Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


2 records – page 1 of 1.

Achieving Patient-Centred Collaborative Care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9060
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2007-12-01
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2007-12-01
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
ACHIEVING PATIENT-CENTRED COLLABORATIVE CARE (2008) The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) recognizes that collaborative care is a desired and necessary part of health care delivery in Canada and an important element of quality, patient-centred care. The CMA considers patient-centred care to be the cornerstone of good medical practice. This is reflected in the first principle of the CMA Code of Ethics, which states that physicians have a fundamental responsibility to "Consider first the well-being of the patient." As patient advocates, physicians strive to ensure that their patients receive the best possible care. The CMA supports greater collaboration among providers in the interest of better patient care. In the context of clinical practice, the CMA defines collaborative care as follows: "Collaborative care entails physicians and other providers using complementary skills, knowledge and competencies and working together to provide care to a common group of patients based on trust, respect and an understanding of each others' skills and knowledge. This involves a mutually agreed upon division of roles and responsibilities that may vary according to the nature of the practice personalities and skill sets of the individuals. The relationship must be beneficial to the patient, and acceptable to the physician and other providers. If designed appropriately, collaborative care models have the potential to: * improve access to care; * enhance the quality and safety of care; * enhance the coordination and efficiency of care; and * enhance provider morale and reduce burnout within health professions. To realize this full potential, the profession acknowledges and accepts that it has a central role to play in the evolution of a team-based approach to care. These policy principles have been prepared by the Canadian Medical Association in order to ensure that the evolution of collaborative care in Canada is built around the needs of individual patients and groups of patients. This policy is founded on the CMA's document, Putting Patients' First: Patient-Centred Collaborative Care - A Discussion Paper. Principles for Collaborative Care The medical profession supports collaborative care, both in the hospital and in the community, as one of the essential elements of health care delivery in Canada. In the interests of enhancing the evolution of patient-centred collaborative care, the CMA proposes the following "critical success factors" and principles to address meaningfully the issues and barriers identified by physicians and bring clarity to the discussions. 1. PATIENT-CENTRED CARE First and foremost, medical care delivered by physicians and health care delivered by others should be aligned around the values and needs of patients. Collaborative care teams should foster and support patients, and their families, as active participants in their health care decision-making. New models should have the potential to empower patients to enhance their role in prevention and self-care. Models of collaborative care must be designed to meet the needs of patients. Collaborative models of practice must reduce fragmentation and enhance the quality and safety of care provided to patients. It is the patient who ultimately must make informed choices about the care he or she will receive. 2. RECOGNITION OF THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP The mutual respect and trust derived from the patient-physician relationship is the cornerstone of medical care. This trust is founded on the ethical principles that guide the medical profession as defined in the CMA Code of Ethics. The impact of collaborative models of practice on this relationship, and hence the patient's satisfaction and experience with their care, is unknown. Models of collaborative care must support the patient-physician relationship. Entry into and exit from a formal collaborative care arrangement must be voluntary for both the patient and the physician. A common Code of Ethics should guide the practice of collaborative care teams. Every resident of Canada has the right to access a personal family physician. † 3. PHYSICIAN AS THE CLINICAL LEADER Effective teams require effective leadership. A defined clinical leader is required to ensure proper functioning of the team and to facilitate decision-making, especially in complex or emergent situations. In collaborative care the clinical leader is responsible for maximizing the expertise and input of the entire team in order to provide the patient with comprehensive and definitive care. It is important to differentiate "clinical leadership" from "team coordination." The CMA defines a clinical leader as: "The individual who, based on his or her training, competencies and experience, is best able to synthesize and interpret the evidence and data provided by the patient and the team, make a differential diagnosis and deliver comprehensive care for the patient. The clinical leader is ultimately accountable to the patient for making definitive clinical decisions." Whereas, the team coordinator is defined as: "The individual, who, based on his or her training, competencies and experience, is best able to coordinate the services provided by the team so that they are integrated to provide the best care for the patient." The concept of "most responsible physician" has been and continues to be used to identify the individual who is ultimately responsible for the care of the patient. The "most responsible physician" is responsible for collecting, synthesizing and integrating the expert opinion of physician and non physician team members to determine the clinical management of the patient. Similarly, the presence of a defined clinical leader in a collaborative care setting creates clarity for patients, their families and the health care team by making lines of communication and responsibility clear, ultimately improving the quality and safety of care. In the CMA's opinion, the physician is best equipped to provide clinical leadership. This does not necessarily imply that a physician must be the team coordinator. Many teams will exist in which the physician will have a supporting role, including those focused on population health and patient education. We believe the most effective teams are ones in which the leadership roles have been clearly defined and earned. Some physicians may be prepared to play both roles; however, other members of the team may be best suited to serve as team coordinator. Currently, patients rely on, and expect, physicians to be clinical leaders in the assessment and delivery of the medical care they receive. In a collaborative care environment this expectation of physician leadership will not change. Team members will have specific knowledge and expertise in their respective disciplines. Physicians, by virtue of their broad and diverse knowledge, training and experience, have a unique appreciation of the full spectrum of health and health care delivery in their field of practice and are therefore best qualified to evaluate and synthesize diverse professional perspectives to ensure optimal patient care. The physician, by virtue of training, knowledge, background and patient relationship, is best positioned to assume the role of clinical leader in collaborative care teams. There may be some situations in which the physician may delegate clinical leadership to another health care professional. Other health care professionals may be best suited to act as team coordinator. 4. MUTUAL RESPECT AND TRUST Trust between individuals and provider groups evolves as knowledge and understanding of competencies, skills and scopes of practice are gained. Trust is also essential to ensuring that the team functions efficiently and maximizes the contributions of all members. Funders and providers should recognize the importance of team building in contributing to team effectiveness. Collaborative care funding models should support a more formalized and integrated approach to both change management and team building. As relationships are strengthened within the team, so too are trust and respect. Physicians and all team members have an opportunity to be positive role models to motivate and inspire their colleagues. All team members ought to make a commitment to respect and trust each other with the knowledge that it will lead to enhanced care for patients and a more productive work environment for all. To serve the health care needs of patients, there must be a collaborative and respectful interaction among health care professionals, with recognition and understanding of the contributions of each provider to the team. In order to build trust and respect within the team it is essential that members understand and respect the professional responsibility, knowledge and skills that come with their scope of practice within the context of the team. 5. CLEAR COMMUNICATION In collaborative care environments, it is essential that all members of the team communicate effectively to provide safe and optimal care. Effective communication is essential to ensure safe and coordinated care as the size of the team expands to meet patient needs. It is the responsibility of all team members to ensure that the patient is receiving timely, clear and consistent messaging. Physicians can take a leadership role in modeling effective communications throughout the team. In particular, there is an opportunity to enhance the consultation and referral process, in order to provide clear and concise instructions to colleagues and optimize care. Sufficient resources, including dedicated time and support, must be available to the team to maximize these communication requirements. Effective communication within collaborative care teams is critical for the provision of high quality patient care. Planning, funding and training for collaborative care teams must include measures to support communication within these teams. Mechanisms must be in place within a collaborative team to ensure that both the patients, and their caregiver(s) where appropriate, receive timely information from the most appropriate provider. Effective and efficient communications within the collaborative care team, both with the patient and among team members, should be supported by clear documentation that identifies the author. A common, accessible patient record in collaborative care settings is desirable to ensure appropriate communication between physicians and other health care professionals, to prevent duplication, coordinate care, share information and protect the safety of patients. An integrated electronic health record is highly desirable to facilitate communication and sharing among team members. 6. CLARIFICATION OF ROLES AND SCOPES OF PRACTICE In order for the team to function safely and efficiently, it is critically important that the scope of practice, roles and responsibilities of each health care professional on the team be clearly defined and understood. In turn, the patient, as a team member, should also have a clear understanding of the roles and scopes of practice of their providers. Collaborative care must first and foremost serve the needs of patients, with the goal of enhancing patient care; collaborative care is not contingent upon altering the scope of practice of any provider group and must not be used as a means to expand the scope of practice and/or independence of a health professional group. Changes in the scope of practice of all provider groups must be done with oversight from the appropriate regulatory authority. Where non-physicians have been provided with an opportunity to undertake activities related to patient care typically unique to the practice of medicine (e.g., ordering tests), they must not do so independently but undertake these activities within the context of the team and in a manner acceptable to the clinical leader. The role and scope of practice of each member of the collaborative care team should be clearly understood and delineated in job descriptions and employment contracts. A formal process for conflict resolution should be in place so that issues can be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. 7. CLARIFICATION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY In the context of providing optimal care, providers must be accountable and responsible for the outcome of their individual practice, while sharing responsibility for the proper functioning of the collaborative care team. This individual responsibility is required so that regardless of the number and diversity of providers involved in the team, patients can be assured that their well-being is protected and that the team is working toward a common goal. In collaborative care teams, a physician should be identified as the person most responsible for the clinical care of individual patients, and as such must be accountable for the care rendered to patients. This is consistent with the commitment made by the physician in the doctor-patient relationship, mirrors the clinical training of the physician relative to other providers, is reflective of the current state of tort law as it applies to medical practice, and is compatible with the structure of care delivery in hospitals and in the community. Clearly, this type of arrangement does not eliminate the necessity for all providers to be accountable for the care that they provide. It is essential that all providers be responsible and accountable for the care that they provide and for the well-being of the patient. As clinical leader, the physician should be responsible for the clinical oversight of an individual patient's care. 8. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE TEAM As discussed earlier in this paper, the resolution of the multiplicity of liability issues that result from care delivered by teams requires clearly defined roles and responsibilities in the team setting and the absolute requirement for appropriate and sufficient liability coverage for each health professional. The August 2006 statement of the Canadian Medical Protective Association, Collaborative Care: A medical liability perspective, identifies issues of concern to physicians and proposes solutions to reduce those risks. All members of a collaborative care team must have adequate professional liability protection and/or insurance coverage to accommodate their scope of practice and their respective roles and responsibilities within the collaborative care team. Physicians, in their role as clinical leaders of collaborative care teams, must be satisfied with the ongoing existence of appropriate liability protection as a condition of employment of, or affiliation with, other members on collaborative care teams. Formalized procedures should be established to ensure evidence of this liability protection. 9. SUFFICIENT HUMAN RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Collaborative models of health care delivery hold the promise of enhancing access to care for patients at a time of serious health human resource shortages. However, effective patient-centred collaborative care depends on an adequate supply of physicians, nurses and other providers. Governments and decision-makers must continue to enhance their efforts to increase the number of physicians and nurses available to provide health care services. Collaborative care should not be seen as an opportunity for governments to substitute one care provider for another simply because one is more plentiful or less costly than the other. In addition, governments must understand that co-location of individuals in a team is not a requirement for all collaborative care. Where team co-location does not exist, appropriate resources must be dedicated to ensure communication can be timely, effective and appropriate between providers. Governments, at all levels, must address the serious shortage of physicians to ensure quality patient care for Canadians. The effective functioning of a collaborative care team depends on the contribution of a physician. Governments must enhance access to medical care by increasing the number of physicians and providers, and not by encouraging or empowering physician substitution. 10. SUFFICIENT FUNDING & PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS Funding must be present to support all aspects of the development of collaborative care teams. At the practice level, remuneration methods for physicians, irrespective of their specialty, must be available to facilitate collaborative care arrangements and environments in which physicians practice. All care delivery models, including collaborative care teams, must have access to adequate and appropriate resources. This includes, but should not be limited to, funding for health human resources, administration/management infrastructure, liability protection, clinical and team/administrative training, team building, and information technology. Remuneration models should be established in a manner that encourages providers to participate effectively in the delivery of care and team effectiveness. Reimbursement models must be configured to remunerate the communicator, coordinator, manager, and other roles and responsibilities of providers necessary for the success of collaborative care practice. The ability of a physician to work in a collaborative care team must not be based on the physician's choice of remuneration. Similarly, patients should not be denied access to the benefits of collaborative practice as a result of the physician's choice of payment model. Collaborative care relationships between physicians and other health care providers should continue to be encouraged and enhanced through appropriate resource allocation at all levels of the health care system. Physicians should be appropriately compensated for all aspects of their clinical care and leadership activities in collaborative care teams. Physicians should not be expected to incur the cost of adopting and maintaining health information technology capabilities that facilitate their ability to participate in collaborative practice teams. Governments must fund and support in an ongoing manner, both financially and technically, the development and integration of electronic health records. 11. SUPPORTIVE EDUCATION SYSTEM Canada is renowned for a quality medical education system and for the early efforts to enhance interprofessional training. The success of collaborative care requires a commitment towards interprofessional education and is contingent upon the positive attitudes and support of educators. To facilitate a sustainable shift toward collaborative practice, these efforts must be continued and enhanced in a meaningful way. However, governments and educators must ensure that the availability and quality of medical education is not compromised for medical trainees. Interprofessional education, at the undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing education levels, is necessary to facilitate a greater understanding of the potential roles, responsibilities and capabilities of health professions, with the overall goal of building better health care teams founded on mutual respect and trust. Governments must understand the importance of interprofessional education and fund educational institutions appropriately to meet these new training needs. Educational opportunities must exist at all levels of training to acquire both clinical knowledge and team effectiveness/leadership training. Interprofessional education opportunities must not come at the expense of core medical training. High quality medical education must be available to all medical trainees as a first priority. 12. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION More research and evaluations are necessary to demonstrate the benefits of collaborative care, to foster greater adoption by providers and to attract the necessary investment by governments. Quality management systems must be built into the team to ensure efficiencies can be recorded. Measures of the quality of care, cost effectiveness and patient and provider satisfaction should be evaluated. Research into the effectiveness of collaborative care models on health outcomes, patient and provider satisfaction and health care cost effectiveness should be ongoing, transparent and supported by governments. Quality assessment measures must be incorporated into the ongoing work of collaborative care teams. † Where the term "family physician" is used, it is also meant to include general practitioners.
Documents
Less detail

Federal Health Financing (Update 2008)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9129
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-05-27
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-05-27
Replaces
Federal health financing (Update 2001)
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
Federal Health Financing (Update 2008) The Canadian Medical Association believes that financial support from the federal government for health care should provide the following: * The maintenance and improvement of standards of health care service across Canada. * The financial stability necessary to effectively plan health care delivery and flexibility in spending across Canada to respond to local circumstances, emerging health needs, and new patient-care modalities. * The indexing of federal health cash payments to provinces and territories to reflect changes in population growth, ageing, epidemiology, current knowledge, new technology and economic growth. * Greater accountability, visibility and improved linkages of services to users. * Greater equity across the provinces and territories in the ability to finance necessary health care programs. * The joint policy discussions necessary to address health issues of national importance. The CMA is committed to preserving the right of reasonable access to high-quality health care regardless of ability to pay. It is also committed to achieving national health care standards (accessibility, universality, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration) and to developing health goals to ensure that all Canadians receive the best possible care when required. The CMA supports the goal of maintaining the national integrity of the health care system. It encourages the federal government to be sensitive to the concerns of equity, and to ensure that provinces and territories that have not attained a level of health care services and facilities equivalent to those of other provinces and territories, because of fiscal incapacities, have access to additional funding requirements to reduce the gap. The CMA recognizes that flexibility in spending across Canada is important to respond to changing health care needs and changes in the delivery of health care, as is the necessity of joint policy discussions to address health issues of national importance. Stability in funding is viewed as the mechanism to achieving effective health care planning. Over 50 years of federal financing In 1957 and 1966, the federal government introduced the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and Medicare Act. These programs reflected the federal government's desire to implement 50-50 basis with the provinces for the funding of hospital and physician services. The federal support was program specific, with contributions determined to be about half the national average of per-capita expenditures on health care. This provided greater assistance to provinces with lower per-capita costs. In 1977, the funding arrangement was replaced by the negotiated Established Programs Financing (EPF) arrangements. The new "block-funding" agreement established a predetermined level of financial contributions by the federal government that was linked to the rate of change of gross national product (GNP) and changes in the provincial/territorial populations. It is important to note that federal transfers are comprised of cash and tax points. The objectives of the EPF arrangements as set out by the Prime Minister in June 1976, were (a) to maintain across Canada the standards of service to the public under these major programs, and to facilitate their improvement; (b) to put the programs on a more stable footing, so that both levels of government are better able to plan their expenditures; (c) to give the provinces the flexibility of in the use of their own funds which they have been spending in these fields; (d) to bring about greater equity among the provinces with regard to the amount of federal funds that they receive under the program; and (e) to provide for continuing joint policy discussions relating to the health and post-secondary education fields. The need for funding predictability Over the course of their existence, the EPF arrangements were amended four times - 1982 (Bill C-97), 1984 (Bill C-96), 1989 (Bill C-33) and 1991(Bill C-69). These changes resulted in freezes in the growth of federal health transfers and created a period of funding uncertainty for provinces and territories. On April 1, 1996, the federal government introduced the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) which combined two transfer programs, EPF and the Canada Assistance Plan into one transfer program for insured health services, post secondary education and social assistance programs. Cash payments under the CHST were subject to the five program criteria of the Canada Health Act (1984) - accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration as well as the single condition that the province/territory must provide social assistance to applicants without a minimum residency requirement. In combining these programs the federal government used the opportunity to cut cash entitlements to the provinces/territories from $18.5 billion per year 1995-1996 to a low of $11.1 billion per year in 1999-2000. However, due to improving economic conditions and a rapidly impending balanced budget, the federal government announced in its September 1997 Throne Speech that it would be increasing the cash floor to $12.5 billion per year in 1998-1999 to 2002-2003. This measure was announced in the 1998-1999 budget; however, rather than an increase in funding, it was merely a partial reversal in cash reductions to the provinces/territories. Targeted federal financing Since 2000, the federal government has increased the use of targeted investments and in the health arena. On Sept. 11, 2000, First Ministers issued a Communiqué on Health announcing a series of investments, over five years, which focused on health and other social programs. The CHST cash floor was "increased" by $2.5 billion effective April 1, 2001. The February 2003 Budget in support of that year's First Ministers' Accord on Health Care Renewal confirmed: (1) a two-year extension to 2007-2008 of the five-year legislative framework put in place in September 2000, with an additional $1.8 billion; (2) a $2.5 billion CHST supplement, giving provinces the flexibility to draw down funds as they require up to the end of 2005-2006; and (3) the restructuring of the CHST to create a separate Canada Health Transfer and a Canada Social Transfer effective April 1, 2004, in order to increase transparency and accountability. In September 2004, First Ministers signed an agreement on health care that included commitments to reduce wait times, address gaps in health human resources, expand home care, continue efforts in primary care reform, implement a national pharmaceutical strategy, and develop national public health goals. To support the new agreement, the federal government committed to increase health funding by a total of $18 billion over 6 years or $41 billion over 10 years. This includes: * $3 billion to close the "short-term Romanow gap;" * $500 million for home care and catastrophic coverage; * $4.5 billion for a Wait Time Reduction Fund; * $1 billion for health human resources (to be transferred in last four years of agreement); * $500 million for medical equipment; and * a 6% escalator for the Canada Health Transfer. The 2007 budget provided over one billion additional dollars for the health care system mainly through a $612 million investment to accelerate the implementation of patient wait-time guarantees, $400 million for Canada Health Infoway to support the further development of health information systems and electronic records, and $300 million for a vaccine program to protect women and girls against cancer of the cervix. Clarifying responsibilities and accountability The 2007 budget made reference to the federal government's constitutional responsibilities for health care and stressed an increased concern of accounting for federal health transfers to the provinces/territories. The Oct. 16, 2007 Speech from the Throne, to open the second session of the 39th Parliament of the Government of Canada, included a commitment to introduce legislation that would place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new cost-shared programs in areas of provincial/territorial jurisdiction, and would also provide an opt-out option with compensation for provinces and territories if they offer compatible programs. The main foundation for this proposal is set out in the Feb. 4, 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA), in which the federal government gave several undertakings with regard to new "Canada-wide initiatives" in areas of provincial jurisdiction: * collaboration with provincial/territorial governments to identify priorities and objectives; * not to introduce new initiatives without agreement of a majority of provincial governments; * provincial/territorial governments to determine detailed program design and mix; * provincial/territorial governments can reinvest any funds not needed to deliver objectives; * federal/provincial/territorial governments to agree on accountability framework; and * funding to be contingent on meeting or committing to objectives specified in accountability framework. The most notable application of SUFA principles in respect of new programs to date has been the Sept. 15, 2004 Asymmetrical Federalism that Respects Quebec's Jurisdiction Agreement in which Quebec agreed to develop and implement its own plan to attain the objectives of the First Ministers' 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care, and to report progress to Quebecers using comparable indicators, mutually agreed to with other governments. The accountability framework set out in SUFA would appear to be the linchpin of assuring the national character of any future health programs. Its implementation has thus far been a failure. While governments did agree to common indicators in 2000 and 2003, and did produce them in 2002 and 2004, they have been resistant to any attempts at comparability/benchmarking between jurisdictions and they failed to produce them at all in 2006. The Health Council of Canada lamented this lack of cooperation in its 2007 annual report. Ensuring federal health financing is responsive to Canadians' health needs The CMA believes that the federal government has a special responsibility for financing health care. The development of the health care financing system on a cooperative federal/provincial/territorial basis has many merits. It has resulted in the clear perception that the federal government has an obligation to ensure that reasonably comparable, high quality health care services are available, on a reasonably comparable basis, to all Canadians. Through its financial contributions in support of the 2000, 2003 and 2004 health accords, the federal government has effectively restored the cuts made to federal health transfers during the early 1990s. However, health care which is now at 40 per cent of total provincial/territorial program spending continues to grow. The CMA must remain vigilant to ensure that the federal government continues to provide stable, predictable and adequate funding necessary to maintain and improve the standards of health care service across Canada. This federal funding should provide for a system that is effective, efficient and responsible. With respect to the broader continuum of care, the future of Medicare is uncertain. While the federal government's role in funding health care remains tied to the Canada Health Act, Medicare must be modernized to reflect the current and future reality of the delivery of care. In 1975, just after Medicare was fully adopted, hospital and physician expenditures represented 60% of total health expenditures; as of 2006, this share has dropped by almost one-third to 43%. Over the past two decades, prescription drugs, as a proportion of total health spending, have doubled from 7% in 1986 to an estimated 14.2% in 2006. While a majority of Canadians have prescription drug coverage from either private or public plans, it is estimated that some 3.5 million are either uninsured or underinsured for prescription drug costs. However, there is a clear consensus on the need for catastrophic prescription drug coverage and a growing concern about how to address the issue of very costly "orphan" drugs for rare diseases, and expensive treatments for common diseases such as breast cancer. In 2003, First Ministers committed to having catastrophic drug coverage in place by the end of 2005-2006, and while this is one of the elements of the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy, little collective action has taken place beyond further study. Similarly a 2003 commitment by First Ministers to first-dollar coverage for a basket of short-term acute home care, community mental health and end-of-life care services remains unmet. The issue of long-term care of the elderly also looms on the horizon as the first cohort of the baby boom generation turns 65 in 2011. Indeed hospitals are already feeling the pinch of a lack of alternative level of care beds. International experience suggests that long-term care cannot nor should not be financed on the same pay-as-you-go basis as medical/hospital insurance. Innovative approaches will be required to provide funding for the broader continuum of care (see CMA Policy Statement, It's Still About Access: Medicare Plus). We can expect to continue to see a mix of public and private plans and out-of-pocket payments (e.g., co-payments) and greater use of tax policy. This is the experience of most European and other industrialized countries. In Canada and internationally, the prospects for additional health programs funded on a first-dollar basis out of general taxation revenues are slim. In its 2007 budget, the federal government introduced a Registered Disability Savings Plan to help parents of children with a severe disability to ensure their children's future financial security by investing after-tax income on which the investment income will accumulate tax-free. Consideration should be given to implementing a similar contributions-based program for long-term care as is found in some other countries. Another possibility would see the creation of a Canada Extended Health Services Financing Act that would provide a mechanism for sustainable federal funding to support provinces and territories providing necessary health services in the home and community setting. Such legislation would be based on a series of principles supported by Canadians to meet their health care needs.
Documents
Less detail