the Summit and the framework it proposes are essential for the success of the strategy in the long-term. The CMA believes that despite the reduction in smoking rates, tobacco control remains a priority and should continue to be supported by a sustained, well-funded federal strategy and strong leadership and support from Health Canada, including a coordinated, comprehensive national cessation strategy. We recommend that the next version of the FTCS make the following initiatives a priority: . Pricing There is abundant evidence that high prices are crucial to discouraging tobacco use, especially among young people who are particularly sensitive to price increases. The Summit’s recommendation of a joint pricing strategy developed by Health Canada and Finance Canada that combines substantial excise tax increases and other measures will be key in that regard. As in reducing prevalence, pricing strategies that recognize the unique circumstances and needs of specific sub-populations will need to be developed. . Plain and Standardized Tobacco Packaging The CMA recommends only the “slide-and-shell” style of package be authorized and that the “flip-top” package be removed. This would reduce the permitted style to one standard package and allow for the largest possible surface area to be used to convey health warnings and other health-related information. The CMA also supports a single allowable length of cigarette and that a minimum diameter or width be established. The purpose is to eliminate the sale of “slims” and “super slims” cigarettes to eliminate the possibility of these products as being considered “healthier.” . Retailing The CMA recommends tightening the licensing system to limit the number of outlets where tobacco products can be purchased. The more restricted is tobacco availability, the easier it is to regulate. . Age of sale The CMA supports continued health promotion and social marketing programs aimed at addressing the reasons why young people use tobacco, preventing them from starting to use tobacco and encouraging them to quit, and raising their awareness of tobacco industry marketing tactics so that they can recognize and counteract them. The CMA supports raising the minimum age of sale to 21 years. . Promotion Tobacco manufacturers make frequent use of subtle marketing messages to render smoking attractive and glamorous to young people. The CMA supports educational and public relations initiatives aimed at countering these messages. For example, movie classification systems should restrict access by children and youth to films that portray tobacco use and tobacco product placement. The CMA also supports a total ban on promotion, including tobacco-branded tobacco accessories and non-tobacco products. . Industry interference The CMA supports the Endgame Summit’s recommendations with respect to preventing the tobacco industry’s interference with health policy (i.e., Article 5.3 Guidelines to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). It is the CMA’s position that the federal government has a vital role to play in smoking cessation. A fully funded and resourced tobacco control strategy that meets the challenges of the 21st century will help accomplish that goal. Sincerely, Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC Vice-president, Medical Professionalism
Documents
Less detail

Federal Monitoring and Reporting Regime for MAID

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13853
Date
2017-05-15
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-05-15
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
Substantive recommendations 1. Protection and disclosure of the information This is a foundational component of any regulatory framework for both practitioners and patients/requestors. The CMA recommends placing greater emphasis on the protection of privacy by a. conducting a privacy impact assessment, with input from the Federal Privacy Commissioner (if that hasn't already been done). b. requiring, as part of the regulations, privacy/data sharing agreements in instances when o data is shared to meet the objectives outlined (p. 2); and o information collected under the framework will be made available to designated provincial and territorial government bodies for their use (p. 3). This is particularly important given that this involves the collection of identifiable (private) information about practitioners and patients/requestors. c. using aggregate data where applicable. d. providing greater detail on how the "Rigorous protection of all personal information (patient and practitioner) will be a paramount feature of the monitoring regime" - such detail is essential even in the preliminary stages of developing a monitoring and reporting system. 2. Further specification of what constitutes a request As is currently stated, what constitutes a request is not sufficiently defined, i.e., what constitutes a "written request"? Is any written request a request? What about for those who can't (or who can no longer) write? Further specifying what constitutes a request is especially important since the practitioner has to document the circumstances of the request in every instance, including where follow-up is required and a report has to be filed as part of a follow-up. 3. Timeframe A timeframe of 10 days to file a report is alarmingly short. It is commonly known that physicians already feel burdened by paperwork and it is highly likely that they would find it nearly impossible to meet this requirement. This could conceivably deter physicians from choosing to provide assistance in dying or participate in an assessment under threat of criminal sanction, potentially significantly impacting patient access. Procedural recommendations 4. Inegibility Information required for this category includes "results of the eligibility assessment". It should be required to explicitly include reasons why the patient/requestor was deemed ineligible. 5. MAiD self-administered a. The application of safeguards should be a specific category requiring reporting (and not simply used an example). b. To assess (in)consistency of emerging practices and the variability of provincial legislative or regulatory requirements, it would be worthwhile to require stating whether the practitioner was present during the self-administration. 6. Coroners and medical examiners When the monitoring regime (periodically) requests information from Chief Coroners or Medical Examiners: To assess (in)consistency of emerging practices and the variability of provincial legislative or regulatory requirements, it would be worthwhile to gather data on who completes the death certificate and the information included on the death certificate.
Documents
Less detail

Regulatory framework for the mandatory reporting of adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents by provincial and territorial healthcare institutions.

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11814
Date
2016-01-20
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-01-20
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Health care and patient safety
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada’s consultation document Questions related to Mandatory Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Provincial and Territorial Healthcare Institutions. Prescription medication has an important role as part of a high-quality, patient-centred and cost-effective health care system. Prescription medication can prevent serious disease, reduce the need for hospital stays, replace surgical treatment and improve a patient’s capacity to function productively in the community. In consideration of this important role, the CMA has developed a substantial body of policy on pharmaceutical issues which includes policy on Canada’s post-approval surveillance system for prescription medication. It is a priority to physicians that all Canadians have access to medically-necessary drugs that are safe, effective, affordable, appropriately prescribed and administered, as part of a comprehensive, patient-centered health care and treatment plan. The CMA welcomes Health Canada’s consultation on the new legislative authority established by Vanessa’s Law to implement mandatory reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) and medical device incidents by provincial and territorial healthcare institutions. The CMA appreciates all opportunities to work with governments, health care professionals and the public in strengthening Canada’s post-approval surveillance system and ensuring that the prescription drugs Canadians receive are safe and effective. The CMA’s submission is organized in three main sections. In the first section, the CMA’s concerns with the current ADR reporting system are identified as critical context for this regulatory development process. The second section provides an overview of the CMA’s recommendations on necessary improvements to this system. Finally, the CMA’s responses to the questions outlined in Health Canada’s discussion document are presented in the third section. Part 1: Context of CMA’s Recommendevices with which they have a concern, and also for research purposes.
Documents
Less detail

Consultation on the prescription drug list: Naloxone

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11847
Date
2016-03-17
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
CMA Response: Consultation on the Prescription Drug List
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-03-17
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide comment on the proposal by Health Canada1 to revise the listing for naloxone on the Prescription Drug List (PDL) to allow the non-prescription use of naloxone, "when indicated for emergency use for opioid overdose outside hospital settings". The CMA has over 83,000 physician-members. Its mission is helping physicians care for patients and its vision is to be the leader in engaging and serving physicians, and the national voice for the highest standards for health and health care. The harms associated with opioids, which include prescription medicines such as oxycodone, hydromorphone and fentanyl, as well as illegal drugs such as heroin, is a significant public health and patient safety issue. Harms include addiction, diversion, overdose and death. According to 2013 estimates2, Canada has one of the highest per capita consumptions of prescription opioids in the world. In North America, about 5% of the adult population, and substantially higher rates for teens and young adults, reported non-medical opioid use in the previous year. This rate is higher than all other illegal drugs, with the exception of marijuana.3 Data on the harms caused by opioids are not collected systematically in Canada; however, practitioners have seen the significant impact of these drugs on their patients and to whole communities, including indigenous peoples. Opioid addiction rates from 43% to 85% have been reported in some indigenous communities.4 5 In Ontario, according to the Office of the Chief Coroner, opioid-related deaths nearly tripled from 2002 to 2010.6 Canada's physicians believe that Canada needs a comprehensive national strategy to address the harms associated with psychoactive drugs, whether illegal or prescription-based.7 One component of this strategy is the prevention of overdose deaths and complications with appropriate medication and prompt emergency response. For over four decades, naloxone (or Narcan(r)) has been used as a prescription drug for the complete or partial reversal of opioid overdoses. Naloxone counteracts the life-threatening depression of the central nervous system and respiratory system, allowing an overdose victim to breathe normally. The World Health Organization placed naloxone on its list of essential medications in 1983. Physicians have been encouraged to identify patients who could benefit from the co-prescription of naloxone, along with opioids, when these are necessary. Increased risk for opioid overdose includes previous episodes of overdose, history of substance use disorder, higher opioid dosages, or concurrent benzodiazepine use.8 9 More recently, with the increase in opioid overdoses, different provinces have created programs to increase access to naloxone outside of health care settings, such as "take-home naloxone programs". The experience in Canada and in other countries has been shown to have various benefits, including reducing overdose deaths.10 11 In Canada, naloxone has been administered through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection in these community-based programs, but in other countries it has also been available in a nasal spray form or in a pre-filled auto-injector format. Those that receive the naloxone kit are trained in the recognition of signs and symptoms of opioid overdose, in the administration of naloxone and first aid and in the need to call for medical follow-up. In its 2015 policy on Harms associated with Opioids and other Psychoactive Prescription Drugs, the CMA supports the improvement of access to naloxone, particularly by individuals who are at a high risk of overdose as well as third parties who can assist a person experiencing an opiate-related overdose. The CMA also encourages the creation and scaling up of community-based programs that offer access to naloxone and other opioid overdose prevention tools and services. This would include training for health workers, first responders, as well as opioid users, families and peers about the prevention of overdose fatalities.12 Also in 2015, the CMA approved a resolution supporting "the development and implementation of a national strategy on the use of naloxone".13 A report issued by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Health Organization supports making naloxone available to first responders as well as to people dependent on opioids, their peers and family members who are likely to be present when an overdose occurs.14 Many other organizations, such as the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association, are also supportive of enhanced access to naloxone in the community.15 16 17 The prescription status has been one of the barriers to increased access to naloxone. It is more likely that a family member, partner or friend would need to administer the naloxone in an overdose than the person who is prescribed the drug. Community-based programs have had to work with standing orders from prescribers. First responders, such as police officers and firefighters, should be able to carry and administer the drug, given they are often the first professionals to arrive at a scene where someone has overdosed. According to Health Canada, the provinces and territories have collectively asked that the prescription status be re-evaluated. Health Canada has undertaken a Benefit-Harm-Uncertainty assessment of naloxone, and come to the following conclusions: This assessment recommended that naloxone could safely be administered without the direct supervision of a physician if the person administering the drug has appropriate training. The main risks associated with the unsupervised use of the drug are: * the administrator may have difficulty filling the syringe and administering the drug under pressure in an emergency situation; * the administrator may not seek professional care for follow-up of the patient after injection; * chance of the patient relapsing since the effects of naloxone may only last for up to one hour depending on amount and type of opioid causing the overdose; * that the patient may become very agitated and aggressive after coming out of the opioid depression (Acute Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome). These risks can be mitigated with appropriate training of the potential administrator before naloxone is distributed. The benefit of quickly responding to an overdose far outweighed these risks. Evidence from provincial take-home programs indicates that naloxone can be administered (intramuscularly or subcutaneously) by a layperson and its effects monitored successfully without practitioner supervision. Although an opioid overdose might be mistakenly diagnosed by a layperson, the injection of naloxone in a person not overdosing on an opioid will cause no serious harm.18 Various jurisdictions have delisted or are studying special conditions for the status of naloxone as a prescription drug, including Italy and some U.S. States.19 The CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on this important matter to physicians, and congratulates Health Canada in taking the initiative to make naloxone more accessible in the community; thereby helping to address the concerning levels of opioid overdoses in Canada. CMA Recommendations: That Health Canada proceed with the revisions to the listing for naloxone on the Prescription Drug List, to allow the non-prescription use of naloxone when indicated for emergency use for opioid overdose outside hospital settings. As outlined in Health Canada's assessment, the potential risks can be mitigated by well-designed community-based programs. That Health Canada assess the option of licensing naloxone products that don't require training for intramuscular or subcutaneous injection, such as nasal sprays or automated handheld injectors (similar to epinephrine auto-injectors for use in serious allergic reactions), in order to further increase accessibility. References 1 Health Canada. Consultation on the Prescription Drug List: Naloxone. File number: 16-100479-342. January 14 2016. Ottawa. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/consultation/drug-medic/pdl_ldo_consult_naloxone-eng.php (accessed 2016 March 17). 2 International Narcotics Control Board. Narcotics drugs: estimated world requirements for 2013; statistics for 2011. New York: United Nations; 2013. Available: https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-Publications/2012/NDR_2012_Annex_2_EFS.pdf (accessed 2016 March 17). 3 Fischer B, Keates A, Buhringer G, et al. Non-medical use of prescription opioids and prescription opioid-related harms: why so markedly higher in North America compared to the rest of the world? Addiction. 2013;109:177-81. 4 Chiefs of Ontario. Prescription drug abuse strategy: 'Take a stand.' Final report. Toronto: Chiefs of Ontario; 2010. Available: www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/files/Final%20Draft%20Prescription%20Drug%20Abuse%20Strategy.pdf (accessed 2016 March 17). 5 Health Canada. Honouring our strengths: a renewed framework to address substance use issues among First Nations people in Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2011. Available: http://nnadaprenewal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Honouring-Our-Strengths-2011_Eng1.pdf (accessed 2016 March 17). 6 National Advisory Council on Prescription Drug Misuse. First do no harm: responding to Canada's prescription drug crisis. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2013. 7 Canadian Medical Association. Policy Document PD15-06 - Harms associated with opioids and other psychoactive prescriptions drugs. Ottawa: The Author; 2015. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/policies/cma_policy_harms_associated_with_opioids_and_other_psychoactive_prescription_drugs_pd15-06-e.pdf (accessed 2016-March 17). 8 National Opioid Use Guideline Group. Canadian guideline for safe and effective use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2010. Available: http://nationalpaincentre.mcmaster.ca/opioid/ (accessed 2016 March 17). 9 Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain-United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(RR-1):1-49. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/rr/rr6501e1er.htm?s_cid=rr6501e1er_w (accessed 2016 March 17). 10 Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: Interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f174. Available: http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/346/bmj.f174.full.pdf (accessed 2016 March 17). 11 Banjo, O, Tzemis, D, Al-Outub, D, et al. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the British Columbia Take Home Naloxone program. CMAJ Open, August 21, 2014;2(3) E153-E161. Available: http://cmajopen.ca/content/2/3/E153.full (accessed 2016 March 17). 12 Carter CI, Graham B. Opioid overdose prevention & response in Canada. Policy brief series. Vancouver: Canadian Drug Policy Coalition; 2013. Available: http://drugpolicy.ca/solutions/publications/opioid-overdose-prevention-and-response-in-canada/ (accessed 2016 March 17). 13 Canadian Medical Association. Policy Resolution GC15-18 - National strategy on the use of naloxone. Ottawa: The Author; 2015. Available: policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm (accessed 2016 March 17). 14 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime / World Health Organization Opioid overdose: preventing and reducing opioid overdose mortality. Discussion Paper UNODC/WHO 2013. Available: http://www.unodc.org/docs/treatment/overdose.pdf (accessed 2016 March 17). 15 American Medical Association. AMA adopts new policies at annual meeting. Press Release. New York, NY: Reuters; June 19, 2012. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS182652+19-Jun-2012+GNW20120619 (accessed 2016 March 17). 16 Drug Policy Alliance. American Public Health Association Policy Statement on Preventing Overdose Through Education and Naloxone Distribution. New York, NY: Drug Policy Alliance; October 30, 2012. Available: http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/american-public-health-association-policy-statement-preventing-overdose-through-education-a (accessed 2016 March 17). 17 Canadian Pharmacists Association. CPhA Welcomes Health Canada Move to Change Prescription Status of Naloxone. News Release. January 14, 2016. Available: https://www.pharmacists.ca/news-events/news/cpha-welcomes-health-canada-move-to-change-prescription-status-of-naloxone/ (accessed 2016 March 17). 18 Health Canada. Consultation on the Prescription Drug List: Naloxone. File number: 16-100479-342. January 14 2016. Ottawa. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/consultation/drug-medic/pdl_ldo_consult_naloxone-eng.php (accessed 2016 March 17). 19 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime / World Health Organization Opioid overdose: preventing and reducing opioid overdose mortality. Discussion Paper UNODC/WHO 2013. Available: http://www.unodc.org/docs/treatment/overdose.pdf (accessed 2016 March 17).
Documents
Less detail

Legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11954
Date
2016-08-29
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-08-29
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to make this submission in response to the consultation led by the federal Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, which has the objective of providing advice to the government on the design of a new framework for marijuana for non-medical, or recreational, purposes. 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. The CMA has over 83,000 physician-members. Its mission is helping physicians care for patients and its vision is to be the leader in engaging and serving physicians, and the national voice for the highest standards for health and health care. 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. The Government of Canada has made a commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to marijuana in response to the high rates of marijuana use among Canadians, particularly youtha 1 2, despite its current illegal status. The existing approach to drugs has resulted in high rates of criminal records for non-violent drug offences each yearb 3, affecting disadvantaged groups disproportionately. Organized crime is supported by these high levels of use. This situation has resulted in considerable harm to society. a Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal substance in Canada. 43% of Canadians claim to have used marijuana at some point in their life, despite almost a century of prohibition. Canadian youth has the highest rate of marijuana use among 29 developed countries. Almost a quarter of the population aged 15 to 24 years reported past-year use. b According to a Stats Canada report, there were 73 thousand marijuana-related criminal offences (67% of all police-reported drug offences) in 2013. 1 Rotermann M, Langlois, K. Prevalence and correlates of marijuana use in Canada, 2012. Health Reports. 2015 Apr;26(4):10-5. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015004/article/14158-eng.pdf (accessed August 12, 2016). 2 UNICEF Office of Research. Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research; 2013. Available: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf (accessed August 12, 2016). 3 Cotter A, Greenland J, Karam M. Drug-Related Offences in Canada, 2013. Juristat. 2015 Jun 25;1-38. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14201-eng.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 11). 4 Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Ministry of Health. Toward the legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. Discussion paper. Ottawa: Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat; 2016. Available: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf (accessed July 25, 2016). 5 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health risks and harms associated with the use of marijuana. CMA Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Brief-Marijuana-Health_Committee_May27-2014-FINAL.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 12). Public opinion in Canada and internationally has risen steadily in support of the removal of criminal sanctions for simple marijuana possession, as well as for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. The federal Task Force has developed a discussion paper, Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana4, which includes the following objectives for the new regime for legal access to marijuana:
Protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth;
Keep profits out of the hands of criminals, particularly organized crime;
Reduce the burdens on police and the justice system associated with simple possession of marijuana offences;
Prevent Canadians from entering the criminal justice system and receiving criminal records for simple marijuana possession offences;
Protect public health and safety by strengthening, where appropriate, laws and enforcement measures that deter and punish more serious marijuana offences, particularly selling and distributing to children and youth, selling outside of the regulatory framework, and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana;
Ensure Canadians are well-informed through sustained and appropriate public health campaigns, and, for youth in particular, ensure that risks are understood;
Establish and enforce a system of strict production, distribution and sales, taking a public health approach, with regulation of quality and safety (e.g., child-proof packaging, warning labels), restriction of access, and application of taxes, with programmatic support for addiction treatment, mental health support and education programs;
Continue to provide access to quality-controlled marijuana for medical purposes consistent with federal policy and Court decisions; and
Conduct ongoing data collection, including gathering baseline data, to monitor the impact of the new framework. Context The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in its smoked form.5 6 Children and youth are especially at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development. 6 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). A public health perspective on cannabis and other illegal drugs. CMA Submission to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2002. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/BriefPDF/BR2002-08.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 7 Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 5;370(23):2219–2227. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/pdf/nihms762992.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 8 Wilkinson ST, Yarnell S, Radhakrishnan R, Ball SA, D'Souza DC. Marijuana Legalization: Impact on Physicians and Public Health. Annu Rev Med. 2016 Jan 14;67:453-466. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-050214-013454. (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 9 World Health Organization (WHO). Management of substance abuse: Cannabis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/ (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 10 Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. The Lancet, 2009 Oct 23;374(9698):1383-91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61037-0. (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 11 Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health, 2012. The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2013 Sep 18. Component of Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X. p. 1-2. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130918/dq130918a-eng.htm (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 12 Shenfeld A. Growing Their Own Revenue: The Fiscal Impacts of Cannabis Legalization. Economic Insights. Toronto: CIBC World Markets Inc.; 2016 Jan 28. p. 7-8. Available: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/eijan16.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 11). 13 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Cannabis Regulation: Lessons Learned In Colorado and Washington State. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 14 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Marijuana for Non-Therapeutic Purposes: Policy Considerations. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2014. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Non-Therapeutic-Marijuana-Policy-Brief-2014-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 15 Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014. Denver (CO): Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 2015. Available: http://www2.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/he1282m332015internet/he1282m332015internet01.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 16 Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy. Pathways Report: Policy Options for Regulating Marijuana in California. Denver (CO): Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy; 2015. Available: https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BRCPathwaysReport.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 17 Walsh J, Ramsey G. Uruguay’s Drug Policy: Major Innovations, Major Challenges. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution, Washington Office on Latin America; 2015. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Walsh-Uruguay-final.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 18 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2014. Available: http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/documents/camhcannabispolicyframework.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 10). Our understanding of the health effects of marijuana continues to evolve. c 7 8 9 Marijuana use is linked to several adverse health outcomes, including addiction, cardiovascular and pulmonary effects (e.g., chronic bronchitis), mental illness, and other problems, including cognitive impairment and reduced educational attainment. There seems to be an increased risk of chronic psychosis disorders, including schizophrenia, in persons with a predisposition to such disorders. The use of high potency products, higher frequency of use and early initiation are predictors of worse health outcomes. c Unlike pharmaceuticals, marijuana is a complex combination of more than 100 different chemicals. The main psychoactive component is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), but other components, such as cannabidiol (CBD), also act on the central nervous system and may modify the effects of THC. The concentration of these compounds can vary substantially, making it difficult to characterize the specific positive or negative health effects of marijuana, especially in uncontrolled and epidemiological studies. As well, the average content of THC in marijuana has increased substantially in the last 30 years. For these and other reasons, research and attribution of harm and benefit are challenging. d Similar estimates for other substances are 15% for alcohol, 23% for heroin and 32% for nicotine. e Abuse is characterized by a pattern of recurrent use where at least one of the following occurs: failure to fulfill major roles at work, school or home, use in physically hazardous situations, recurrent alcohol or drug related problems, and continued use despite social or interpersonal problems caused or intensified by alcohol or drugs. f Dependence is when at least three of the following occur in the same 12 month period: increased tolerance, withdrawal, increased consumption, unsuccessful efforts to quit, a lot of time lost recovering or using, reduced activity, and continued use despite persistent physical or psychological problems caused or intensified by alcohol or drugs. The lifetime risk of dependence to marijuana is estimated at about 9%d, increasing to almost 17% in those who initiate use in adolescence.10 In 2012, about 1.3% of people aged 15 and over met the criteria for marijuana abusee or dependencef – double that of any other drugs – due to the high prevalence of marijuana use. 11 Another area of great concern is that of impairment and the operation of vehicles, as well as the performing of work in an unsafe manner. There is an increased risk of motor vehicle collisions up to 6 hours after use, depending on method of use, dose and tolerance. As well, experience in the U.S. and even in Canada has shown that there can be an increased risk of unintentional overdoses in children due to marijuana edibles. The CMA’s overarching recommendation to the federal government is that the government must take a broad public health policy approach to address the legalization and regulation of marijuana for non-medical use. A public health approach would place an increased focus on: preventing drug abuse and dependence; the availability of assessment, counselling and treatment services for those who wish to stop using; and harm reduction to increase the safety for those who are using. This approach seeks to ensure that the harms associated with enforcement are not out of proportion to the direct harms caused by substance abuse. Individuals with drug dependency should be diverted, whenever possible, from the criminal justice system to treatment and rehabilitation. Monitoring, surveillance and research of marijuana use are essential to better understand the short and long term harms as well as to develop policy options to address prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. There are huge economic pressures at play that need to be considered in a new regime and it is essential that public health objectives be central to the process of legalization and regulation. A recent report12 estimates that it could create a $10 billion a year industry in Canada, including production and distribution. As well, legalizing marijuana will bring in considerable tax revenue, and governments could collect as much as 50% or more of that if the rate of taxation is high, as in the ‘sin’ tax on the sale of alcohol and tobacco. As well, legalization could also lead to substantial savings in enforcement and incarceration. Given these pressures by private corporations, governments and other lobby groups, it is essential that the federal and provincial/territorial governments be held accountable to public health objectives of decreasing harms of marijuana use, particularly in children and youth. The CMA’s submission does not address the question of whether marijuana should be legal; the current federal government has already made it clear that this is their intent. Instead, this submission focuses on specific recommendations from physicians as they apply to the regulatory framework, with the objective of protecting individual and public health. It is based on input from CMA’s members, discussions with key stakeholders and experts from specialty societies, a review of reports on the experience in jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana for non-medical use, such as Colorado, Washington and Uruguay13 14 15 16 17, as well as expert literature18 19. 19 George T, Vaccarino F. (eds.). Substance abuse in Canada: The effects of cannabis use during adolescence. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Effects-of-Cannabis-Use-during-Adolescence-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (accessed 2016 Aug 10). 21 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA). Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado. The Impact. 2014 Aug;2:1-166. Available: http://www.rmhidta.org/html/august%202014%20legalization%20of%20mj%20in%20colorado%20the%20impact.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 22 Monte AA, Zane RD, Heard KJ. The implications of marijuana legalization in Colorado. JAMA. 2015;313(3):241-42. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404298/pdf/nihms679104.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 23 Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014. Denver (CO): Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 2015. Available: http://www2.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/he1282m332015internet/he1282m332015internet01.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 24 Cunningham JA, Blomqvist J, Koski-Jannes A, Raitasalo K. Societal Images of Cannabis use: Comparing Three Countries. Harm Reduct J. 2012 Jun 18;9:21. Available: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-9 -21.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 25 Porath-Waller A, Brown J, Frigon A, Clark H. What Canadian youth think about cannabis: Technical report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2013. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-What-Canadian-Youth-Think-about-Cannabis-2013-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 26 Health Canada. Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A national survey of Canadians' use of alcohol and other drugs: Public opinion, attitudes and knowledge. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2006. Available: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/349980/publication.html (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 27 Fischer B, Jeffries V, Hall W, Room R, Goldner E, Rehm J. Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): A Narrative Review of Evidence and Recommendations. Can J Public Health. 2011 Sep-Oct;102(5):324-27. Available: http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/view/2758 (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 28 Health Canada. Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS). Ottawa: Health Canada; 2013. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2012/summary-sommaire-eng.php (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 29 Young MM, Student Drug Use Surveys Working Group (SDUS). Cross-Canada report on student alcohol and drug use: Technical report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2011. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/2011_CCSA_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 30 Young, M.M. et al. (2011) Cross-Canada report on student alcohol and drug use: Technical report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/2011_CCSA_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). The Task Force’s discussion paper presents the potential elements of a new system, which were grouped into five themes: 1) minimizing harms of use; 2) establishing a safe and responsible production system; 3) designing an appropriate distribution system; 4) enforcing public safety and protection; and 5) accessing marijuana for medical purposes. Each theme includes questions on specific concerns for which the Task Force is seeking input. Presented below are the CMA’s recommendations to the federal government for each section of the discussion paper. A summary of all recommendations is listed at the end of the brief. RECOMMENDATION: The CMA recommends that the federal government take a broad public health policy approach in legalizing marijuana for non-medical purposes, and that it be held accountable to these public health objectives. 1. MINIMIZING HARMS OF USE 1.1. Do you believe that these measures are appropriate to achieve the overarching objectives to minimize harms, and in particular to protect children and youth? Are there other actions which the government should consider enacting alongside these measures? Legalization and strict regulation of marijuana for recreational use seeks to reduce health and social harms, particularly in higher risk groups; however, with the increased access, there could be an inverse effect, with the potential that harms could be intensified. There is also the considerable risk that the degree of “normalization” of use that already exists could increase. Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths and an increase in the use of health care due to intoxication, burns and cyclic vomiting syndrome, as well as overdoses in children due to marijuana in edibles.20 21 22 Many of the regulatory interventions used in reducing tobacco normalization and rates, as well as controlling the harms of alcohol at a population level, are proposed in the Task Force’s discussion paper as part of a framework for marijuana legalization and regulation. These include: 1) Minimum age for legal purchase with the objective of protecting children and youth, particularly since the risks of marijuana use are higher in ages where the brain is still in development. 2) Advertising and marketing restrictions to minimize the profile and attractiveness of products, seeking to prevent or at least reduce the “normalization” of use in society, particularly among children and youth. 3) Taxation and pricing to discourage use and provide the government with revenues to offset related costs (such as substance abuse services, law enforcement and regulatory oversight). 4) Restrictions on marijuana products, particularly with regards to the THC component, given higher concentration products have added risks and unknown long term impacts, with most impact on children and youth. Restrictions would include maximum THC limits and prohibition of high-potency products. 5) Restrictions on types of marijuana products, particularly edibles, to prevent accidental or unintentional ingestion, particularly by children. Limits would be placed on dosing and potency. 6) Limitations on quantities for personal possession, with the objective of helping to reduce demand and to minimize opportunities for resale of legally purchased marijuana on the illicit market (particularly to children and youth). 7) Limitation on where marijuana can be sold in order to minimize harms. Despite the merit of each of the proposed measures, collectively these may not adequately protect children and youth. A pathway to better implementation would require: . Taking the time to adequately prepare for the implementation, including developing the capacity to meet demand, administer the system, enforce regulations and deal with adverse effects. A phased-in approach or pilots in certain jurisdictions should be considered before going nationwide. . Learning from the lessons gained in jurisdictions that have made changes in drug policy, including the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington, Uruguay, the Netherlands and Portugal. . Learning from successes and failures in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol, with respect to the objectives of reducing or eliminating use for all Canadians (tobacco) and promoting responsible use among adults, while prohibiting use in youth (alcohol). . Developing the capacity to carry out a rigorous national-level evaluation of the impact of legalization of marijuana on the health and safety of Canadians. Data collection and analysis cannot be conducted if national surveillance systems do not exist. Important data to be monitored include marijuana-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations, rates of drug-impaired driving, recreational injuries, unintentional poisonings, product contamination, overconsumption and food-borne illness from edible products.23 . Support for a research agenda to better understand harms of marijuana, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children and youth, pregnant women, people with mental illness and chronic diseases. Research should also support policy interventions, including those to address second hand smoke, harm reduction measures, treatments and effective education strategies. The CMA is supportive of the regulatory interventions proposed by the government to reduce the harms, regarding: Marketing and advertising: The CMA recommends that the marketing and advertising of marijuana be prohibited, as is currently the case for tobacco and cigarettes. Measures such as plain packaging, prohibition of appealing flavours and shapes, adequate content and potency labelling, as well as health warnings, should be incorporated to discourage experimentation. A package insert should outline health risks and supporting references, the need for securing the product in the home, preventing access by youth and children, and recommendations not to drive or work with hazardous chemicals or equipment. The insert should include information detailing the health and social consequences, including legal penalties for providing marijuana to those under a designated minimum age for purchasing. Taxation and pricing: Taxation and pricing levers should be used to discourage use, with revenues clearly earmarked for covering the health and social costs of legalization. In Colorado, for example, revenue is used in substance abuse programs, regulation of marijuana and for public school construction. However, as with tobacco, final pricing must be such as to discourage the illegal production and trafficking of marijuana. Most of future tax revenues should be redistributed to the provinces and territories. This is because they will feel the impact of legalization directly as they have jurisdiction over health care, education, social and other services, as well as responsibility for enforcement. Restrictions on the potency of marijuana products: Experience in jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized has shown that restrictions on the potency of products (i.e., THC limits) are necessary, given the higher risks of harm associated with higher potencies. Prohibition of high potency products is important. However, there is a risk that the prohibition could lead to an illicit market of more potent marijuana preparations. Restrictions on types of marijuana products: It is essential that restrictions be placed on the dosing of products, particularly of edibles, given the incidence of accidental overdoses of children. Content in a package should not be sufficient to cause an overdose. Because of these incidents, child proof packaging should also be required. Limitations on quantities for personal possession: Placing maximum limits on quantities that can be purchased would help to reduce the opportunities for illegal distribution and sale, especially to those below the established minimum age limit. The proposed measures related to minimum age for legal purchase and limitation on where marijuana can be sold are discussed in Sections 1.2 and 3, respectively, below. In addition to the regulatory interventions proposed in the “Minimizing Harms of Use” section of the discussion paper, others are equally fundamental, including: A clear process for identifying, testing and charging individuals who are driving under the influence of marijuana should be in place prior to legalization (see further discussion under Section 4). Public education: The use of public education tools to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana use is necessary. Awareness of Canadians of the harms of marijuana is generally low.24 25 26 Youth tend to emphasize the drug’s ability to help them focus, relax, sleep, reduce violent behaviour and improve creativity. There are also many dangerous myths, such as that marijuana can counter the harmful effects of smoking tobacco by preventing cancer or that marijuana makes people better drivers. There is also a perception amongst some that marijuana is not an addictive substance because it is “natural”. However, traditional public campaigns and educational programs for youth have been shown to be minimally effective. There is a need for more effective programs, including those that incorporate skills-based training that teaches youth how to handle situations that involve drugs and/or alcohol. Harm reduction measures, such as those outlined in the Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canadag 27 should be discussed, particularly with teens, in an effort to minimize harm, even if they choose to continue to use. g These include delaying use until early adulthood; avoiding frequent use; preferring smokeless delivery systems; using less potent products; not driving after use; and abstaining from use when at higher risk of cannabis-related problems (people with a personal or family history of psychosis, cardiovascular problems and pregnant women). It is important that these education programs be designed by governments and health professionals, and not marijuana producers or distributers. However, costs of such programs could come from the profits of such industries. Expanded access and immediate availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services is another very important measure to minimize harm. These services are currently difficult to access in the community and have long wait times; in many parts of Canada they are simply unavailable. A plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine and access to treatment should be in place prior to legalization. Enforcement of regulations: Licensed producers and retail outlets should be held accountable in their compliance with policies, guidance and good practices to prevent contaminants that may cause additional health issues if consumed, particularly by minors (See also Section 3). 1.2. What are your views on the minimum age for purchasing and possessing marijuana? Should the minimum age be consistent across Canada, or is it acceptable that there be variation amongst provinces and territories? In order to achieve the first objective of legalization, i.e., to protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth, a minimum age for its purchase and possession must be adopted. This has been an important measure in tobacco and alcohol regulations. Existing evidence on marijuana points to the importance of protecting the brain during its development. Since that development is only finalized by about 25 years of age, this would be an ideal minimum age based on currently accepted scientific evidence, although knowledge on brain development is still evolving. However, marijuana use among youth (ages 15 to 24) is still double that of the general population, at 20%, even though there has been a slight decrease in use in recent years.28 A 2011 report on student alcohol and drug use in Canada showed that of those youth who had used marijuana in the past 3 months, 25% had used it daily. The average age of initiation was 16.1 years. In some provinces, about 50% of students in grade 12 have reported using marijuana in the past year.29 A minimum age lower than 25 years should be considered in order to deter youth from seeking marijuana from organized crime groups, where they are exposed to other more dangerous drugs, sometimes even laced into marijuana. In jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized, the minimum age has been set at the same minimum age for purchase of alcohol, i.e., 21 years. In Canada, the age limits for acquiring alcohol and tobacco are either 18 or 19 years of age, depending on the province or territory. In a survey carried out with a sample of the CMA membership, 25.4% recommended age 21, 20.3% age 25, 19.7% age 18, and 14.2% age 19. The CMA recommends that the minimum age should be set at 21, and that quantities and the potency of marijuana be more restricted to those under age 25 to discourage use and sharing with underage friends. The CMA recommends that the minimum age be established at the national level, and federally regulated, to avoid differences at the provincial/territorial level. This would reduce problems with enforcement in areas near provincial/territorial borders. SECTION 1 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the federal government incorporate the following measures to support improved implementation of the legalization of marijuana: a) Ensure sufficient time to adequately prepare for the implementation of the legalized regime, including a phased-in approach and piloting legalization in smaller regions prior to national roll-out; b) Assess international experience with legalization and incorporate lessons-learned from other jurisdictions into Canada’s approach; c) Assess the domestic experience in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol against meeting the national objectives for each substance and incorporate lessons-learned from those experiences; and, d) Develop capacity for national surveillance to ensure rigorous national-level monitoring and evaluation. e) Support for a research agenda. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit the marketing and advertising of marijuana and that packaging requirements include plain packaging, potency labelling and health warnings. The CMA further recommends that the federal government prohibit flavouring and shapes. The CMA recommends that the federal government employ taxation and pricing levers to discourage consumption and that the revenues of this taxation be allocated to the provinces and territories and clearly allocated for health and social services. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish potency restrictions to reduce the harms associated with higher potencies. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish dosing restrictions on marijuana products, notably edibles. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish maximum limits on quantities of marijuana that can be purchased. The CMA recommends that the federal government employ effective public education tools, including skills-based training, to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana usage. The CMA recommends that the federal government expand access and availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services simultaneously to the legalization of marijuana. As part of this initiative, the CMA recommends that the federal government implement a plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine. The CMA recommends that the federal government set the minimum age of purchase and consumption at 21 and that quantities and potency be restricted for those under the age of 25. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish the minimum age at the national level to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions. 2. ESTABLISHING A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM 2.1. What are your views on the most appropriate production model? Which production model would best meet consumer demand while ensuring that public health and safety objectives are achievable? What level and type of regulation is needed for producers? There will be no perfect production model, with each one having its risks and benefits. The CMA would support a tightly regulated competitive model. A set number of licenses should be granted to producers, who are part of a competitive system, and there should be a reasonable cost associated to offset regulatory expenses. Producers would have to comply with policies and guidelines set by Health Canada, and be subject to inspections. It is fundamental that commercialization is rigorously controlled through taxation, regulation, monitoring and advertising controls. 2.2. To what extent, if any, should home cultivation be allowed in a legalized system? What, if any, government oversight should be put in place? The CMA does not recommend home cultivation in a legalized system for non-medical purposes, as it presents many challenges to municipal, enforcement and public health authorities, particularly given the potentially high number of homes that could seek to cultivate marijuana. There are many health and safety hazards in cultivation, such as high humidity and temperatures, risk of fire, as well as the use of hazardous chemicals, including pesticides used for the control of fungi, bacteria and insects. There is little quality control regarding contamination and potency of the product. As well, home cultivation has an enhanced risk of abuse, if individuals use the production for sale rather than exclusively for personal use. Access to marijuana by children and youth is also a serious concern with home cultivation. In the present marijuana for medical purposes system, where some users have been allowed to continue to grow for personal use, there is great difficulty in monitoring and inspecting these properties. However, this has been allowed given the Allard v Canada court decision, to not hinder access for medical purposes. Washington has not permitted home cultivation, but Colorado has allowed the growth of a small number of plants for personal use (up to 6 plants, with a maximum 3 mature ones, in an enclosed, locked space). 2.3. Should a system of licensing or other fees be introduced? Should limited home cultivation for non-medical purposes be an option, a system of registration and licensing would have to be set up to allow for tracking and inspections of home production. It would also allow penalties for non-registered producers as well as larger scale operations. This would be a system that would require intense government regulation, oversight and tremendous resources to be effective. 2.4. The MMPR set out rigorous requirements over the production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana. Are these types of requirements appropriate for the new system? Are there features that you would add or remove? The requirements for production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana set out by the MMPR are appropriate for the new system. However, a rigorous review of the MMPR should be conducted to determine if there are weaknesses that need to be corrected before expanding to a non-medical market. Ongoing evaluation will be warranted as well. Distribution would have to expand beyond the mail service. 2.5. What role, if any, should existing licensed producers under the MMPR have in the new system (either in the interim or the long-term)? The CMA’s policy position does not extend to whether the existing licensed producers should be suppliers to the recreational market. The experience in Colorado, however, showed that having the industry set up for medical purposes first allowed a smoother transition, in contrast with Washington, which did not have an industry. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA supports a tightly regulated competitive model wherein production and distribution is heavily regulated and includes strict oversight. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit home cultivation in the legalized system for non-medical use. The CMA recommends that the federal government evaluate the requirements established by the MMPR system for production, packaging, storage and distribution to introduce improvements for implementation in the new legalized system for non-medical use. 3. DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 3.1. Which distribution model makes the most sense and why? There is the need to continue mail availability for patients accessing marijuana for medical purposes to ensure nationwide access, however, a distribution system based exclusively on mail service would probably not meet the objectives of a recreational system. When a sample of our membership was asked about distribution models, first preference was given to existing non-health care structures, such as liquor stores. In some provinces, they would have the additional benefit of having a tightly regulated government monopoly by control board entities with a social responsibility mandate. Restrictions could be placed to limit the acquisition of both alcohol and marijuana. As stated earlier, marketing should be prohibited. Staff in these stores receives training and hours can be limited. A close second preference was given to legal storefronts, similar to the independent dispensaries. Several municipalities have been in varied degrees of discussion on the regulation of the presently illegal dispensaries, and those regulations could be looked at as models in a legalized environment. When asked about health care settings, such as pharmacies, respondents to the survey did not support this model. Almost 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed. A reason for this lack of support could be that placing marijuana in pharmacies could lend it credibility as a pharmaceutical medication, whereas placing it in liquor stores would send the message that it needs strict and formal controls. As per previous discussion, the creation of private industries for production and distribution would have to be very tightly controlled to avoid commercialization. As we have learned from the alcohol and tobacco industries, private companies have an interest in recruiting customers and encouraging high levels of ongoing consumption. It is important that the regulatory framework be protected from these commercial and fiscal interests. Regardless of the actual point of sale, storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. There is good evidence from the regulation of alcohol that the less restrictive retail outlet density is, the more harms associated with alcohol use occur. Restrictions would also be placed on distances from schools, parks, playgrounds, colleges and universities, as well as on hours of sale. Regulations would lay out standards, including for the control of product sources, proof of minimum age required for purchase and restrictions on quantities sold. 3.2. To what extent is variation across provinces and territories in terms of distribution models acceptable? In the CMA’s survey of our members, there was not a consensus among respondents as to whether provincial and territorial governments should decide on their own distribution mechanisms. Many comments stated that a federal standard is warranted due to the need for initial close oversight and the ability to make effective changes more quickly. The CMA position is that there is an important role for the federal government to play in ensuring consistency across the country and avoiding provincial/territorial variation. 3.3. Are there other models worthy of consideration? The CMA recommends a phased in approach to the roll out of the system of distribution. Several pilot locations could be considered before going nationwide. Given the novelty and impact of this new legislation, particular caution is absolutely necessary from a regulatory and public health perspective. SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the distribution model should occur outside health care structures, for example, in liquor stores, and that storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. The CMA recommends that the distribution model should be established at the federal level and be consistent across jurisdictions. The CMA recommends a phased implementation approach prior to national availability. 4. ENFORCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION 4.1. How should governments approach designing laws that will reduce, eliminate and punish those who operate outside the boundaries of the new legal system for marijuana? The severity of punishment for simple possession and personal use of marijuana should be eliminated with the removal of criminal sanctions. The CMA recommends that resources currently devoted to combating simple marijuana possession through the criminal law be diverted to public health and education strategies, particularly for youth. Having a criminal record limits employment prospects, and the impact on health status is profound, disproportionately among marginalized populations. Laws should include such things as the facilitation of access by individuals to services to address substance use, mental health and social stabilization. Laws should be drafted in a clear fashion to minimize ambiguity and provide as much guidance and direction to users, health care providers, enforcement authorities, producers, distributors and others. 4.2. What specific tools, training and guidelines will be most effective in supporting enforcement measures to protect public health and safety, particularly for impaired driving? The use of marijuana is associated with an increased risk of impairment, and is incompatible with the operation of vehicles and work in safety sensitive positions due to risk of injury to oneself, coworkers or the general public. Marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. Young people, particularly males, are more likely to drive after using marijuana. The Cross-Canada Report on Student Alcohol and Drug Use30 states that 14–21% of students in Grade 12 reported having driven within an hour of using marijuana, and more than 33% of Grade 12 students reported having been a passenger in a car where the driver had used the drug. Often, marijuana is associated with alcohol use, having an additive effect. A clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who use marijuana and drive absolutely needs to be in place nationally prior to legalization. This will be complicated by the fact that a roadside test for marijuana use is not in widespread use; blood and urine testing also pose challenges. Another issue is the fact that recent use does not necessarily equate to impairment and no scientific standard for impairment exists in the literature. All individuals charged with impaired driving should have a specialist assessment to determine whether a substance use disorder is present. Individuals with substance use disorders should have immediate access to addiction treatment, mental health services and social stabilization. There is also a need for the development of guidelines for employers for the assessment and management of risk. 4.3. Should consumption of marijuana be allowed in any publicly-accessible spaces outside the home? Under what conditions and circumstances? No public smoking should be permitted, due to the risk of second hand smoke. Second hand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins, including carcinogens, found in directly inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts, if not more. There is special concern for harmful health effects, especially among children. The CMA does not recommend the exposure of children to second hand smoke in public areas or in the home. The success in the reduction of tobacco use rates is significantly related to banning of smoking in public places. In the CMA’s survey of a sample of its members, 51.7% disagreed with consumption in designated public places, such as the Dutch model of coffee shops. SECTION 4 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the federal government reallocate resources currently dedicated to the enforcement of marijuana infractions, to public health, education and treatment programs. The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure that a clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana be in place nationally prior to the legalization of marijuana. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit smoking of marijuana for non-medical purposes in public places. 5. ACCESSING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES 5.1. What factors should the government consider in determining if appropriate access to medically authorized persons is provided once a system for legal access to marijuana is in place? The CMA recognizes that some individuals suffering from terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective may obtain relief with marijuana used for medical purposes. However, clinical evidence of medical benefits is limited and there is very limited guidance for the therapeutic use, including indications, potency (levels of THC, CBD), interactions with medications and adverse effects. Health Canada does not approve of marijuana as a medicine, as it has not gone through the approvals required by the regulatory process to be a pharmaceutical. The present system poses a serious challenge for physicians in providing the best care to patients. The CMA has long called for more research to better understand potential therapeutic indications, as well as its risks. It is important that there be support for research of marijuana in order to develop products that can be held to pharmaceutical standards, as is the case with dronabinol (Marinol®), nabilone (Cesamet®) and THC/CBD (Sativex®). The present marijuana for medical purposes regime operates as an exception to a criminal prohibition for production, possession and trafficking of marijuana. It was developed in reaction to court challenges regarding the right to legal access of individuals to marijuana for medical purposes. With the new legal system for marijuana for non-medical use, the requirement to maintain a separate regulatory framework would not be necessary, given court-mandated access will be provided. As well, the experience of legalization for non-medical use in Colorado and Washington has shown that two separate regimes with distinct regulations can be very difficult to enforce given the dual standards (including different minimum ages, purchase quantities and taxation). Provisions would have to exist within the new system to attend to legitimate medical needs of individuals who are under the minimum age for purchase of marijuana, or for those with a requirement for a more potent product than that which is legally available. Consideration might also be given to affordable access for those with low incomes. As stated previously, the option of distribution through mail would have to continue, to facilitate access in remote areas. As well, patients or their families would be able to access marijuana through the distributors of marijuana for non-medical purposes, such as storefronts or liquor store-like entities, which would have employees trained to support patients and their needs. The use of marijuana products for medical indications, through this system, should preferably be done under research protocols. This framework would contribute to the provision of more robust scientific data. SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATION: The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for marijuana, following legalization of non-medical marijuana, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire marijuana in a legal manner, e.g., those below the minimum age or those with a requirement for a more potent product than legally available. 6. Summary of Recommendations The CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on this important matter to physicians and the public. Legalization of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a fundamental shift in the approach to drugs. The CMA’s position is that it is essential that the government consult with experts, key stakeholders and the general public not only at this phase in preparation for legislation on this matter, but throughout the process of the development of regulations and implementation. Recommendations: 1) The CMA recommends that the federal government take a broad public health policy approach in legalizing marijuana for non-medical purposes, and that it be held accountable to these public health objectives. Section 1 2) The CMA recommends that the federal government incorporate the following measures to support improved implementation of the legalization of marijuana: a) Ensure sufficient time to adequately prepare for the implementation of the legalized regime, including a phased-in approach and piloting legalization in smaller regions prior to national roll-out; b) Assess international experience with legalization and incorporate lessons-learned from other jurisdictions into Canada’s approach; c) Assess the domestic experience in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol against meeting the national objectives for each substance and incorporate lessons-learned from those experiences; and, d) Develop capacity for national surveillance to ensure rigorous national-level monitoring and evaluation. e) Support for a research agenda. 3) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit the marketing and advertising of marijuana and that packaging requirements include plain packaging, potency labelling and health warnings. The CMA further recommends that the federal government prohibit flavouring and shapes. 4) The CMA recommends that the federal government employ taxation and pricing levers to discourage consumption and that the revenues of this taxation be allocated to the provinces and territories and clearly allocated for health and social services. 5) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish potency restrictions to reduce the harms associated with higher potencies. 6) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish dosing restrictions on marijuana products, notably edibles. 7) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish maximum limits on quantities of marijuana that can be purchased. 8) The CMA recommends that the federal government employ effective public education tools, including skills-based training, to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana usage. 9) The CMA recommends that the federal government expand access and availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services simultaneously to the legalization of marijuana. 10) As part of this initiative, the CMA recommends that the federal government implement a plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine. 11) The CMA recommends that the federal government set the minimum age of purchase and consumption at 21 and that quantities and potency be restricted for those under the age of 25. 12) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish the minimum age at the national level to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions. Section 2 13) The CMA supports a tightly regulated competitive model wherein production and distribution is heavily regulated and includes strict oversight. 14) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit home cultivation in the legalized system for non-medical use. 15) The CMA recommends that the federal government evaluate the requirements established by the MMPR system for production, packaging, storage and distribution to introduce improvements for implementation in the new legalized system for non-medical use. Section 3 16) The CMA recommends that the distribution model should occur outside health care structures, for example, in liquor stores, and that storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. 17) The CMA recommends that the distribution model should be established at the federal level and be consistent across jurisdictions. 18) The CMA recommends a phased implementation approach prior to national availability. Section 4 19) The CMA recommends that the federal government reallocate resources to the enforcement of marijuana infractions to public health, education and treatment programs. 20) The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure that a clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana be in place nationally prior to the legalization of marijuana. 21) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit smoking of marijuana for non-medical purposes in public places. Section 5 22) The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for marijuana, following legalization of non-medical marijuana, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire marijuana in a legal manner, e.g., those below the minimum age or those with a requirement for a more potent product than legally available. CMA Statement - Legalization of Marijuana Ottawa, September 9, 2016 - The CMA's submission to the Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation is framed by the fundamental position that the legalization of marijuana is a societal prerogative; the CMA is not weighing in on this decision as it has already been made. Keeping with our mandate as the national voice for the highest standards of health and health care, the CMA is squarely focused on minimizing the negative impact on individuals and public health. The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in smoked form. Children and youth are particularly at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development. As such, the CMA's submission is framed by the overarching recommendation that the government must take a broad public health policy approach in developing the legalization framework. Focusing on the legalization issue alone is inadequate to deal with the complexity of the situation. The CMA recommendations build on Canada's experience regulating alcohol and tobacco. The legalization framework must include:
Marketing and packaging restrictions
Restrictions on the types of products and their potency
Prohibiting home cultivation
Expanding access to support services such as mental health and substance use services
Expanding access to training programs in addiction medicine, and
Making extensive educational resources on the risks of harm to the user and others available We must recognize that the legalization of marijuana is a complex matter. Overall the CMA has submitted to the Task Force 22 evidence-based recommendations for a broad public health approach. For interviews: mediainquiries@cma.ca 613-806-1865
Documents
Less detail

Avoiding negative consequences to health care delivery from federal taxation policy

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11957
Date
2016-08-31
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-08-31
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) provides this submission in response to Finance Canada’s consultation on Legislative Proposals Relating to Income Tax, Sales Tax and Excise Duties (Draft Tax Legislative Proposals). The CMA is the national voice of Canadian physicians. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA’s mission is helping physicians care for patients. In fulfillment of this mission, the CMA’s role is focused on national, pan-Canadian health advocacy and policy priorities. As detailed in this brief, the CMA is gravely concerned that by capturing group medical structures in the application of Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals, the federal government will inadvertently negatively affect medical research, medical training and education as well as access to care. To ensure that the unintended consequences of this federal tax policy change do not occur, the CMA is strongly recommending that the federal government exempt group medical and health care delivery from the proposed changes to s.125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction in Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals. Relevance of the Canadian Controlled Private Corporation Framework to Medical Practice Canada’s physicians are highly skilled professionals, providing an important public service and making a significant contribution to our country’s knowledge economy. Due to the design of Canada’s health care system, a large majority of physicians – more than 90% – are self-employed professionals and effectively small business owners. As self-employed small business owners, physicians typically do not have access to pensions or health benefits, although they are responsible for these benefits for their employees. Access to the Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) framework and the Small Business Deduction (SBD) are integral to managing a medical practice in Canada. It is imperative to recognize that physicians cannot pass on any increased costs, such as changes to CCPC framework and access to the SBD, onto patients, as other businesses would do with clients. In light of the unique business perspectives of medical practice, the CMA strongly welcomed the federal recognition in the 2016 budget of the value that health care professionals deliver to communities across Canada as small business operators. Contrary to this recognition, the 2016 budget also introduced a proposal to alter eligibility to the small business deduction that will impact physicians incorporated in group medical structures. What’s at risk: Contribution of group medical structures to health care delivery The CMA estimates that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 physicians will be affected by this federal taxation proposal. If implemented, this federal taxation measure will negatively affect group medical structures in communities across Canada. By capturing group medical structures, this proposal also introduces an inequity amongst incorporated physicians, and incentivizes solo practice, which counters provincial and territorial health delivery priorities. Group medical structures are prevalent within academic health science centres and amongst certain specialties, notably oncology, anaesthesiology, radiology, and cardiology. Specialist care has become increasingly sub-specialized. For many specialties, it is now standard practice for this care to be provided by teams composed of numerous specialists, sub-specialists and allied health care providers. Team-based care is essential for educating and training medical students and residents in teaching hospitals, and for conducting medical research. Put simply, group medical structures have not been formed for taxation or commercial purposes. Rather, group medical structures were formed to deliver provincial and territorial health priorities, primarily in the academic health setting, such as teaching, medical research as well as optimizing the delivery of patient care. Over many years, and even decades, provincial and territorial governments have been supporting and encouraging the delivery of care through team-based models. To be clear, group medical structures were formed to meet health sector priorities; they were not formed for business purposes. It is equally important to recognize that group medical structures differ in purpose and function from similar corporate or partnership structures seen in other professions. Unlike most other professionals, physicians do not form these structures for the purpose of enhancing their ability to earn profit. It is critical for Finance Canada to acknowledge that altering eligibility to the small business deduction will have more significant taxation implication than simply the 4.5% difference in the small business versus general rate at the federal level. It would be disingenuous for Finance Canada to attempt to argue that removing full access to the small business deduction for incorporated physicians in group medical structures will be a minor taxation increase. As taxation policy experts, Finance Canada is aware that this change will impact provincial/territorial taxation, as demonstrated below in Table 1. Table 1: Taxation impacts by province/territory, if the federal taxation proposal is implemented In Nova Scotia, for example, approximately 60% of specialist physicians practice in group medical structures. If the federal government applies this taxation proposal to group medical structures, these physicians will face an immediate 17.5% increase in taxation. In doing so, the federal government will establish a strong incentive for these physicians to move away from team-based practice to solo practice. If this comes to pass, the federal government may be responsible for triggering a reorganization of medical practice in Nova Scotia. Excerpts from physician communiques The CMA has received as well as been copied on a significant volume of correspondence from across our membership conveying deep concern with the federal taxation proposal. To provide an illustration of the risks of this proposal to health care, below are excerpts from some of these communiques:
“Our Partnership was formed in the 1970s…The mission of the Partnership is to achieve excellence in patient care, education and research activities….there would be a serious adverse effect on retention and recruitment if members do not have access to the full small business deduction…The changes will likely result in pressure to dissolve the partnership and revert to the era of departments services by independent contractors with competing individual financial interests.” Submitted to the CMA April 15, 2016 from a member of the Anesthesia Associates of the Ottawa Hospital General Campus
“The University of Ottawa Heart Institute is an academic health care institution dedicated to patient care, research and medical education…To support what we call our “academic mission,” cardiologists at the institute have formed an academic partnership…If these [taxation] changes go forward they will crippled the ability of groups such as ours to continue to function and will have a dramatic negative impact on medical education, innovative health care research, and the provision of high-quality patient care to our sickest patients.” Submitted to the CMA April 19, 2016 from a member of the Associates in Cardiology
“We are a general partnership consisting of 93 partners all of whom are academic anesthesiologists with appointments to the Faculty of the University of Toronto and with clinical appointments at the University Health Network, Sinai Health System or Women’s College Hospital…In contrast to traditional business partnerships, we glean no business advantage whatsoever from being in a partnership…the proposed legislation in Budget 2016 seems unfair in that it will add another financial hardship to our partners – in our view, this is a regressive tax on research, teaching and innovation.” Submitted to the CMA April 14, 2016 from members of the UHN-MSH Anesthesia Associates Recommendation The CMA recommends that the federal government exempt group medical and health care delivery from the proposed changes to s.125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction, as proposed in Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals. Below is a proposed legislative amendment to ensure group medical structures are exempted from Clause 13 of the Draft Tax Legislative Proposals: Section 125 of the Act is amended by adding the following after proposed subsection 125(9): 125(10) Interpretation of designated member – [group medical partnership] – For purposes of this section, in determining whether a Canadian-controlled private corporation controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician is a designated member of a particular partnership in a taxation year, the term "particular partnership" shall not include any partnership that is a group medical partnership. 125(11) Interpretation of specified corporate income – [group medical corporation] – For purposes of this section, in determining the specified corporate income for a taxation year of a corporation controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician, the term "private corporation" shall not include a group medical corporation. Subsection 125(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: "group medical partnership" means a partnership that: (a) is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician; and (b) earns all or substantially all of its income for the year from an active business of providing services or property to, or in relation to, a medical practice; "group medical corporation" means a corporation that: (a) is controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more physicians or a person that does not deal at arm's length with a physician; and (b) earns all or substantially all of its income for the year from an active business of providing services or property to, or in relation to, a medical practice. "medical practice" means any practice and authorized acts of a physician as defined in provincial or territorial legislation or regulations and any activities in relation to, or incidental to, such practice and authorized acts; "physician" means a health care practitioner duly licensed with a provincial or territorial medical regulatory authority and actively engaged in practice;
Documents
Less detail

Front-of-package labelling consultation

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13800
Date
2016-10-31
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-10-31
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
The CMA believes that governments have a responsibility to provide guidance on healthy eating that can be easily incorporated into daily lives, and that the federal government has a continuous obligation to promulgate policies, standards, regulations and legislations that support healthy food and beverage choices. In this regard, CMA policy has encouraged governments to continue to work to reduce the salt, sugar, saturated fat, trans fat and calorie content of processed foods and prepared meals; provide user-friendly consumer information including complete nutritional content and accurate advertising claims; and increase the amount of information provided on product labels.1 We commend Health Canada on recent work on updating the nutrition facts table and the current revision of the Canada Food Guide and are very pleased to provide a response to the consumer questionnaire on the Health Canada proposal for front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labelling. FOP nutrition labelling approach and possible symbols Do you support Health Canada's proposal to use a symbol to identify foods that are high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. In 2011, appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, the CMA supported a standard "at a glance" approach to FOP food labelling that can reduce confusion and help consumers make informed dietary choices.2 There is a growing body of evidence linking the consumption of diets high in saturated fats, sugars or sodium to cardiovascular and chronic disease (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, cancer, and heart disease and stroke) - leading preventable risk factors and causes of death and disability within Canada and worldwide. Therefore, the CMA does support the proposal to use a symbol for "high in" FOP labelling of foods high in sugar, sodium or saturated fats. FOP labelling on packaged foods may help Canadians make healthier food choices. It will draw attention to those ingredients to be avoided in higher levels and can reinforce public health messaging on healthy eating. An added benefit may be an incentive to the food industry to reformulate processed foods with lower amounts of those nutrients highlighted in FOP labelling. Which symbol would help you recognize foods high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. Of the proposed symbols, we believe that those that resemble a stop sign would send a strong and recognizable signal of a food to avoid. The triangle yield sign shape is too similar to the shape often used to indicate a hazard such as poison. We would recommend holding focus groups with Canadians to better understand how the proposed symbols will be understood by consumers. Foods that do not have nutrition labelling Do you think these foods should be exempt from FOP symbols even if they're high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. The CMA can support the exemption of FOP labelling for products in very small packages but we would like to see a provision to include information on "high in" sugar, salt or saturated fats on foods such as sausages, bakery products, prepared dishes from the deli produced and prepackaged by grocery stores/retailers as they are categories of foods often high in these nutrients. A "high in" sticker could be added to the retailer's packaging to be consistent with other packaged foods. Nutrient levels for a "high in" FOP label Do you think the proposed nutrient levels make sense to identify foods that are high in sodium, sugars and/or saturated fat? Please explain. The CMA supports the proposed nutrient levels to identify foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fats. The CMA believes that it is important that there is consistency across all nutritional and healthy eating information and advice for Canadians. Ensuring that the "high in" threshold and the 15% "a lot" daily value (DV) message are consistent delivers a clear message of concern. While we understand the rationale behind increasing the nutrient threshold for prepackaged meals to 30% of the DV, we suggest that the threshold for "high in" sugar of 30 grams or more total sugars per serving of stated size may be too high and should be reconsidered. It should also be noted that the different thresholds on prepackaged foods and prepackaged meals may cause confusion for consumers and should be introduced with some consumer education. Updating nutrient content claims and other nutrition-related statements Do you support not allowing a "no added sugars" claim on foods high in sugars? Please explain. Allowing a food that qualifies for a "high in" sugar FOP symbol to also display a "no added sugars" claim would be very confusing to consumers. The product label information would appear as quite contradictory; therefore the CMA does support not allowing "no added sugar" claims on these foods. The CMA would suggest that a food that is high in two or more of sugar, sodium or saturated fats not be allowed to display any content claims to avoid any consumer confusion. Labelling of foods that have sweeteners Do you support that these sweeteners be declared in the list of ingredients only, rather than in the list of ingredients and the front of the package? Please explain. We do not support the elimination of the labelling requirement for artificial sweeteners on the principle display panel. For products that have high intensity sweeteners added and which bear claims such as "unsweetened" or "no sugar added," a declaration of "artificially sweetened" should be clearly visible on the FOP. The specific sweetener does not need to be identified so long as it is declared in the list of ingredients. As long as quantity is displayed on the nutrition facts table it doesn't need to be on the principal display. For many Canadians, their diet can have a negative rather than positive impact on their overall health. There is a particular concern for children and youth who are growing up in increasingly obesogenic environments that reinforce practices that work against a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle. Determined action is required for children and youth to learn and acquire healthy behaviours that they will maintain throughout their life. The CMA supports the government's Healthy Living Strategy and their efforts to create a healthier food environment. The addition of FOP nutrition labelling is an important tool to make the healthy choice the easy choice. Sincerely, Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC Vice-president, Medical Professionalism 1 Healthy Behaviours: Promoting Physical Activity and Healthy Eating, Canadian Medical Association Policy, 2014, accessed at http://policybase.cma.ca. 2 Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Nutrition Labelling, Canadian Medical Association, March 3, 2011 accessed at http://policybase.cma.ca --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Documents
Less detail

13 records – page 1 of 2.