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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Granger R. Avery, MB BS, FRRMS
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.
Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC
Vice-president, Medical Professionalism
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).
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.
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.
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.
On behalf of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) I would like to respond to Health Canada’s papers, released on October 7, 2005, “Developing a Drug Supply Network and an Export Restriction Scheme” and “Requiring a Patient-Practitioner Relationship as a Condition of Sale of Prescription Drugs in Canada,” which invite discussion on the Minister of Health’s June 29, 2005 proposals to control cross-border pharmacy and ensure that Canadians have a continued supply of prescription drugs.
The CMA agrees that Canadians must have a supply of drugs adequate to meet their needs. Currently the most serious threat to this supply appears to be the legislative proposals, currently before the United States Congress, that would allow Americans to purchase Canadian drugs in bulk. Proactive measures to protect our drug supplies are warranted to guard against this threat.
In summary, our response to the Minister’s three proposals is as follows:
* Supply monitoring network: We support supply monitoring as a necessary activity.
* Export restrictions: We believe that all Canadian drugs should be subject to export restriction, and the Government of Canada should grant itself the power to enact bans on export as needed.
* Requiring a patient-physician relationship: We do not believe this proposal can be enforced, or that it will contribute materially to securing an adequate drug supply for Canada. We recommend that Health Canada instead support the activities of medical and pharmacy regulatory authorities in ensuring that prescribing behaviour is appropriate.
Our detailed comments on the proposals are below.
1) Drug supply monitoring system
The CMA strongly supports the development of a comprehensive strategy and an adequately resourced system for monitoring domestic drug supply. Canada needs such a system to identify shortages and respond quickly to remedy them, and to ensure that policy and regulatory decisions are founded on accurate and reliable knowledge. We recommend that more careful consideration be given to the most effective design and functioning for a supply-monitoring network. It is our understanding that manufacturers and distributors currently monitor supply of their own products. Ideally, a mechanism should be found to unite these individual activities into a robust and effective network without creating a costly parallel effort. Specific comments follow:
* 2.1 Gathering Drug Shortage Information: Voluntary reporting is a preferred approach. In designing a voluntary scheme, it should be taken into account that soliciting reports from a wide variety of players, including the public, may result in a flood of anecdotal, poorly documented reports that will require expert analysis to verify and put into context. Regardless of who is solicited for shortage reports, the reporting process should be made as clear, simple and user-friendly as possible, and all stakeholders who might be in a position to make reports should be made aware of its existence.
* 2.2 Assessment and Verification: We agree that a baseline of drug inventory data is required, as are benchmarks for what constitutes an appropriate drug supply for Canada. These should be established as a first step, before the implementation of a voluntary reporting scheme.
* 2.3 Communication of Information: While physicians may seldom be in a position to report drug shortages, it is essential that they be informed at once when a shortage exists, and how long it is expected to last. Guidance for physicians on measures they might take while the shortage lasts (for example, other drugs they might prescribe as substitutes) is highly desirable. Medical associations could help Health Canada communicate this information to their members.
The paper makes reference to Health Canada’s preference for collaboration in this endeavour “without assuming responsibility for becoming the primary source of information for Canadians on drug shortages or for resolving all reported drug shortages.” This is not appropriate. Leadership responsibilities and public expectations preclude the Minister from shirking responsibility for these functions. Accountability for such a complex network must be vested in one authority, i.e. Health Canada.
* 2.4 Response measures: Though the paper lists response capacity as an element of drug supply monitoring, it does not contain practical suggestions for responding in the event of a shortage. This is a crucial element and needs to be developed. There is no point in monitoring supply without a plan for managing shortages.
2) Export Restriction
CMA supports this proposal. The power to restrict export of drugs offers Canada its best chance of protection should the U.S. legalize bulk purchasing. This power should be strong and far-reaching. Serious consideration should be given to the June 2005 motion from the House Standing Committee on Health motion to ban all bulk exports of prescription drugs. Specific comments follow:
* 3.4.2 Drug products deemed necessary for human health: The discussion paper proposes to restrict export only under certain circumstances, e.g. if the drug is deemed necessary to human health, and to establish criteria to determine whether a drug meets this condition. All prescription drugs are necessary for human health; certainly those who are taking them consider them so. For equity’s sake - and also because establishing and abiding by criteria may prove impossible - we believe every prescription drug in Canada should be considered a candidate for export restriction.
* 3.4.3 Implications for patient care: We acknowledge that in many cases, other effective therapies can be substituted for drugs in short supply. Many physicians will make these substitutions as needed; but they must first be made aware of the shortages. Physicians must be advised of available alternatives if an unavoidable shortage exists; however, we caution that the existence of alternatives should not be used as justification for not taking action if a drug is in shortage. The final decision as to the most appropriate available therapy should remain a matter to be determined by the patient and physician and consultation.
3) Requiring a Patient-Practitioner Relationship
The Minister has expressed his desire to ensure that physicians maintain high ethical and professional prescribing standards. The CMA shares this desire. As discussed in the attached CMA Statement on Internet Prescribing (Appendix I), we hold that prescriptions should be written in the context of an appropriate patient-physician relationship. However, we do not accept that the proposed option of requiring an established patient-practitioner relationship for every prescription issued in Canada will have a meaningful effect on ensuring adequate drug supply, for the following reasons:
* The proposal does not target the real problem. Most current drug shortages are caused by raw material shortages, inventory management disruptions, unexpected spikes in demand, and other conditions that have nothing to do with the clinical encounter. More important, targeting the patient-practitioner relationship will not protect Canadians from the impact of U.S. bulk purchasing should legislation pass Congress.
* Prescribing outside the context of the patient-physician relationship is already subject to sanction by medical regulatory authorities. The vast majorities of Canada’s physicians conduct themselves ethically and only prescribe for patients in the context of a professional relationship. Those who do not, contravene both the CMA’s policy and the standards of practice for provincial/territorial regulatory Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. These regulatory authorities, and the long and effective tradition of professional self-regulation they represent, should be respected and supported.
* The proposal is burdensome and will be difficult to enforce. The proposal places the onus for evaluating the patient-practitioner relationship on pharmacists. While pharmacists are required, as part of their professional responsibility, to ensure that a prescription has been written by a physician licensed to practice in that jurisdiction, they are not customarily familiar with the details of the interaction leading up to the prescription. Requiring them to formally screen for this will impose a heavy administrative burden, and will compromise patient confidentiality.
In addition, compliance monitoring by Health Canada will be complex, if feasible at all. For example, despite the Minister’s recent comment that prescriptions “can only be signed by a medical practitioner who actually sees and treats the patient in question”, it is generally accepted that perfectly legitimate prescribing can take place without a face-to-face encounter (e.g. through telemedicine) or an “ongoing” patient-physician relationship (e.g. in an emergency). While it is easy to detect flagrant infractions (such as a hundred prescriptions a day written for American patients by the same Canadian doctor) it will be much harder to precisely identify the boundary between what is legitimate prescribing behaviour and what is not. Many provincial regulatory authorities have already developed definitions of the patient-physician relationship, which Health Canada includes in the discussion document. It is unlikely that Health Canada will be able to improve on them.
* Determining an appropriate relationship may be more appropriately a provincial or territorial responsibility. The patient-physician interaction, like other scope-of-practice issues, is regulated at the provincial level. We do not believe the cross-border prescribing problem justifies Health Canada’s overarching federal-level intervention.
In conclusion, we support further exploration of the supply-monitoring and export-restriction options, and believe that existing medical and pharmaceutical regulatory authorities should be respected and supported in enforcing appropriate prescribing behaviour.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposals. We look forward to further opportunities for input during the development of legislation.
Briane Scharfstein, MD, CCFP, MBA
Associate Secretary General, Professional Affairs
cc: Ms. Meena Ballantyne, Director General, Health Care Strategies and Policy Directorate,
CMA Provincial/Territorial Divisional CEO’s
I am writing in response to your letter inviting comment on the discussion paper Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System distributed in February 2004. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes the opportunity to participate in this consultation process on a national public health system. Our country’s experience combating SARS brought home to all of us the critical need for a strong and effective public health system to ensure that we are never again found unprepared to deal with the consequences of an emerging infectious disease. The commitments to establish a strong and effective public health system, a Canada Public Health Agency and a Chief Public Health Officer detailed in the February 2, 2004 Speech from the Throne have raised expectations across the land, and particularly within the public health community.
In June 2003 CMA detailed a Public Health Action Plan in its submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health (Naylor Committee). The CMA’s Plan was further elaborated in our October 2003 submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Kirby Committee) hearing on public health governance and infrastructure. The CMA is also a founding member and active supporter of the Canadian Coalition for Public Health in the 21st Century. Both of the CMA submissions and the Coalition stress the need for strong leadership, capacity building and appropriate funding to ensure that Canada’s public health system is able to deal with the challenges ahead.
In this submission I will first focus on the responsibility and actions the federal government can take now to create a strong and effective public health system and then comment on issues raised in the Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System discussion paper.
The CMA believes that the country today has a rare opportunity to build a public health system for Canada that can take the best elements from the past while embracing new
innovative approaches to the future. But to achieve the Speech from the Throne commitment to “establish a strong and responsive public health system” strong leadership is needed now. The federal government has a critical role to play. In both the United Kingdom and the United States, national leadership has been instrumental in clearly defining health goals for the population and stating the role of the public health system, its key infrastructure elements and the development of strategies to attain them.
The CMA is pleased with your commitment and that of your government to the establishment of a Canada Public Health Agency (CPHA) but we can not stress strongly enough the need for you and your cabinet colleagues to take the bold steps needed to ensure that a national public health agency is truly independent. A CPHA that is not adequately funded and independent of the government bureaucracy will only result in a shuffling of the deck chairs.
A credible Chief Public Health Officer (CPHO) must be appointed to lead the Agency, be the federal government’s chief medical officer of health (CMOH) and the country's chief spokesperson for all public health issues.
The CPHA and the Chief Public Health Officer should have a central role in providing public health services to those areas falling under federal jurisdiction where local and provincial Chief Medical Officers of Health do not have access or authority. Airports, railways, military bases, aboriginal peoples living on reserve, federal meat packing plants and national parks are examples of areas under federal jurisdiction. The delivery of public health in these jurisdictions has been especially compromised by the lack of comprehensive coordination between provincial and federal systems. The federal CMOH should have all the powers and responsibilities of a provincial /territorial CMOH with respect to public health in federal jurisdictions.
While there is an urgent need for the federal government to address problems with the delivery of public health services within its own backyard, it also must enhance co-ordination within the various federal departments and agencies that address public health concerns.
In its submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health the CMA also called for federal leadership in times of national health emergencies. The enactment of a Canada Emergency Health Measures Act would enhance the federal government’s “command and control” powers in a measured way during times of national health emergencies. The Act would give the federal government specific authority to act for a pre-determined, temporary period of time, during a declared extraordinary health emergency. It would also provide the authority for development of a graduated health alert system with corresponding public health interventions to enable a rapid co-ordinated response as a public health threat emerges.1 A systematic approach to health emergencies outlining roles, responsibilities and authority of jurisdictions would go a long way to avoiding the chaos and confusion that surrounded the country’s emergency response to SARS.
The public health infrastructure is the foundation that supports the planning, delivery and evaluation of public health activities. In 2001, a working group of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial (F/P/T) Advisory Committee on Population Health assessed the capacity of the public health system through a series of key informant interviews and literature reviews. The consistent finding was that public health had experienced a loss of resources and there was concern for the resiliency of the system infrastructure to respond consistently and proactively to the demands placed on it.
It is essential that the federal government work with the provinces/ territories and municipalities to stop the hemorrhaging in public health across the country. We must stabilize and shore up the core public health capacity at the municipal, and provincial/territorial levels. At the federal level, in the short term, we must sustain our current capacity to tackle critical public health issues. The recent focus on infectious disease must not lead us to take monies from chronic disease prevention and health promotion to bolster efforts to manage outbreaks of infectious disease. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will only compound and exacerbate the challenges facing the public health system. All of the essential functions of public health must be recognized and resourced within a coherent public health strategy.
This will require an investment of at least $1.5 billion over the next five years, beginning with an immediate commitment of $200 million in the upcoming budget. There is also a critical need for additional resources to reach the frontline public health workers in the many local agencies across Canada. In this regard, on March 12, 2004 the CMA, the Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Canadian Healthcare Association wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to consider adding the recent one-time $2 billion transfer into the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) funding base and ear-mark 10% of this amount for public health action.
The infusion of $1.5 billion over the next five years would go a long way to provide federal, provincial/territorial and municipal governments with the tools needed to rebuild capacity in the public health system. An area needing immediate attention is human resource capacity. For the essential functions of the public health system to be realized, we need a public health workforce with appropriate and constantly updated skills. Unfortunately that workforce is extremely thin today. We need to invest in additional training capacity in all of the public health disciplines. CMA has proposed an investment of $50 million in 2004/05 to begin to strategically rebuild human resource capacity.
To provide additional surge capacity CMA has further proposed the establishment of a Canadian public health emergency response service or Canadian Health Corps. The service would be made up of a core group of highly trained and mobile public health professionals, employed by the federal government, to be directed by the Chief Public Health Officer. A complementary ‘reserve pool’ or volunteer relief network would be made up of acute health care and public health professionals willing to be deployed anywhere in Canada on short notice to provide services during health emergencies. A predetermined and pre-licensed pool of professionals that can respond to a call to action in times of crisis is a critical resource that must be established before we are faced with another emergency situation.
Canadians expect the federal government to assume its responsibility to provide national leadership in public health. Visionary leadership, investment and capacity building are essential components of a reinvigorated public health system. It is within this context that CMA has reviewed the Strengthening the pan-Canadian public health system discussion paper.
Strengthening the pan-Canadian public health system
The discussion paper Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System unfortunately positions the planning assumptions for a national public health strategy within the traditional F/P/T process. While we are encouraged with the commitment of the F/P/T Ministers of Health to work collaboratively on the creation of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network, it is not what Canadians or CMA envisioned in terms of providing leadership on the development of a national public health strategy and a consistent and co-ordinated approach to health emergencies.
The discussion paper is proposing that a CPHA be the centralized responsibility centre or ‘co-ordinating node’ of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network that would develop national public health strategies and co-ordinate responses to public health emergencies. While the Network is necessary to facilitate intergovernmental co-operation, CMA believes that it is now time to move beyond traditional processes that, in the past, have often hindered the country’s ability to respond rapidly to address pan-Canadian problems.
Therefore in its briefs to both the Naylor and Kirby Committees, the CMA proposed the creation of an independent CPHA to provide leadership and comprehensive public health expertise in the development of a strategic pan Canadian approach to public health planning and services. These CMA briefs speak to many of the issues pertaining to the CPHA and CPHO that are raised in the federal discussion paper. CMA proposals for a CPHA as outlined below address the questions of mission and mandate, accountability and transparency posed by the paper.
The CPHA, as described by CMA, would become the lead national agency on public health matters with a broad mandate to co-ordinate all aspects of planning for national public health emergencies, provide ongoing national health surveillance and work closely with provinces/territories to reinforce other essential public health functions. To effectively carry out its mandate the CPHA structure must respect five guiding principles. It must be:
* Independent – At arm’s length from government, insulated from day-to-day vagaries of political pressures while remaining accountable to Canadians.
* Science-based – Adherence to the highest standards of risk assessment and decision-making with a view to safeguarding the health of Canadians.
* Transparent – Open to public scrutiny and encouraging public participation in its activities.
* Responsive – Characterized by a nimble decision-making process and a capability of deploying resources and expertise quickly and efficiently to any part of the country.
* Collaborative – Partnership-oriented, fostering collaboration with other federal, provincial and non-governmental partners.
CMA has recommended that the CPHA be established as an arms length, adequately resourced agency within the purview of the federal government. Under this approach, the CPHA would be structured on a corporate model in which decision-making powers are vested in an expert advisory board. The board, in turn, would be accountable to Parliament and the public for the exercise of these powers. The CPHA would be created through new federal legislation but would remain under the health portfolio, with accountability to Parliament through the health minister. The chief public health officer would head the CPHA, oversee the day-to-day operation of the office, be the federal government’s chief medical officer of health, and act as the lead scientific voice for public health in Canada.
This structure would mark a departure from the status quo in that the level of professional autonomy would increase and the level of ministerial involvement in professional issues would be reduced. This would contribute to making the CPHA more credible as a science-based organization. The board governance structure would encourage participation from the broader public health community and could therefore be more effective in creating partnerships with other key players.
The CMA commends you and the federal and provincial/territorial governments for the evident commitment to address the public health challenges facing this nation. It is unfortunate that it took a public health tragedy to bring this commitment to the forefront but never the less the public health community in Canada stands ready to work with governments to achieve a strong and responsive public health system.
As part of that community the medical profession is ready and willing to support initiatives that will improve public health programs and services that ultimately make
Canada a safer and healthier place to live. We do not support a continuation of the status quo. We must seize this opportunity to create a public health system that that can take the best elements from the past while embracing new innovative approaches to the future.
Sunil V. Patel, MB, ChB
1 Answering the Wake-Up Call: Canada’s Public Health Action Plan, June 2003. Available: http://www.cma.ca/cma/menu/displayMenu.do?tab=422&skin=432&pMenuId=1&pSubMenuId=2&pageId=/staticContent/HTML/N0/l2/where_we_stand/political/index.htm
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).