Racism is a structural determinant of health and drives health and social inequities. The recent incidents of anti-Black violence, racism and discrimination in the US and Canada also shed light on the structural inequities and racism that exist within the medical profession and the health system.
The profession of medicine is grounded in respect for all people. This commitment recognizes that everyone has equal and inherent worth, the right to be valued and respected, and the right to be treated with dignity.
It’s critical that our medical culture – and society more broadly – upholds these values. But today, we’re reminded that there’s much more to do as a profession, and as a global community, to get us there.
Earlier this year, we launched our first-ever policy on equity and diversity in medicine Opens in a new window to help break down the many broad and systemic barriers that remain, to reduce discrimination and bias within our profession, and to create physically and psychologically safe environments for ourselves, our colleagues and our patients.
Alongside this policy comes a commitment to holding ourselves accountable to recognizing and challenging behaviours, practices and conditions that hinder equity and diversity, including racism.
Instances of racism, intolerance, exclusion, violence and discrimination have no place in medicine, and no place in our society. The Canadian Medical Association condemns racism in all its forms. Today, we stand alongside all those who have been affected by these appalling and inexcusable actions and beliefs.
Dr. Sandy Buchman
President, Canadian Medical Association
The current global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus has presented the international medical community with unprecedented ethical challenges. The most difficult of these has involved making decisions about access to scarce resources when demand outweighs capacity.
In Canada, it is well accepted that everyone should have an equal opportunity to access and receive medical treatment. This is possible when there are sufficient resources. But in contexts of resource scarcity, when there are insufficient resources, difficult decisions have to be made about who receives critical care (e.g., ICU beds, ventilators) by triaging patients. Triage is a process for determining which patients receive treatment and/or which level of care under what circumstances in contexts of resource scarcity. Priority-setting for resource allocation becomes more ethically complex during catastrophic times or in public health emergencies, such as today’s COVID-19 pandemic, when there is a need to manage a potential surge of patients.
Physicians from China to Italy to Spain to the United States have found themselves in the unfathomable position of having to triage their most seriously ill patients and decide which ones should have access to ventilators and which should not, and which allocation criteria should be used to make these decisions. While the Canadian Medical Association hopes that Canadian physicians will not be faced with these agonizing choices, it is our intent, through this framework, to provide them with guidance in case they do and enable them to make ethically justifiable informed decisions in the face of difficult ethical dilemmas. Invoking this framework to ground decisions about who has access to critical care and who does not should only be made as a last resort. As always, physicians should carefully document their clinical and ethical decisions and the reasoning behind them.
Generally, the CMA would spend many months in deliberations and consultations with numerous stakeholders, including patients and the public, before producing a document such as this one. The current situation, unfortunately, did not allow for such a process. We have turned instead to documents, reports and policies produced by our Italian colleagues and ethicists and physicians from Canada and around the world, as well as provincial level documents and frameworks.
The CMA is endorsing and recommending that Canadian physicians use the guidance provided by Emmanuel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine article dated from March 23rd, as outlined below. We believe these recommendations represent the best current approach to this situation, produced using the highest current standard of evidence by a panel of internationally recognized experts. We also recognize that the situation is changing constantly, and these guidelines may need to be updated as required.
The CMA will continue to advocate for access to personal protective equipment, ventilators and ICU equipment and resources. We also encourage physicians to make themselves aware of any relevant provincial or local documents, and to seek advice from their regulatory body or liability protection provider. It should be noted that some provinces and indeed individual health care facilities will have their own protocols or frameworks in place. At the time of its publication, this document was broadly consistent with those protocols that we were given an opportunity to review.
The CMA recognizes that physicians may experience moral distress when making these decisions. We encourage physicians to seek peer support and practice self-care. In addition, the CMA recommends that triage teams or committees be convened where feasible in order to help separate clinical decision making from resource allocation, thereby lessening the moral burden being placed on the individual physician.
The CMA recommends that physicians receive legal protection to ensure that they can continue providing needed care to patients with confidence and support and without fear of civil or criminal liability or professional discipline. In this time of uncertainty, physicians should be reassured that their good faith efforts to provide care during such a crisis will not put them at increased medical-legal risk. Providing such reassurance is needed so that physicians have the confidence to continue to provide care to their patients.
Recommendation 1: In the context of a pandemic, the value of maximizing benefits is most important. This value reflects the importance of responsible stewardship of resources: it is difficult to justify asking health care workers and the public to take risks and make sacrifices if the promise that their efforts will save and lengthen lives is illusory. Priority for limited resources should aim both at saving the most lives and at maximizing improvements in individuals’ post-treatment length of life. Saving more lives and more years of life is a consensus value across expert reports. It is consistent both with utilitarian ethical perspectives that emphasize population outcomes and with nonutilitarian views that emphasize the paramount value of each human life. There are many reasonable ways of balancing saving more lives against saving more years of life; whatever balance between lives and life-years is chosen must be applied consistently.
Limited time and information in a Covid-19 pandemic make it justifiable to give priority to maximizing the number of patients that survive treatment with a reasonable life expectancy and to regard maximizing improvements in length of life as a subordinate aim. The latter becomes relevant only in comparing patients whose likelihood of survival is similar. Limited time and information during an emergency also counsel against incorporating patients’ future quality of life, and quality-adjusted life-years, into benefit maximization. Doing so would require time-consuming collection of information and would present ethical and legal problems. However, encouraging all patients, especially those facing the prospect of intensive care, to document in an advance care directive what future quality of life they would regard as acceptable and when they would refuse ventilators or other life-sustaining interventions can be appropriate.
Operationalizing the value of maximizing benefits means that people who are sick but could recover if treated are given priority over those who are unlikely to recover even if treated and those who are likely to recover without treatment. Because young, severely ill patients will often comprise many of those who are sick but could recover with treatment, this operationalization also has the effect of giving priority to those who are worst off in the sense of being at risk of dying young and not having a full life.
Because maximizing benefits is paramount in a pandemic, we believe that removing a patient from a ventilator or an ICU bed to provide it to others in need is also justifiable and that patients should be made aware of this possibility at admission. Undoubtedly, withdrawing ventilators or ICU support from patients who arrived earlier to save those with better prognosis will be extremely psychologically traumatic for clinicians — and some clinicians might refuse to do so. However, many guidelines agree that the decision to withdraw a scarce resource to save others is not an act of killing and does not require the patient’s consent. We agree with these guidelines that it is the ethical thing to do. Initially allocating beds and ventilators according to the value of maximizing benefits could help reduce the need for withdrawal.
Recommendation 2: Irrespective of Recommendation 1, Critical Covid-19 interventions — testing, PPE, ICU beds, ventilators, therapeutics, and vaccines — should go first to front-line health care workers and others who care for ill patients and who keep critical infrastructure operating, particularly workers who face a high risk of infection and whose training makes them difficult to replace. These workers should be given priority not because they are somehow more worthy, but because of their instrumental value: they are essential to pandemic response. If physicians and nurses and RTs are incapacitated, all patients — not just those with Covid-19 — will suffer greater mortality and years of life lost. Whether health workers who need ventilators will be able to return to work is uncertain but giving them priority for ventilators recognizes their assumption of the high-risk work of saving others. Priority for critical workers must not be abused by prioritizing wealthy or famous persons or the politically powerful above first responders and medical staff — as has already happened for testing. Such abuses will undermine trust in the allocation framework.
Recommendation 3: For patients with similar prognoses, equality should be invoked and operationalized through random allocation, such as a lottery, rather than a first-come, first-served allocation process. First-come, first-served is used for such resources as transplantable kidneys, where scarcity is long-standing, and patients can survive without the scarce resource. Conversely, treatments for coronavirus address urgent need, meaning that a first-come, first-served approach would unfairly benefit patients living nearer to health facilities. And first-come, first-served medication or vaccine distribution would encourage crowding and even violence during a period when social distancing is paramount. Finally, first-come, first-served approaches mean that people who happen to get sick later on, perhaps because of their strict adherence to recommended public health measures, are excluded from treatment, worsening outcomes without improving fairness. In the face of time pressure and limited information, random selection is also preferable to trying to make finer-grained prognostic judgments within a group of roughly similar patients.
Recommendation 4: Prioritization guidelines should differ by intervention and should respond to changing scientific evidence. For instance, younger patients should not be prioritized for Covid-19 vaccines, which prevent disease rather than cure it, or for experimental post- or pre-exposure prophylaxis. Covid-19 outcomes have been significantly worse in older persons and those with chronic conditions. Invoking the value of maximizing saving lives justifies giving older persons priority for vaccines immediately after health care workers and first responders. If the vaccine supply is insufficient for patients in the highest risk categories — those over 60 years of age or with coexisting conditions — then equality supports using random selection, such as a lottery, for vaccine allocation. Invoking instrumental value justifies prioritizing younger patients for vaccines only if epidemiologic modeling shows that this would be the best way to reduce viral spread and the risk to others.
Epidemiologic modeling is even more relevant in setting priorities for coronavirus testing. Federal guidance currently gives priority to health care workers and older patients but reserving some tests for public health surveillance could improve knowledge about Covid-19 transmission and help researchers target other treatments to maximize benefits.
Conversely, ICU beds and ventilators are curative rather than preventive. Patients who need them face life-threatening conditions. Maximizing benefits requires consideration of prognosis — how long the patient is likely to live if treated — which may mean giving priority to younger patients and those with fewer coexisting conditions. This is consistent with the Italian guidelines that potentially assign a higher priority for intensive care access to younger patients with severe illness than to elderly patients. Determining the benefit-maximizing allocation of antivirals and other experimental treatments, which are likely to be most effective in patients who are seriously but not critically ill, will depend on scientific evidence. These treatments may produce the most benefit if preferentially allocated to patients who would fare badly on ventilation.
Recommendation 5: People who participate in research to prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and therapeutics should receive some priority for Covid-19 interventions. Their assumption of risk during their participation in research helps future patients, and they should be rewarded for that contribution. These rewards will also encourage other patients to participate in clinical trials. Research participation, however, should serve only as a tiebreaker among patients with similar prognoses.
Recommendation 6: There should be no difference in allocating scarce resources between patients with Covid-19 and those with other medical conditions. If the Covid-19 pandemic leads to absolute scarcity, that scarcity will affect all patients, including those with heart failure, cancer, and other serious and life-threatening conditions requiring prompt medical attention. Fair allocation of resources that prioritizes the value of maximizing benefits applies across all patients who need resources. For example, a doctor with an allergy who goes into anaphylactic shock and needs life-saving intubation and ventilator support should receive priority over Covid-19 patients who are not frontline health care workers.
Approved by the CMA Board of Directors April 2020
In 2010, 14% of Canada's population was 65 or older. With the aging of the baby boom generation, this proportion is estimated to rise to about 25% in 2036 (1). The aging of Canada's population is expected to have a major impact on the country's economy, society and health care system over the next 25 to 30 years.
Though age does not automatically mean ill health or disability, the risk of both does increase as people age. In 2006, 33% of Canadians aged 65 or older had a disability; the proportion climbed to 44% among people aged 75 or older (2). Nearly three-quarters of Canadians over 65 have at least one chronic health condition (3). Because of increasing rates of disability and chronic disease, the demand for health services is expected to increase as Canada's population ages. Currently Canadians over 65 consume roughly 44% of provincial and territorial health care budgets (4), and governments are concerned about the health care system's capacity to provide quality services in future.
The CMA believes that to provide optimal care and support for Canada's aging population, while taking care to minimize pressure on the health-care system as much as possible, governments at all levels should invest in:
* programs and supports to promote healthy aging;
* a comprehensive continuum of health services to provide optimal care and support to older Canadians; and
* an environment and society that is "age friendly."
This policy describes specific actions that could be taken to further these three goals. Its recommendations complement those made in other CMA policies, including those on "Funding the Continuum of Care" (2009), Optimal Prescribing (2010) and Medication Use and Seniors (Update 2011).
2) Providing Optimal Health and Health Care for Older Persons:
This section discusses in detail the three general areas in which the CMA believes governments should invest:
a) Promotion of "Healthy Aging"
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) defines healthy aging as "the process of optimizing opportunities for physical, social and mental health to enable seniors to take an active part in society without discrimination and to enjoy independence and quality of life." It is believed that initiatives to promote healthy aging, and enable older Canadians to maintain their health, will help lower health-care costs by reducing the overall burden of disability and chronic disease. Such initiatives could focus on:
Physical activity. Being physically active is considered the most important step that older Canadians can take toward improving health, even if they do not start being active until later in life. However in 2008, 57% of seniors reported being physically inactive (5).
Injury prevention. Falls are the primary cause of injury among older Canadians; they account for 40% of admissions to nursing homes, 62% of injury-related hospitalizations, and almost 90% of hip fractures (6). The causes of falls are complex, and both physiology (e.g. effect of illness) and environment (e.g. poorly maintained walkways) can contribute. Most falls can be prevented through a mix of interventions: for the person (such as strength and balance training); and for the person's environment, (such as grab bars and railings, slip-proof floor surfaces, walkways that are cleared of snow and ice in winter.)
Nutrition. In 2008, 28% of men and 31% of women over 65 were obese (BMI = 30); this is higher than the population average. Underweight is also a problem among seniors, 17% of whom report a BMI of 20 or less (7). The reasons for nutrition problems among older Canadians are complex; they may be related to insufficient income to purchase healthy foods, or to disabilities that make shopping or preparing meals difficult.
Mental health. An estimated 10-15% of seniors report depression, and the rate is higher among those with concomitant physical illness, or those living in long-term care facilities (8). Depression among older people may be under-recognized and under-treated, since it might be dismissed as a normal consequence of aging. Poor mental health is often associated with social isolation, a common problem among seniors.
Governments and National Associations
The CMA recommends that:
1. Governments at all levels support programs to promote physical activity, nutrition, injury prevention and mental health among older Canadians.
Health Service Delivery
The CMA recommends that:
2. Older Canadians have access to high-quality, well-funded programs and supports to help them achieve and maintain physical fitness and optimal nutrition.
3. Older Canadians have access to high-quality, well-funded programs aimed at determining the causes and reducing the risk of falls.
4. Older Canadians have access to high-quality, well-funded programs to promote mental health and well-being and reduce social isolation.
Physicians and Patients
The CMA recommends that:
5. Older Canadians be encouraged to follow current guidelines for healthy living, such as the 2012 Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for adults 65 and over.
6. Physicians and other health care providers be encouraged to counsel older patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy and balanced life style.
7. All stakeholders assist in developing health literacy tools and resources to support older Canadians and their families in maintaining health.
b) A Comprehensive Continuum of Health Services
Though, as previously mentioned, age does not automatically mean ill health, utilization of health services does increase with increasing age. Patients over 65 have more family physician visits, more hospital admissions and longer hospital stays than younger Canadians (the overall length of stay in acute inpatient care is about 1.5 times that of non-senior adults) (9).
In addition, seniors take more prescription drugs per person than younger adults; 62% of seniors on public drug programs use five or more drug classes, and nearly 30% of those 85 and older have claims for 10 or more prescription drugs (10). Heavy medication use by people over 65 has a number of consequences:
* The risk of adverse drug reactions is several-fold higher for seniors than for younger patients.
* Medication regimes, particularly for those taking several drugs a day on different dosage schedules, can be confusing and lead to errors or non-adherence.
* Patients may receive prescriptions from multiple providers who, if they have not been communicating with each other, may not know what other medications have been prescribed. This increases the risk of harmful drug interactions and medication errors.
For seniors who have multiple chronic diseases or disabilities, care needs can be complex and vary greatly from one person to another. This could mean that a number of different physicians, and other health and social-services professionals, may be providing care to the same person. A patient might, for example, be consulting a family physician for primary health care, several medical specialists for different conditions, a pharmacist to monitor a complex medication regime, a physiotherapist to help with mobility difficulties, health care aides to clean house and make sure the patient is eating properly, and a social worker to make sure his or her income is sufficient to cover health care and other needs.
Complex care needs demand a flexible and responsive health care system. The CMA believes that quality health care for older Canadians should be delivered on a continuum from community based health care, (e.g. primary health care, chronic disease management programs), to home care (e.g. visiting health care workers to give baths and footcare), to long-term care and palliative care. Ideally, this continuum should be managed so that the patient can remain at home, out of emergency departments, hospitals and long term care unless appropriate, can easily access the level of care he or she needs, and can make a smooth transition from one level of care to another when needed.
Care managers are an essential part of this continuum, working with caregivers and the patient to identify the most appropriate form of care from a menu of alternatives. Care managers can co-ordinate the services of the various health professionals who deliver care to a given patient, and facilitate communication among them so that all work to a common care plan. A family physician who has established a long-standing professional relationship with the patient and is familiar with his or her condition, needs and preference is ideally placed to serve as manager of a patient's overall care, supported by geriatric and other specialists as appropriate.
Not all of the patient's caregivers may be health professionals; more than 75% of the care of older Canadians is delivered by unpaid informal caregivers, usually relatives. The role of the family caregiver can be demanding financially, physically and emotionally. Though governments have instituted tax credits and other forms of support for caregivers, more may be required. The Special Senate Committee on Aging has called for a National Caregiving Strategy to help put in place the supports that caregivers need. (11)
Finally, many of the services required by seniors, in particular home care and long-term care, are not covered by the Canada Health Act. Funding of these services varies widely from province to province. Long-term care beds are in short supply; as a result more than 5,000 hospital beds are occupied by patients waiting for long-term care placement (12), making them unavailable for those with acute-care needs. CMA's Health Care Transformation Framework (2010) makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving access to continuing care in Canada.
Governments and National Associations
The CMA recommends that:
8. Governments and other stakeholders work together to develop and implement models of integrated, interdisciplinary health service delivery for older Canadians.
9. Governments continue efforts to ensure that older Canadians have access to a family physician, supported by specialized geriatric services as appropriate.
10. Governments and other stakeholders work together to develop and implement a National Caregiver Strategy, and expand the support programs currently offered to informal caregivers.
11. All stakeholders work together to develop and implement a national dementia strategy.
12. Governments and other stakeholders work together to develop and implement a pan-Canadian pharmaceutical strategy that addresses both comprehensive coverage of essential medicines for all Canadians, and programs to encourage optimal prescribing and drug therapy.
13. Governments work with the health and social services sector, and with private insurers, to develop a framework for the funding and delivery of accessible and sustainable home care and long-term care services.
The CMA recommends that:
14. Medical schools enhance the provision, in undergraduate education and in residency training for all physicians, of programs addressing the clinical needs of older patients.
15. Medical students and residents be exposed to specialty programs in geriatric medicine and other disciplines that address the clinical needs of older patients.
16. Continuing education programs on care for older patients be developed and provided to physicians of all specialties, and to other health care providers, on a continuous basis.
Health System Planners
The CMA recommends that:
17. Health systems promote collaboration and communication among health care providers, through means such as:
a. Interdisciplinary primary health care practice settings, that bring a variety of physicians and other health professionals and their expertise into a seamless network;
b. Widespread use of the electronic health record; and
c. A smooth process for referral between providers.
18. All stakeholders work toward integration of health care along the continuum by addressing the barriers that separate:
a. acute care from the community;
b. health services from social services; and
c. provincially-funded health care services such as physicians and hospitals, from services funded through other sources, such as pharmacare, home care and long term care.
19. Programs be developed and implemented that promote optimal prescribing and medication management for seniors.
20. Research be conducted on a continuous basis to identify best practices in the care of seniors, and monitor the impact of various interventions on health outcomes and health care costs.
Physicians in Practice
The CMA recommends that:
21. Continuing education, clinical practice guidelines and decision support tools be developed and disseminated on a continuous basis, to help physicians keep abreast of best practices in elder care.
c) An Age-Friendly Environment:
One of the primary goals of seniors' policy in Canada is to promote the independence of older Canadians in their own homes and communities, avoiding costly institutionalization for as long as feasible. To help older Canadians successfully maintain their independence, it is important that governments and society ensure that the social determinants of health care addressed when developing policy that affects them. This includes assuring that the following supports are available to older Canadians:
* Adequate Income: Poverty among seniors dropped sharply in the 1970s and 1980s. In 2008, 6% of Canada's seniors were living in low income, as opposed to nearly 30% in 1978. However, there has been a slight increase in poverty levels since 2007, and it may be necessary to guard against an upward trend in future (13). Raising the minimum age for collecting Old Age Security, as has been proposed, may weigh heavily on seniors with lower incomes, and make prescription drugs, dental care and other needed health services unaffordable.
* Employment Opportunities: it has been recommended that seniors be encouraged to work beyond age 65 as a means of minimizing a future drain on pension plans (14). Many older Canadians who have not contributed to employee pension plans may be dependent on employment income for survival. However, employment may be difficult to find if workplaces are unwilling to hire older workers.
* Housing. Nearly all of Canada's seniors live in their own homes; fewer than 10% live in long-term care facilities. Options are available that permit older Canadians to live independently even with disabilities and health care needs, such as:
o Home support for services such as shopping and home maintenance; and
o Assisted-living facilities that provide both independent living quarters and support services such as nursing assistance, and cafeterias if desired.
* An Age-friendly built environment. To enable seniors to live independently, the World Health Organization's "Age-Friendly Communities" initiative recommends that their needs be taken into consideration by those who design and build communities. For example, buildings could be designed with entrance ramps and elevators; sidewalks could have sloping curbs for walkers and wheelchairs; and frequent, accessible public transportation could be provided in neighbourhoods where a large concentration of seniors live.
* Protection from Abuse. Elder abuse can take many forms: physical, psychological, financial, or neglect. Often the abuser is a family member, friend, or other person in a position of trust. Researchers estimate that 4 to 10% of Canadian seniors experience abuse or neglect, but that only a small portion of this is reported (15). CMA supports awareness programs to bring the attention of elder abuse to the public, as well as programs to intervene with seniors who are abused, and with their abusers.
* A Discrimination-Free society. Efforts to boost income and employment security, health care standards and community support for older Canadians are hampered if the pervasive public attitude is that seniors are second-class citizens. An age-friendly society respects the experience, knowledge and capabilities of its older members, and accords them the same worth and dignity as it does other citizens.
Governments and National Associations
The CMA recommends that:
22. Governments provide older Canadians with access to adequate income support.
23. Governments devote a portion of national infrastructure funding to providing an adequate supply of accessible and affordable housing for seniors.
24. Older Canadians have access to opportunities for meaningful employment if they desire.
25. Communities take the needs and potential limitations of older Canadians into account when designing buildings, walkways, transportation systems and other aspects of the built environment.
Health System Planners
The CMA recommends that:
26. The health system offer a range of high-quality, well-funded home care and social support services to enable older Canadians to remain independent in the community for as long as possible.
27. Physicians receive advice and education on optimal community supports and resources to keep seniors independent and/or at home.
Physicians in Practice
The CMA recommends that:
28. Training and programs be provided to physicians and other care providers to enable them to identify elder abuse, and to intervene with abused people and their abusers.
Aging is not a disease, but an integral part of the human condition. To maximize the health and well-being of older Canadians, and ensure their continued functionality and independence for as long as possible, CMA believes that the health care system, governments and society should work with older Canadians to promote healthy aging, provide quality patient-centered health care and support services, and build communities that value Canadians of all ages.
1 Public health Agency of Canada. "Growing Older: Adding Life to Years. Annual report on the state of public health in Canada, 2010." Accessed at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cphorsphc-respcacsp/2010/fr-rc/index-eng.php
2 Statistics Canada: A Portrait of Seniors in Canada (2008). Accessed at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-519-x/89-519-x2006001-eng.htm
3 Canadian Institute for Health Information. "Seniors and the health care system: What is the impact of multiple chronic conditions?" (January 2011.) Accessed at https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/air-chronic_disease_aib_en.pdf
4 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2010. Accessed at http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_28oct10
5 PHAC 2010
6 PHAC 2010
7 PHAC 2010
8 Mood Disorders Society of Canada. "Depression in Elderly" (Fact sheet). Accessed at http://www.mooddisorderscanada.ca/documents/Consumer%20and%20Family%20Support/Depression%20in%20Elderly%20edited%20Dec16%202010.pdf
9 Canadian institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada, 2011: A Focus on Seniors and Aging. Accessed at https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCIC_2011_seniors_report_en.pdf
10 CIHI 2011
11 Special Senate Committee on Aging. "Canada's Aging Population: Seizing the Opportunity." (April 2009). Accessed at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/402/agei/rep/AgingFinalReport-e.pdf
12 CIHI 2009
13 PHAC 2010
14 Department of Finance Canada. Economic and fiscal implications of Canada's Aging Population (October 2012). Accessed at http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/eficap-rebvpc/report-rapport-eng.asp#Toc01.
15 PHAC 2010