CORE AND COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES
CMA believes that physicians must be actively involved in the decision-making process on core and comprehensive services. It developed a framework for this purpose after review and analysis of national and international decision-making frameworks, and after consideration of the political, policy and legal context of Canadian health care decision making. In addition to the framework, key terms associated with core and comprehensive health care services are operationally defined. Quality of care and ethical and economic factors are considered in a balanced and flexible manner, recognizing that the relative importance of any one factor may vary depending on the health care service being considered.
CMA first prepared this policy in 1994 to help physicians participate in making choices concerning core and comprehensive health care services. Over a decade later, the issue of defining these services remains a central issue for patients, providers and funders of Canada's health care system. Looking ahead, this will become even more pertinent as regional authorities assume greater authority in planning and allocating health funding across a broad range of programs.
Constructive leadership from the medical profession is essential to ensure a high quality Canadian health care system. Specifically, physicians must be actively involved in the decision-making process on core and comprehensive health care services.
CMA reviewed and analyzed several national and international decision-making frameworks and subsequently developed a framework for making decisions about core and comprehensive health care services (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services: a Framework for Decision Making, CMA, 1994). It also considered the current political, policy and legal context in which decisions on health care are made in Canada. Key terms associated with core and comprehensive health care services were operationally defined.
CMA encourages the use of its framework for making decisions about these services. Quality of care and ethical and economic factors are considered in a balanced and flexible manner, recognizing that the relative importance of any one factor may vary depending on the health care service being considered. Each factor affects decision making at the patient-physician (micro) level, the hospital and regional (meso) level and the provincial, territorial and national (macro) level.
This policy summary addresses the requirement for governments to fund core medical services but not the availability or desirability of private or alternative funding for these services.
Uniform use and interpretation of the terms used in this area are particularly important in policy development, negotiations and communications. The 1984 Canada Health Act stipulates that all "medically necessary" services be insured; however, the act does not define "medically necessary." This lack of a clear operational definition gives the provinces/territories some flexibility in the breadth of coverage provided by their insurance plans. However, it may also cause ambiguity and difficulty in selecting core health care services.
CMA defines medically necessary services as those "that a qualified physician determines are required to assess, prevent, treat, rehabilitate or palliate a given health concern or problem as supported by available scientific evidence and/or professional experience." (Adapted from Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 96.)
Health care services are "not only services provided by or under the supervision of a physician, but also a wide range of services performed by many other health care professionals." (Adapted from Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 92.) Medical services is "a category of health care services provided by or under the supervision of a physician." (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 96.)
Comprehensive health care and medical services are distinguished from core health care and medical services. Comprehensive health care and medical services are "a broad range of services that covers most, if not all, health care needs. These services may or may not be funded/insured by a government plan." (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 86.) Core health care and medical services are those that "are available to everyone as funded/insured by a government plan. [Alternative] funding sources for these services are not necessarily excluded." (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 86.)
Framework for decision making
CMA advocates a systematic and transparent decision-making framework for determining which services are considered core and comprehensive health care services. The framework was originally intended for medical services; however, it can also be applied to health care services. It is flexible so that users may adapt it to their own specific circumstances and needs. It is not a formula or set process that yields a quantifiable result for any given service, nor does it prescribe which services to insure or not insure. CMA has put forth the following principle concerning the framework.
When decisions about core and comprehensive health care services are made, the various levels at which decisions can be made must be considered. These include the patient- physician (micro) level, the hospital and regional (meso) level and the provincial, territorial and national (macro) level.
CMA recognizes that decisions are made at several levels: (1) the micro level, which involves individual decisions about service delivery made by patients, physicians and other providers, (2) the meso level, which involves regional health authorities and health care institutions such as hospitals, community groups and professional staff, and (3) the macro level, which involves system wide decisions made by governments, the electorate and professions as a whole.
It is important to take into account the likely effect of any decision on each level: a decision that is acceptable at the macro level may be impossible to deliver at the meso level and inappropriate for patients or practitioners at the micro level. Coordination is essential to make consistent decisions among levels and incorporate the concerns of patients, providers and payers.
CMA upholds a second principle concerning the decision making framework.
Quality of care and ethical and economic factors must be considered when decisions about core and comprehensive health care services are made.
Quality of care
Effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and patient acceptance are elements of quality of care. To be considered a core medical service, a medical service must be of high quality (i.e., it addresses effectively a health concern or condition through improved health outcomes and is delivered efficiently, appropriately and in a manner acceptable to patients) as well as fulfilling ethical and economic criteria. A medical service that is shown to be of little effectiveness cannot be delivered efficiently or poses many problems for patient safety or acceptance is less "medically necessary" than services that meet the quality of care criteria. Such a service is therefore unlikely to become or remain a core medical service.
The adoption of evidence-based medicine such as through the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a key component of quality improvement. CPGs are based on a systematic review of experience and research, and they help physicians to make decisions about necessary care. CPGs that are well developed and appropriately evaluated may also help to define core health care services. CPGs are also tools for the pursuit of quality, to maximize effective care and to reduce waste and ineffective activity in a given service, resulting in savings.
Clinical research is a key aspect of improvement in quality of care. Such research focuses on the effectiveness and impact of health care services on health outcomes. Procedures that demonstrate better outcomes than others should be included in a core health care package, whereas those that demonstrate inferior outcomes may be limited or excluded in some instances. When applying the concept of core health care services, provision must be made for ongoing evaluation of the quality of current services and appropriate assessment of new ones.
While it is important that the decision-making framework be evidence-based to the greatest extent possible, it should not be evidence-bound - that is, decisions may still need to be made from limited evidence.
Balancing finite fiscal resources and high quality medical and other health care services requires explicit societal choices about which services will be publicly funded (and for whom), which can be purchased and which will not be available at all in the Canadian system. These issues are ethical ones because they involve rights, responsibilities and societal values.
Whether decisions about resource allocation are made at the macro, meso or micro level, they must be fair. This means that those likely to be affected by a decision, whether they are patients, providers or payers, must have adequate opportunity for input into the decision-making process and must be informed about the reasons for the decisions.
When the availability of a health care service is inadequate to meet the demand, the criteria for allocating it should be fair and explicit. One such criterion is medical need: even if not all needed services can be publicly funded, services that are clearly unnecessary should not be funded in this way. Funding decisions should be nondiscriminatory; decisions about which health care services should or should not be publicly funded should not be based on age, sex, race, lifestyle and other personal and social characteristics of the potential recipients of a service.
Economic factors (Cost-effectiveness)
The level of public funding for health care services is ultimately a societal decision, as discussed in the section on ethical factors. Once such a societal decision has been made, economic factors are useful in determining the allocation of resources among health care services, especially in times of fiscal restraint.
There are various economic methods for evaluating funding decisions, the most common of which is cost effectiveness analysis. This approach suggests that decisions to insure a particular service should take into account cost in relation to outcome, e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Services that have a low cost for a significant gain in effectiveness may be more acceptable for public funding than others. This approach cannot be used in isolation; quality of care and ethical considerations must be taken into account before a final determination of the source of funding for core or comprehensive health care services is made.
Determination of which health care services are to be included in or excluded from a publicly financed health insurance plan should also incorporate an economic analysis of the primary and secondary effects on both the patient and provider populations. Some of the factors that should be included in such an analysis are: availability of substitutes, discretionary income, availability of private insurance, direct and indirect costs of service provision, barriers to entry and the existence of fixed global budgets. Economic analyses also include measurement of the opportunity costs, in terms of foregone services, associated with public financing of health care services. When possible, the public's needs should be distinguished from its wants for the purposes of public policy and funding.
From a clinical perspective, providers have always addressed patient needs on a case-by-case basis. However, fiscal restraint and the rationalization of health care services often result in the onus being placed on the provider to make micro resource allocation decisions. Local decisions (i.e., at the hospital and community level) about the rationalization of health care resources can restrict providers' ability to deliver services and patients' ability to receive them. Therefore, it is critical that the patient and provider perspectives be included in any economic analysis undertaken to define core health care services.
As enunciated in its policy statement, Federal Health Financing, the CMA will urge the federal government to ensure that full funding be available to support provincial and territorial provision of core medical services.
Nevertheless, there remain concerns regarding how the comprehensiveness principle is being interpreted. First, the array of core services varies considerably among the provinces/territories (e.g., prescription drug coverage). Second, the basket of core health services needs to be modernized to reflect Canadians' emerging health needs and how health care is now being delivered (e.g,. more out-patient care).
While a degree of latitude is required to accommodate differing regional needs, core services should be available to all Canadians on uniform terms and conditions and should not be limited to physician and hospital services. There should be ongoing periodic monitoring and reporting of the comparability of Canadians' access to a full range of medically necessary health services across the country.
Furthermore, there is a need for a federal/provincial/territorial process that is transparent, accountable, evidence-based and inclusive to regularly update the basket of core services. CMA will work with provincial/territorial medical associations and other stakeholders to develop a process for defining a national list of core medical services.
Greater transparency is required when de-insuring services, including the need for consultation and providing an adequate notice period for patients, providers and funders.
A new framework is also required to govern the funding of a basket of core health services that allows at least some core services to be cost-shared under uniform terms and conditions in all provinces and territories.
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.
The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association put forward the following principles to guide the transformation of the health care system in Canada toward one that is sustainable and adequately resourced, and provides universal access to quality, patient-centred care delivered along the full continuum of care in a timely and cost-effective manner. Such a system promotes health, effectively manages illness and focuses on outcomes, thereby contributing to a country's social and economic development and well-being.1
Canada's health care system is in need of transformation to better meet the health needs of Canadians. First, while it is recognized that elements of transformation are already taking place across the country, it is important that regional or jurisdictional change be guided by a common framework. Second, health care transformation must build on the five principles of the Canada Health Act (universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration) that currently apply only to hospital and physician services. Moving beyond these services, a common set of principles is required to guide a national transformation toward a more effective and comprehensive medicare system. A transformed Canadian health care system demands national standards for service quality and outcomes, for which both federal and provincial/territorial governments share responsibility.
The principles below have been organized according to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) Triple Aim Framework, which describes the three goals of "better care for individuals, better health for populations and lower per capita costs."2 It has been IHI's experience that all three must be addressed; where organizations address only one or two, results may be achieved to the detriment of the other(s).
ENHANCE THE HEALTH CARE EXPERIENCE
The patient must be at the centre of health care. Patient-centred care is seamless access to the continuum of care in a timely manner, based on need and not the ability to pay, that takes into consideration the individual needs and preferences of the patient and his/her family, and treats the patient with respect and dignity.3 Improving the patient experience and the health of Canadians must be at the heart of any reforms.
A strong primary health care foundation as well as collaboration and communication within and between health professional disciplines along the continuum are essential to achieving patient-centred care.
Canadians deserve quality services that are appropriate for patient needs, respect individual choice and are delivered in a manner that is timely, safe, effective and according to the most currently available scientific knowledge. Services should also be provided in a manner that ensures continuity of care. Quality must encompass both the processes and the outcomes of care. More attention needs to be given to ensuring a system-wide approach to quality.
IMPROVE POPULATION HEALTH
HEALTH PROMOTION AND ILLNESS PREVENTION
The health system must support Canadians in the prevention of illness and the enhancement of their well-being. The broader social determinants of health (e.g., income, education level, housing, employment status) affect the ability of individuals to assume personal responsibility for adopting and maintaining healthy lifestyles and minimizing exposure to avoidable health risks. Coordinated investments in health promotion and disease prevention, including attention to the role of the social determinants of health, are critical to the future health and wellness of Canadians and to the viability of the health care system. This is a responsibility that must be shared among health care providers, governments and patients, who must be actively engaged in optimizing their health and be involved in decisions that affect their overall health.
The health care system has a duty to Canadians to provide and advocate for equitable access to quality care and multi-sectoral policies to address the social determinants of health.4 In all societies, good health is directly related to the socio-economic gradient - the lower a person's social position, the worse his or her health. The relationship is so strong that it is measurable within any single socio-economic group, even the most privileged.
It is due to the sum of all parts of inequity in society - material circumstances, the social environment, behaviour, biology and psychosocial factors, all of which are shaped by the social determinants of health.5
Some health inequities are preventable; failure to address them will result in poorer health and higher health care costs than necessary. Improved health literacy (defined as the ability to access, understand and act on information for health) would help to mitigate these inequalities.
IMPROVE VALUE FOR MONEY
Sustainable health care requires universal access to quality health services that are adequately resourced and delivered along the full continuum in a timely and cost-effective manner. Canada's health care system must be sustainable in the following areas:
* Resourcing: Health services must be properly resourced based upon population needs, with appropriate consideration for the principles of interprovincial and intergenerational equity and pan-Canadian comparability of coverage for and access to appropriate health services.
- Financing: The health care system needs predictability, certainty and transparency of funding within the multi-year fiscal realities of taxpayers and governments, and funding options that promote risk-pooling, inter-provincial and inter-generational equity and administrative simplicity.
- Health human resources: Health care will be delivered within collaborative practice models; pan-Canadian standards/licensure will support inter-provincial portability of all health care providers; health human resource planning will adjust for local needs and conditions.
- Infrastructure: Health care in the 21st century demands a fully functional health care information technology system as well as buildings and capital equipment.
* Research: Health research in Canada will inform adjustments to health service delivery and to the resourcing of health services.
* Measuring and reporting: Outcome data are linked to cost data; comparable and meaningful performance measures are developed and publicly reported; outcomes are benchmarked to high-performing, comparable jurisdictions.
* Public support: The health care system must earn the support and confidence of the users and citizens of Canada, who ultimately pay for the system.
All stakeholders - the public/patients/families, providers and funders - have a responsibility for ensuring the system is effective and accountable. This includes:
* Good governance: Clear roles, lines of authority and responsibilities are necessary for the funding, regulation and delivery of health care services, even where these may be shared between levels of government and among health care providers. Patients, families and providers must be partners in the governance of the system.
* Responsible use: Services should be funded, offered and used responsibly.
* Strong public reporting: Timely, transparent reporting at the system level on both processes and outcomes that can be used and understood by stakeholders and the public are necessary.
* Enforceability and redress: Mechanisms are in place to enforce accountability and provide redress when the system does not fulfill its obligations.
* Leadership/stewardship: Long-term strategic planning and monitoring is necessary to ensure the system will be sustainable.
* Responsive/innovative: The system is able to adapt based on reporting results.
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NEXT STEPS
Over the next several months, a number of health care initiatives will be considered at both the provincial/territorial and federal levels. This will include discussions aimed at signing a new health care accord between the federal government and the provinces/territories. Any such agreements or initiatives must be consistent with the principles set out in this document.
Approved by the CMA and CNA Boards of Directors, June 2011
1 World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. The Tallinn Charter: Health systems for health and wealth. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2008. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/88613/E91438.pdf.
2 See http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Programs/StrategicInitiatives/IHITripleAim.htm.
3 Canadian Medical Association. Health care transformation in Canada: Change that works. Care that lasts. Ottawa, 2010. http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Advocacy/HCT/HCT-2010report_en.pdf.
4 Canadian Nurses Association. Social justice: A means to an end; an end in itself. Ottawa, 2010.
5 The Marmot Review. Fair Society, Healthy Lives, February, 2010. http://www.marmotreview.org/AssetLibrary/pdfs/Reports/FairSocietyHealthyLives.pdf.
This policy statement provides operational principles for the measurement and management of wait list systems that support timely access to necessary care for patients. This statement is based on the understanding that in order for wait list systems to be effective in improving timely access to medically necessary care for patients, physicians and other providers must be centrally involved and appropriately supported to assist in their development, measurement and management.
Since the late 1990s, Canadians have become increasingly concerned over lengthening wait times to access medically necessary care. As a result, a major focus of the 2004 Health Care Accord (10-Year Agreement to Strengthen Health Care) was to improve timely access to necessary medical care. Since then, provinces and territories have taken steps to measure, monitor and manage patient wait times. However, most efforts thus far to improve wait times have been focused on the wait between the specialist consultation and the scheduled date for treatment. Patients may also experience waits in accessing a family physician (many Canadians do not have a family physician) and waiting to see a specialist following a referral by a family physician.
Canadians deserve timely access to medically necessary care. Governments must ensure that patients are treated within established wait-time benchmarks for all major diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical services. Physicians recognize that it is desirable to minimize waits and to properly prioritize and manage patients' wait for care by accurately capturing and utilizing wait-time data.
However, there remain serious concerns over the quality of wait-time data and who has the primary responsibility for capturing the data. Physicians and other providers are increasingly being requested to input wait-time data (e.g., length of wait for consultation or for start of treatment). Yet, in many instances, they are expected to do so without the necessary resources and supports.
Outlined below are Operational Principles for the Measurement and Management of Wait Lists developed originally through CMA's Access to Quality Health Care Project(1) with input from public opinion research as well as stakeholder groups, including CMA Core Committees, Provincial-Territorial Medical Associations and CMA Affiliates.
1. To maintain or enhance patients' quality of life and health status through effective development, measurement and management of wait lists.
2. To ensure that the development, measurement and management of wait lists are based on the best available evidence of clinical appropriateness, clinical effectiveness, rational use of resources, clinical need and patient quality of life.
A. Stakeholder Involvement
1. Physicians in clinical practice must have a leadership role:
- in identifying clinically relevant data elements through consensus;
- in developing standard definitions and measures for prioritization for wait lists; and
- in developing wait-time benchmarks.
2. Health care providers and other stakeholders should be involved in the development, measurement, maintenance, monitoring, management and evaluation of wait list systems, and should be appropriately compensated for their time and effort.
B. Database Development and Management Systems
1. Systems for developing and managing wait lists must require and provide reliable, current, useful and valid data and information.
2. Database development and wait list management requires involvement of multidisciplinary panels.
3. Systems for managing wait lists should:
- provide accurate, reliable, timely, publicly accessible and real-time information in a cost-effective manner. Deadlines for inputting data should be reasonable and implemented without the use of threats or penalties;
- collect and assess data on need, quality of life and health outcomes; be flexible and dynamic so that they can adapt over time with the development of new technologies and approaches to treatment; and
- require policies and procedures on confidentiality, so that patients' and providers' privacy are protected.
1. Systems for managing wait lists require initial and sustained investment in dedicated human resources, sophisticated information systems and information technology infrastructure at all levels (e.g., medical offices, hospitals, health regions).
1. The parties involved in managing wait lists must accept their responsibilities and obligations to each other and to the public.
2. Privacy and confidentiality of patient and provider information must be respected.
3. The systems, processes and results for managing wait lists should be widely communicated to obtain stakeholder involvement and support.
1. Systems for managing wait lists must:
- be continually monitored and evaluated to identify opportunities for improvement; and
- regularly undergo independent data audits and evaluations of process and outcome.
1. An independent, stakeholder-based, non-governmental organization with an advisory committee should be responsible for overseeing and administering systems for managing wait lists.
(1) Canadian Medical Association, Access to Quality Health Care Project, January 1998. Ottawa.
Principles for Health System Governance
This policy provides principles and recommendations for developing, implementing and evaluating health system governance models such as regionalized health care for the purposes of delivering high quality care to patients.
Since the 1990s, health care systems in many countries including Canada have been searching for more effective health system governance models to accomplish a variety of health policy objectives. These objectives include funding health care based on population health needs and improving service delivery integration. In Canada, most provinces and territories moved to a regionalized model of health system governance during the 1990s.
This "regionalization" approach involved both decentralizing and centralizing specific elements of the health care system. Decentralizing involved moving planning, budgeting and decision making authority from the provincial or territorial level to certain regional bodies. Centralizing involved moving the planning and governance of health care and medical services from individual institutions or agencies to a regional body. In terms of the delivery of health care services, centralization often occurred through the consolidation of several programs into a single program for a region and through the merger and closure of individual institutions.
Since 2003, several provincial governments initiated new changes to their approach to health system governance ranging from vertical integration involving a range of health agencies under a single board (e.g., Quebec) to the creation of boards that oversee the delivery of care for larger portions of a jurisdiction or even the entire jurisdiction itself (e.g., Alberta Health Services). Many of these new models involve an arm's length authority governed by an appointed board that is mandated to manage and integrate the operations of the health system across the province/territory while leaving the ministry of health to set the overall plan and priorities for the health system as well as set standards and monitor outcomes.
No doubt, governments will continue to search for an ideal health system governance and delivery model as part of an effort to develop "high performing health systems". Examples of high performing health systems exist at all levels such as at regional levels within countries (e.g., Jonkoping, Sweden) or at the client group level (e.g., US Veterans Health Administration).
Health system governance models, such as health regions or health agencies, must have an overall goal of ensuring the delivery of high quality, timely and accessible care to its citizens. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) Triple Aim concept identifies three objectives for health systems: improve the health of the population; improve the health care experience for patients; and improve the value for money spent on health and health care. Many previous health system reforms have not resulted in improved care for patients. The CMA's 2010 action plan, Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that Works. Care that Lasts, calls for patient-centred health care that puts the patients and their families' interests first.
From the health provider perspective, previous regionalization efforts have raised several issues of concern, including whether these models translate into improved delivery of care for patients. There is also concern with the prospect that new models will limit provider involvement in health system governance and that health human resource planning will be localized when mobility of labour transcends local borders.
The CMA is committed to playing a positive role in the debate on the future of health care reform in Canada. It recognizes that health system governance models are subject to change. However, this CMA policy on health system governance identifies fundamental principles that should guide any model under consideration. These guiding principles draw upon previous CMA work starting in 1991 with its Working Group on Regionalization, leading to its Language of Health System Reform report.
Patient-centred: Any consideration of governance models must begin with an overall goal of providing patient-centred care-seamless access to the continuum of care in a timely manner, based on need and not the ability to pay, that takes into consideration the individual needs and preferences of the patient and his/her family, and treats the patient with respect and dignity.
Defined objectives: The development and implementation of health system governance models/strategies must begin with a clear statement of objectives. The objectives should reflect the changes that need to be made to the health care system to address specific problems and, whenever possible, must be defined in measurable terms so that health system governance policies can be evaluated.
Accountability/authority: Aligning accountability and authority is essential to effective and sustainable high performing health systems. Accountability is affected by the degree of authority and the scope of responsibilities (i.e., planning, administration, organization and funding of health care services) transferred to the governing units (e.g., regions). Who is accountable, and for what, need to be defined. There needs to be a clear statement of the roles of government, governing boards, physicians and all health care stakeholders. Physicians have a unique contribution to make and their views should be taken into account in any restructuring of the health care delivery system.
Needs based planning/Responsive to regional needs: The definition of the region(s) or sub-regions should reflect the natural, socio-political and geographic divisions of the population. Once regions are defined, the health care needs of the population served by regional units should be determined through epidemiological studies, input from communities and other needs assessment. In addition to local planning, there is also the need for broader based planning to address medical and scientific research, new technologies and procedures.
Regional health needs can vary requiring flexible delivery models. Credentialing that meets jurisdictional standards should be maintained at the regional level in order to effectively respond to regional needs and issues.
Informed choice: Any form of health system governance should not restrict patients' mobility between providers or regions, physicians' mobility between and within regions, or physicians' choice of practice setting by limiting employment to community health centres or other forms of group practice.
Participatory democracy Both patients/public and providers should be involved in determining governance models and participating in the ongoing governance of health systems. If providers are to be encouraged to get involved, they need to have ready access to the planning and administrative skills needed to participate effectively and make a valuable contribution to management and leadership. Three key areas in which providers must become knowledgeable and involved include governance and credentialing, health care needs assessment and health economics.
Clinical autonomy: Physicians have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of their patients to ensure the availability of needed care. This responsibility should not be hindered by a physician's practice setting, mode of remuneration or paying agency.
Evaluation: Evaluation protocols must be built into health system governance models at the outset, and the results of evaluation must be used to "fine tune" and improve the strategies. These protocols should address cost effectiveness, population health status, patient access to health care services and the interests of government, the profession and the public.
Standards for reasonable access: Certain areas and cultural groups do not have the same level of access to health care services as the national norm. All health system governance models should address these shortcomings to ensure that the entire population of any given region has reasonable access to primary, secondary and tertiary care.
Balancing access and affordability: One of the implicit objectives of new models of health system governance appears to be achieving both control over health care costs and redirecting expenditures from health care to community and social services. Governing authorities must be careful to maintain a balance between access to health care services and affordability allowing for a variety of methods to achieve this (e.g., internal markets). They must also maintain a comprehensive accounting of the cost of implementing any new model.
Balancing curative with preventive and sustaining care: All health system governance models must support not only the system's ability to provide curative care but also an ability to provide effective preventive and sustaining care. Governance models should ensure funds can be allocated toward a comprehensive approach to care as well as allow for models of care that support all three functions.
Support for medical education and research: Policies and structures of health system governance models need to acknowledge and foster the role of medical education and research in the health care system. Governance of medical teaching and research should reside within the academic health sciences centres. These centres should be assured of adequate financial and human resources and of access to cross regional patient populations and to community teaching sites in order to provide adequate learning and research opportunities.
With regard to the development, implementation and evaluation of health system governance models, the CMA recommends that:
* advocacy on behalf of patients and physicians be maintained irrespective of any regional administrative boundaries;
* governments ensure that the introduction of new models of health system governance do not interfere with clinical autonomy and professional freedom in the context of the physician/patient relationship;
* governments, health governing authorities and institutions ensure that physicians, through their professional associations, are included in the development and revision of practitioner/medical staff bylaws and appointment policies;
* family physicians, on the basis of their education, training and skills, are reaffirmed as the preferred point of entry into Canada's health care system;
* governments ensure that catchment area under the governing authority be defined in a way that is sensitive to the political, cultural and geographic circumstances of the population and recognizes established patterns of the demand for, and the provision of, health care;
* governments ensure that the introduction of new governance models does not interfere with reasonable access by the population to medical services at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels;
* leadership be provided to help ensure that the development, implementation and evaluation of health system governance models are based on clear, measurable objectives;
* governments develop and maintain national standards for access to high quality health care, medical education and research, irrespective of regional boundaries;
* governments ensure that programs and policies under any form of health system governance be designed and implemented in a manner that supports key principles of medical education and research, including:
- the governance and resources required for medical teaching, both in the academic health sciences centres and in appropriate community based sites throughout the province or territory,
- academic health sciences centres' responsibilities for providing secondary and tertiary care to catchment populations that cut across regional boundaries, and
- the need for academic physician resource plans to ensure a critical mass for teaching and research;
* governments give priority to mechanisms to protect the mobility of patients and physicians when developing and implementing programs under any new health system governance model; and
* the medical profession work with governments to develop:
- clear role, responsibility and accountability statements for government, health system governing boards, health care providers and consumers,
- mechanisms to ensure that governing boards have broad representation and meaningful input from the community, including physicians, and that regional boards be recruited through a clearly specified appointment or electoral process,
- guidelines for use by communities to assess their health care needs and to provide assistance, as required, with the conduct of such assessments,
- protocols and procedures for evaluating health system governance initiatives,
- mechanisms to ensure adequate and appropriate physician input into operational aspects of regional planning and coordination of health care services, and
- processes under any health system governance model ensure adequate opportunities for research, education (including continuing medical education) and training of physicians consistent with national standards.