Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


7 records – page 1 of 1.

Answering the Wake-up Call: CMA’s Public Health Action Plan : CMA submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1960
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2003-06-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2003-06-25
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The public health system in Canada lies at the heart of our community values. It is the quintessential “public good” and is central to the continued good health of our population. When the public health system is working well, few are even aware that it is at work! Only when something goes terribly wrong — like the Walkerton tragedy or when we are faced with a new threat like SARS — is the integral, ongoing role of public health really recognized. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been warning that our public health system is stretched to capacity in dealing with everyday demands, let alone responding to the latest crises. Canada’s physicians have repeatedly called for governments to enhance public health capacity and strengthen the public health infrastructure throughout Canada. Our public health system is the first — and often the only — line of defence against emerging and ongoing infectious and noninfectious threats to the health of Canadians. But we are only as strong as the weakest link in the emergency response chain of survival. As most health threats know no boundaries, our public health armaments must be in a constant state of “battle readiness.” In today’s climate of SARS, West Nile Virus, mad cow disease and monkey pox, even the thought that the public health system may be stretched beyond capacity strikes fear into the hearts of Canadians. Physicians have always been an integral part of the public health system serving as medical officers of health, community health specialists and other related roles. Indeed public health cannot successfully fulfill its mandate without the cooperation and commitment of front-line clinicians. In this submission, we reflect on the lessons to be learned from our recent experience with SARS and reflect on the longer-term needs of the public health system as a whole. The objectives of the pan-Canadian Public Health Action Plan proposed by the CMA are, first to realize a clearer alignment of authority and accountability in times of extraordinary health emergencies; and, second, to enhance the system’s capacity to respond to public health threats across the country (see recommendations, below, and Appendix 1). To achieve these twin objectives, three broad strategies are presented for immediate attention. They are legislative reform; capacity enhancement; and research, surveillance and communications. Legislative reform (see recommendations 1–3) The country’s response to SARS has brought into stark relief the urgent need for national leadership and coordination of public health activity across the country, especially during a health crisis. The apparent reluctance to act quickly to institute screening at airports, the delay in unifying the practice community for a concerted response and the appalling communications confusion worked against optimum handling of the outbreak — despite the best efforts of health care professionals. This is a wake-up call that highlights the need for comprehensive legislative reform to clarify the roles of governments with respect to the management of public health threats. A renewed and enhanced national commitment to public health should be anchored in new federal legislation to be negotiated with the provinces and territories. Specifically, the CMA recommends an Emergency Health Measures Act, to deal with emergent situations in tandem with the creation of a Canadian public health agency headed by a Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. Capacity enhancement (see recommendations 4–7) The SARS crisis has demonstrated the diminished capacity within the public health system. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA), with one of Canada’s most sophisticated public and acute health systems, has not been able to manage the SARS crisis adequately and carry on other health programs. The acute care system virtually ground to a halt in dealing with SARS. There was little or no surge capacity in Canada’s largest city. We should be grateful that SARS did not first strike a smaller centre in a far less-advantaged region of Canada. A critical element of the public health system is its workforce and the health professionals within the acute care system, such as hospital-based infectious disease specialists and emergency physicians who are the front-line interface. Let there be no doubt that the ongoing efforts of the GTA front-line providers are nothing short of heroic. However, the lack of coordinated contingency planning of hospital and community-based disease control efforts was striking. The overall shortage of critical care professionals and the inability of governments to quickly deploy the required professionals to areas of need contributed to the enormous strain on the public and health care system. Considering the importance of the public health system and its clearly limited capacity to protect and promote the health of Canadians, it is incomprehensible that we do not know how much is actually spent on the system. It is imperative that public health expenditures and capacity, in terms of both physical and human resources, be tracked and reported publicly. The CMA recommends a $1-billion, 5-year capacity-enhancement program to be coordinated with and through the new Canadian public health agency. Research, surveillance and communications (see recommendations 8–10) Canada’s ability to respond to public health threats and acute events, such as SARS, and to maintain its effective public health planning and program development depends on sound research, surveillance and rapid, real-time communications. A concerted pan-Canadian effort is required to take full advantage of our capacity for interdisciplinary research on public health, including infectious disease prevention and control measures. New-millennium challenges require moving beyond old-millennium responses. Enhanced surveillance is an overdue and integral part of public health, performing an essential function in early detection and response to threats of infectious diseases. Mandatory national reporting of identified diseases by all provinces and territories is critical for national and international surveillance. During times of crisis, rapid communication to the public, public health staff and front-line clinicians is of critical importance, but in many jurisdictions impossible. We tested our systems during the SARS outbreak and they came up short. The CMA recommends a one-time federal investment to enhance technical capacity to allow for real-time communication. Conclusion The CMA believes that its proposed three-pronged strategy, as set out in the attached recommendations, will go a long way toward addressing shortfalls of the Canadian public health system. Action now will help to ensure that Canadians can once again be confident that they are protected from any future threat of new infectious diseases. Action now will help Canada regain its position as a leader in public health. We wish the advisory committee well in its deliberations and offer the CMA’s assistance at any time in clarifying the strategies set out in our submission. Recommendations to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health Legislative reform ($20 million / 5 years*) 1. The enactment of a Canada Emergency Health Measures Act that would consolidate and enhance existing legislation, allowing for a more rapid national response, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, based on a graduated, systematic approach, to health emergencies that pose an acute and imminent threat to human health and safety across Canada. 2. The creation of a Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control (CODSC) as the lead Canadian agency in public health, operating at arm’s length from government. 3. The appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer of Canada to act as the lead scientific voice for public health in Canada; to head the Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control; and to work with provinces and territories to develop and implement a pan-Canadian public health action plan. Capacity enhancement ( $1.2 billion / 5 years*) 4. The creation of a Canadian Centre of Excellence for Public Health, under the auspices of the CODSC, to invest in multidisciplinary training programs in public health, establish and disseminate best practices among public health professionals. 5. The establishment of a Canadian Public Health Emergency Response Service, under the auspices of the CODSC, to provide for the rapid deployment of human resources (e.g., emergency pan-Canadian locum programs) during health emergencies. 6. Tracking and public reporting of public health expenditures and capacity (both physical and human resources) by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and Statistics Canada, on behalf of the proposed Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control. 7. Federal government funding in the amount of $1 Billion over 5 years to build adequate and consistent surge capacity across Canada and improve coordination among federal, provincial/territorial and municipal authorities to fulfill essential public health functions. Research, surveillance and communications ($310 million / 5 years*) 8. An immediate, sequestered grant of $200 million over 5 years to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to initiate an enhanced conjoint program of research with the Institute of Population and Public Health and the Institute of Infection and Immunity that will expand capacity for interdisciplinary research on public health, including infectious disease prevention and control measures. 9. The mandatory reporting by provinces and territories of identified infectious diseases to the newly established Chief Public Health Officer of Canada to enable appropriate communications, analyses and intervention. 10. The one-time infusion of $100 million, with an additional $2 million a year, for a “REAL” (rapid, effective, accessible and linked) Health Communication and Coordination Initiative to improve technical capacity to communicate with front line public health providers in real time during health emergencies. *See Appendix 2: Estimated cost of implementing recommendations. PURPOSE The CMA prepared this submission in response to an invitation from Dr. Naylor to provide input to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health. We applaud this initiative and welcome the opportunity to present the views of Canada’s medical community to the committee. The CMA’s basic message is that our health protection laws are woefully outdated and the public health system is stretched beyond capacity. This submission draws on our long history of engagement in public health in Canada and our experience both post-September 11, 2001 and with SARS. It builds on the knowledge and experience of our members, national specialist affiliated societies and provincial and territorial divisions. (We acknowledge, in particular, the outstanding efforts of the Ontario Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians in battling SARS.) In this submission, we examine the lessons to be learned from our experience with the SARS outbreak and reflect on both the immediate and longer-term needs of the public health system as a whole. The objectives of the public health action plan proposed by the CMA are, first, to realize a clearer alignment of authority and accountability in times of extraordinary health emergencies and, second, to enhance the system’s capacity to respond to public health threats across the country, including those posed by preventable chronic disease. INTRODUCTION The public health system in Canada lies at the heart of our community values. It is the quintessential “public good” and is central to the continued good health of the population. When the public health system is working well, few are even aware that it is at work! Only when something goes terribly wrong — like the contamination of the blood supply in the 1980s, the Walkerton tragedy or SARS — is the integral, ongoing role of public health recognized. Our public health system is the first — and often the only — line of defence against emerging and ongoing infectious and noninfectious threats to the health of Canadians. But we are only as strong as the weakest link in the emergency response chain of survival. As most health threats know no boundaries, our public health system must be in a constant state of “battle readiness.” We can ill afford any weakness in our public health preparedness. In today’s climate of SARS, West Nile Virus, mad cow disease and monkey pox, the mere thought that the public health system may be stretched beyond capacity strikes fear into the hearts of Canadians. Physicians have always been an integral part of the public health system serving as medical officers of health, specialists in infectious disease and community medicine (who will not remember the stalwart efforts of Dr. Donald Low on SARS?) and in other related roles. Indeed, public health cannot successfully fulfill its mandate without the cooperation and commitment of front-line clinicians. The CMA has been warning for some time that our system is stretched to capacity in dealing with everyday demands, let alone responding to crises. Canada’s physicians have repeatedly called for governments to enhance public health capacity and strengthen the public health infrastructure throughout Canada. For example, the CMA’s submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance’s prebudget consultations on October 22, 2001 called for substantial investments in public health and emergency response as a first step to improve the public health system infrastructure and its surge capacity. This submission not only reiterates our previous recommendations, but also outlines specific actions that the CMA believes must be taken to ensure a strong public health system in Canada. The Enduring Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome): in February 2003, these four letters sent massive shock waves around the world, causing widespread fear and confusion among health care officials and citizens of many countries. The “fear factor” extended across Canada as people realized the full threat of SARS. Since SARS was first identified in a patient in Toronto in March 2003, 438 probable or suspected cases have been reported to Health Canada and 38 people have died (as of June 23, 2003). However, these numbers do not reflect the full impact of the outbreak. The number of indirect deaths due to system shutdown will never be known. Local public health authorities across the country went on high alert. Those in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as well as their provincial counterparts diverted almost all of their resources to respond to the crisis. Acute care services were adversely affected as stringent infection-control and screening measures were put into place to control the spread of SARS. In the GTA, the health system — acute and public — was brought to its knees. Over half of the reported SARS cases involved front-line providers as the outbreak largely affected health care settings. Approximately 20 physicians in Ontario contracted SARS and close to 1000 were quarantined. Thousands of nurses and other health care workers also faced quarantine, some more than once. Institutions closed their doors, limiting access to emergency departments, clinics and physicians’ offices. Intensive care units were full and surgeries were cancelled. Front-line health care professionals involved in critical care were stretched to their physical and mental limits. Others found themselves underutilized due to the impact of the infection-control measures on their practice settings. Feast and famine co-existed. Although the outbreak was mainly confined to health care settings, the entire GTA felt the effects. Upwards of 20,000 people entered voluntary quarantine. Businesses were affected. The tourism industry is still reeling. The disruption that SARS caused continues to reverberate through health care systems and economies. In response to urgent requests from both the Ontario Medical Association and Health Canada, the CMA mobilized its membership and assisted in the country’s response to SARS. Everything that could be done was done to facilitate bringing in qualified personnel to relieve those on the front line and make appropriate information available in real time. The CMA has learned its own lessons, both positive and negative. A full chronology of CMA activity is attached as Appendix 3. It has become abundantly clear that Canada’s public health system was ill prepared to deal with the SARS outbreak. If not for the heroic efforts of public health officials, health care providers and research scientists, Canada’s experience would have been much worse. Public health in Canada Public health is the science and art of protecting and promoting health, preventing disease and injury, and prolonging life. It complements the health care system, which focuses primarily on treatment and rehabilitation, sharing the same goal of maximizing the health of Canadians. However, the public health system is distinct from other parts of the health system in two key respects: its primary emphasis is on preventing disease and disability and its focus is on the health needs of populations rather than those of specific individuals. Public health is the systematic response to infectious diseases. It also ensures access to clean drinking water, good sanitation and the control of pests and other disease vectors. Further, it is immunization clinics and programs promoting healthy lifestyles. But it is also there to protect Canadians when they face a public health crisis like SARS. If the public health system is fully prepared to carry out essential services, then communities across the country will be better protected from acute health events. The reality in Canada today is that a strong, consistently and equitably resourced and integrated public health system does not exist. Public health systems across Canada are fragmented — a patchwork of programs, services and resources across the county. In reality, it is a group of multiple systems with varying roles, strengths and linkages. Each province has its own public health legislation. Most legislation focuses on the control of communicable diseases. Public health services are funded through a variable mix of provincial and municipal funding formulae, with inconsistent overall strategies and results, and with virtually no meaningful role for input from health professionals via organizations such as the CMA, or the federal level, in terms of strategic direction or resources. Federal legislation is limited to the blunt instrument of the Quarantine Act and a variety of health protection-related acts. (e.g., Food and Drugs Act, Hazardous Products Act, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Radiation Emitting Devices Act) Some of the laws, such as the Quarantine Act, date back to the late 19th century. Taken as a whole, the legislation does not clearly identify the public health mandate, roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government. In many cases, the assignment of authorities and accountabilities is anachronistic. Moreover, there is little information available on the functioning and financing of Canada’s public health system. There is no “one-stop shopping” for authoritative information on public health issues. In 2001, a working group of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health assessed the capacity of the public health system through a series of key informant interviews and literature reviews. The consistent finding was that public health had experienced a loss of resources and there was concern for the resiliency of the system infrastructure to respond consistently and proactively to the demands placed on it. Significant disparities were observed between “have” and “have-not” provinces and regions in their capacity to address public health issues. The report’s findings are consistent with previous assessments by the Krever Commission and the Auditor General of Canada. In 1999, the Auditor General said that Health Canada was unprepared to fulfill its responsibilities in public health; communication between multiple agencies was poor; and weaknesses in the key surveillance system impeded the effective monitoring of injuries and communicable and non-communicable diseases. In 1997, Justice Horace Krever reported that the “public health departments in many parts of Canada do not have sufficient resources to carry out their duties.” The Challenges Ahead The 21st century brings with it an awesome array of new public health risks and ancient foes. Not all of them can be identified at the present time. New diseases (e.g., SARS, West Nile Virus) will likely continue to emerge. Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, recently noted that SARS is here to stay. Old threats, such as contamination of a community water supply (e.g., Walkerton), can strike quickly if vigilance is relaxed or delegated to third parties. This century will likely bring greater focus on threats from the physical environment. Our social environment is also a source of illness as shown by the recent epidemic trends in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A substantial minority of Canadians continue to smoke. In short, there is no lack of public health threats to Canadians. Although for each of these issues, there is a clear role for clinical care, it is the public health system that will identify and monitor health threats and provide interventions to prevent disease and injury and improve health. The system will also be at the front lines in any response to a biological, chemical or nuclear event. The public health system must have the infrastructure to respond to a range of threats to health, including emergencies. The experience with SARS has reaffirmed that we do not have the system flexibility to respond to these events after they have occurred. It is vital that we take steps now “to embrace not just the essential elements of disease protection and surveillance but also new strategies and tactics capable of addressing global challenges.”<1> CMA’S PROPOSED PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN No one policy instrument can possibly address the multiple factors involved in meeting the public health challenge head on. Similarly, no one level of government or constituency (e.g., community medicine) can or should shoulder all of the responsibilities. Although we need to restore public confidence quickly, we must also do what it takes to get it right. Accordingly, the CMA is proffering a three-pronged approach to meet the challenge: * A legislative reform strategy * A capacity enhancement strategy * A research, surveillance and communication strategy. These three broad strategies make up the CMA’s proposed 10-point Public Health Action Plan. Taken together, the CMA believes the Plan, if adopted, will serve us very well in the future. Legislative Reform Our experience with SARS — and the seeming lack of coordination between international, federal, provincial and local system levels — should be a massive wake-up call. It highlights the need for legislative reform to clarify the roles of governments with respect to the management of public health issues and threats. Four years ago, national consultations on renewing federal health protection legislation<2> resulted in a recommendation that * “The federal government must be given, either through legislation or through memoranda of understanding among provincial and territorial governments, the authority it needs to effectively address any outbreak of a communicable disease, where the health risk extends beyond provincial borders. * “Federal health protection legislation should be amended to give Health Canada authority to act quickly and decisively in the event of a national health emergency... if it poses a serious threat to public health; affects particularly vulnerable segments of the population; exceeds the capacity of local authorities to deal with the risk; and involves pathogens that could be rapidly transmitted across national and international borders.” Such legislative reform is consistent with the federal government’s well-recognized responsibility to act to protect public health and safety. It fits well with Health Minister McLellan’s recently announced plans to act now to review and update health protection legislation. The SARS outbreak has provided further experience to support these, and in our view, even stronger recommendations. There is ample historical evidence to support the federal government’s role in the management of communicable disease, a role that dates back to the time of confederation. The quarantine power was the initial manifestation of this authority in 1867 under Section 91 of the British North America Act and it gave the federal government the responsibility for ensuring the containment of infectious diseases. The outbreak of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918 further highlighted the need for coordinated national efforts and (at the urging of the CMA and others) resulted in the creation of the federal Department of Health in 1919. It would be reasonable to assume that legislators at the time had an expansive view of the need for centralized authority to deal with pan-Canadian health threats. One hundred and thirty-five years after confederation, we have a highly mobile global community. This mobility and the attendant devastating speed with which diseases can spread demand a national response. Currently, there is tremendous variation in public health system capacity among the various provinces and territories and, more particularly, among municipalities and local authorities. Inconsistencies in provincial approaches to public health matters have resulted in significant disparities between and within the provinces.<3> Health Canada’s mandate as set out in its enabling legislation states that “[t]he powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the promotion and preservation of the health of the people of Canada.” The CMA believes that it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for public health matters that touch the lives of all Canadians. The legal staffs at CMA, in consultation with external experts, have conducted a detailed review of existing legislation. We have concluded, as Health Minister McLellan recently announced, that there is a long overdue need to consolidate and rationalize current related laws. We also believe there is now public support and a demonstrable need to enhance the powers afforded the federal government. We recognize that the government has put forward Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act and a review of health protection legislation is underway. We believe that amending and updating existing legislation is necessary but not sufficient to address today’s public health challenges. The CMA is calling for the enhancement of the federal government’s “command and control” powers in times of national health emergencies. Specifically we are recommending a three-pronged legislative approach. 1. The CMA recommends The enactment of a Canada Emergency Health Measures Act that would consolidate and enhance existing legislation, allowing for a more rapid national response, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, based on a graduated, systematic approach, to health emergencies that pose an acute and imminent threat to human health and safety across Canada. The existing Emergencies Act gives the federal government the authority to become involved in public welfare emergencies when regions of the country are faced with “an emergency that is caused by a real or imminent... disease in human beings... that results or may result in a danger to life or property... so serious as to be a national emergency.” However, to use this power, the federal government must declare a “national emergency,” which itself has political and economic ramifications, particularly from an international perspective, and mitigates against its use. The CMA believes that this all-or-nothing approach is not in the public’s best interest. The concept of emergency in the context of public health requires a different response from governments in the future. Although we recognize that provincial and municipal governments currently have preplanned sets of responses to health threats, the CMA is proposing new legislation to allow for a rapid federal response to public health emergencies. The proposed Emergency Health Measures Act clarifies the roles and authority of governments and ensures a consistent and appropriate response with sufficient human and financial resources to protect Canadians faced with a public health emergency. Of utmost importance, all Canadians, regardless of their location, can be assured that the response to a health emergency will be delivered systematically by experts who can sustain the effort as needed. The proposed legislation would be founded on a graduated approach that would give the federal government the powers necessary to deal with a crisis, in an appropriately measured way, as it escalates. As the emergency grows, the government could implement stronger measures as required to meet the challenge — in principle, akin to the Unites States’ homeland security levels, which increase as the level of threat increases (see Appendix 4 for a description of the Canadian Emergency Health Alert System). The CMA strongly believes that the federal government must have jurisdiction to act when the ability of the provinces to respond to public health emergencies is so disparate. The inability of one province to stop the spread of virulent disease would have serious implications for the health of residents in the rest of the country. The federal government and the provinces must work together to ensure the safety of all our citizens. 2. The CMA recommends The creation of a Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control (CODSC) as the lead Canadian agency in public health, operating at arm’s length from government. Although some provinces have established centres of public health expertise, considering the breadth of public health issues, the relative population sizes and differences in wealth, it will never be feasible to have comprehensive centres of public health expertise for each province and territory. Even if one achieved this, there would increasingly be issues of economies of scale and unnecessary duplication among centres. This issue is not unique to Canada.1 The CMA is proposing the development of a Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control (CODSC) operating at arm’s length from any level of government. CODSC would have overall responsibility for protecting the health of Canadians. The Office would provide credible information to enhance health decisions and promote health by developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health and health promotion and education activities. CODSC would enable a consistent and coordinated approach to public health emergencies as well as play a key role in the prevention and control of chronic diseases and injuries. It would provide national health surveillance, apolitical scientific expertise, system development including standards and guideline development, development and dissemination of an evidence base for public health interventions, skills training and transfer of expertise (i.e., through secondment of staff) and resources, including funding for core programs, to other levels of the system (e.g., provincial and local). 3. The CMA recommends The appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer of Canada to act as the lead scientific voice for public health in Canada; to head the Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control; and to work with provinces and territories to develop and implement a pan-Canadian public health action plan. Many national or federal–provincial–territorial committees play an important role in recommending public health strategies or actions. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization and the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health are two excellent examples. But there is currently no single credible public health authority in whom is vested, through legislation or federal–provincial–territorial agreement, the overall responsibility for pan-Canadian public health issues. Therefore, the CMA is recommending the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. Potential roles for this officer may include: * Serve as the head of the Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control * Serve as the national spokesperson for public health with the independence to comment on critical public health issues * Report annually on the health of the population * Develop, implement and report independently to parliament on public health system performance measures * Lead processes to identify and address gaps in the nation’s public health system. Capacity enhancement The public health system infrastructure is the foundation that supports the planning, delivery and evaluation of public health activities. In March 2001, the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Public Health<3> reported, In the view of respondents the system ‘is lacking in depth.’ This means that a sustained crisis would seriously compromise other programming. While the research does not indicate that the public health system in Canada is strained beyond capacity, there does appear to be agreement that there is a capacity to manage just one crisis at a time. However, just 2 years later, the GTA, an area with one of Canada’s most sophisticated public and acute care health systems, was not able to manage the SARS crisis and carry on any other programs. The Ontario government recognized this state of affairs when, on 12 June, Ontario’s Health Minister Tony Clement said, “I was concerned that if we had one additional large-scale crisis, that the system would crash.” Important public health issues ranging from immunization to suicide prevention went virtually unaddressed, as the public health capacity in Toronto was overwhelmed. In the absence of a mechanism to share resources within the system and a general lack of overall system surge capacity, the city of Toronto and the province competed with each other to recruit trained staff from other health departments. The SARS outbreak has shown there is no surge capacity in Canada’s largest city. The acute care system in Toronto virtually ground to a halt in dealing with SARS. We must ask ourselves what would have happened if SARS had struck first in a smaller centre in a far less-advantaged region of Canada. Clearly Canada is not fully prepared. We should not have needed a crisis to tell us this. The CMA sees several components to rebuilding the capacity of the public health system. Public health human resources For the essential functions of the public health system to be realized, public health agencies need a workforce with appropriate and constantly updated skills. Canada’s public health workforce is extremely thin. There appear to be too few graduate-level public health professionals (i.e., those holding a master’s degree and physicians who are certified specialists in community medicine); those who do exist are not distributed equitably across jurisdictions. The scarcity of hospital-based infection control practitioners and emergency physicians within the acute care system and the lack of integration of hospital and community-based disease control efforts have been particularly striking during the SARS outbreak. The knowledge and skills required for effective public health practice are not static. They continually evolve as new evidence is identified. However, continuing education programming for public health practitioners is woefully underdeveloped in Canada. Health Canada has made some limited progress in this area, but the issue needs to be addressed much more substantively. 4. The CMA recommends The creation of a Canadian Centre of Excellence for Public Health, under the auspices of the CODSC, to invest in multidisciplinary training programs in public health, establish and disseminate best practices among public health professionals. Canada has world-class expertise in public health. However, it does not have the depth of other countries, partly because we do not have a national multidisciplinary school of public health of the calibre of Harvard in Boston, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London. A national school of public health, which might be based on a virtual network of centres nationwide, could * Develop a plan to assess and address the substantial educational needs of new and existing public health staff * Address the coordination of the various academic training programs to meet the needs of the field * Ensure self-sufficiency of our public health workforce. 5. The CMA recommends The establishment of a Canadian Public Health Emergency Response Service, under the auspices of the CODSC, to provide for the rapid deployment of human resources (e.g., emergency pan-Canadian locum programs) during health emergencies. The SARS outbreak clearly demonstrated the need for a pre-planned approach to supporting and augmenting the public health and acute care workforce during a crisis. When health professionals in the GTA were overwhelmed, we were ill prepared to move health professionals in from other jurisdictions to help. Health professional associations like the CMA took the first steps in investigating and overcoming obstacles regarding licensure and insurance. We were taken aback when we found that the Ontario government had unilaterally awarded an exclusive contract to a for-profit company to arrange for emergency relief. The further delay caused by concerns about privacy, confidentiality and harmonizing fees hampered relief efforts. The deployment of health professionals during health emergencies is too important to be left in the hands of for-profit organizations as it was during the SARS experience. An established Canadian Public Health Emergency Response Service, operating on a non-profit basis, would * Maintain a “reserve” of public health professionals who are fully trained and could be deployed to areas of need during times of crisis * Co-ordinate the logistics of issues such as portable licensing, malpractice and disability insurance * Identify funding for staff training and a more equitable distribution of numbers and skills among jurisdictions. Investment in public health Considering the importance of the public health system and its capacity to protect and promote the health of Canadians, it is amazing that we have no reliable or comprehensive information about how much money is actually spent on the system or what public health human resources are available across Canada. This is partially due to the lack of uniform definitions, service delivery mechanisms and accounting practices. Even in the absence of reliable data on public health expenditures, there is ample evidence that the public health system continues to operate under serious resource constraints across Canada. 6. The CMA recommends Tracking and public reporting of public health expenditures and capacity (both physical and human resources) by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and Statistics Canada, on behalf of the Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control. In its latest report on health system expenditures, the CIHI states that 6% of total expenditures in 2000 were spent on “public health and administration.”<4> The inclusion of administrative costs in this figure means that public health funding is substantially less than 6% of health system expenditures.2 Federal Government Estimates report that Health Canada allocated $433 million in 2003–2004 for health promotion and prevention activities with spending scheduled to decrease to $308 million by 2005–2006 or by almost 30%. This decrease in spending exemplifies a decade that has seen tremendous fluctuations in spending on public health activities. The situation is alarming when looked at from a current-dollar basis; there was an 8.8% decrease in funding of public health activities between 1994–1995 and 1997–1998. In fact, federal spending on public health on a constant dollar basis did not regain its 1994–1995 level until 2000–2001. Although the late 1990s saw some reinvestment in public health initiatives, the most recent 2003–2004 estimates suggest that, once again, federal investment in public health will decrease dramatically over the next few years. Indeed, public health continues to represent only a small fraction of total federal direct spending on health (9.7% in 2002–2003). At the provincial level, although we cannot distance public health from administration, we know that it fell victim to the brutal climate of fiscal retrenchment of the 1990s, when in real terms provincial–territorial per capita health spending declined for 5 consecutive years after 1991–1992. During this period, public health was further destabilized by regionalization. According to the Survey of Public Health Capacity in Canada most provincial and territorial officials reported reductions in programming as a result of the transfer of funding and responsibility to regional structures. Although Ontario did not regionalize, in 1997 public health funding was downloaded to municipalities, which left public health departments scrambling to find funds to meet existing programs as well as new services that were mandated by the provincial Health Protection and Promotion Act. Whether talking about federal or provincial–territorial jurisdictions, we can no longer afford to have funding for health and safety subject to the vagaries of financial cycles. However, what perhaps is most alarming is the potentially large economic impact of underinvestment in this area. Although the net cost of the SARS outbreak in Ontario is not yet known, recent estimates suggest that it could be as high as $2.1 billion.3 Given this, the proverbial ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cure comes to mind suggesting that a relatively modest increase in funding for public health could potentially result in substantial savings in the longer term. 7. The CMA recommends Federal government funding in the amount of $1 billion over 5 years to build adequate and consistent surge capacity across Canada and improve coordination among federal, provincial/territorial and municipal authorities to fulfill essential public health functions. The best way to ensure that the public health system is capable of addressing the range of public health threats, including emergencies, is to significantly increase investment in its capacity. This investment must assist all levels of the system to fulfill essential public health functions, with particular attention to local and regional agencies. The strategic national leadership that we are calling for includes the development of new mechanisms for federal cost sharing of basic public health services and the guarantee of a basic core set of local programs serving everyone in Canada, regardless of where they live. The system also needs to receive targeted funds so that it can do its work smarter and more effectively. Priority areas for this targeted funding should include development of an integrated information system and staff training. Research, surveillance and communications Canada’s ability to respond to emerging public health threats and acute events, such as the SARS outbreak, and to maintain its effective public health planning and program development depends on sound research, surveillance and rapid, real-time communications. 8. The CMA recommends An immediate sequestered grant of $200 million over 5 years to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to initiate an enhanced conjoint program of research with the Institute of Population and Public Health and the Institute of Infection and Immunity that will expand capacity for interdisciplinary research on public health, including infectious disease prevention and control measures. Similar to the efforts in clinical care to support the use of evidence-based practices, interventions in public health must be based on research, evidence and best practices. A national effort should be undertaken to develop and make widely available, on an ongoing basis, a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the evidence base for public health programs. This information would support effective practice, enhance public health research capacity and support other infrastructure elements (e.g., minimum programs and services, performance measurement, system funding). It could also reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts by different public health agencies. We applaud the tremendous work of the unique trans-Canada partnership of 4 CIHR-funded research teams who, in just 11 weeks, discovered the complete DNA sequence of the coronavirus associated with SARS. This is a perfect example of what can be accomplished when our talented research teams work together. The recent announcement by the CIHR of an integrated national strategy for research on SARS reflects the intent of this recommendation for other public health challenges. 9. The CMA recommends The mandatory reporting by provinces and territories of identified infectious diseases to the newly established Chief Public Health Officer of Canada to enable appropriate communications, analyses and interventions. Public health surveillance is defined as the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health data necessary for designing implementing and evaluating public health programs. It is an integral part of the public health system and performs an essential function in early detection and response to threats to human health. Current surveillance systems for communicable and noncommunicable diseases are inadequate to allow public health professionals to detect and react to major health issues. For effective public health management, surveillance must be a continuous process covering a range of integrated data sources to provide useful and timely information. 10. The CMA recommends The one-time infusion of $100 million, with an additional $2 million a year, for a “REAL” (rapid, effective, accessible and linked) Health Communication and Coordination Initiative to improve technical capacity to communicate with front line public health providers in real time during health emergencies. In today’s world, international travel, business and migration can move infectious diseases around the world at jet speed. But during the SARS experience, governments and public health authorities were unable to communicate in real time with health professionals on the front lines. Gaps in the basic communication infrastructure prevent public health agencies from talking with each other in real time, and also hinder exchanges between public health staff, private clinicians and other sources of information about emerging new diseases. In response to requests from both the Ontario Medical Association and Health Canada, the CMA mobilized its communication networks to provide physicians with critical information about public health management of SARS. In less than 48 hours, via email and fax, we reached over 45,000 physicians with authoritative information. Through the good offices of the Canadian Council of Health Services Accreditation, this information was also made available to over 1500 accredited health facilities across Canada. Although necessity caused the limits of the system to be tested, SARS highlighted the fact that we do not have information systems in place to facilitate real-time communication with health professionals. Information is the key to effective response during times of emergency. Information in real time is also essential for effective day-to-day health care to provide, for example, information on adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSION SARS brought out the best in Canada and Canadians’ commitment to one another. It also turned a bright, sometimes uncomfortable spotlight on the ability of this country’s health care system to respond to a crisis, be it an emerging disease, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster or a large-scale accident. We must learn from the SARS experience and quickly move to rebuild the infrastructure of a strong public health system. The CMA believes that this 10-point Public Health Action Plan will go a long way toward addressing shortfalls in the Canadian public health system. Action now will help to ensure that Canadians can be confident once again that their governments are doing all they can to protect them from the threat of new infectious diseases. We wish the advisory committee well in its deliberations and offer the CMA’s assistance at any time in clarifying the strategies set out in our submission. APPENDIX 1: THE CMA’S PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] [TABLE END] APPENDIX 2: ESTIMATED COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] Recommendation Estimated cost over 5 years Legislative and institutional reform 1. Canada Emergency Health Measures Act N/A 2. Canadian Office for Disease Surveillance and Control (CODSC) ? $20 million 3. Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Capacity enhancement 4. Canadian Centre of Excellence for Public Health $100 million 5. Canadian Public Health Emergency Response Service $35 million 6. Canadian Institute for Health Information and Statistics Canada $35 milliona 7. Surge capacity $1 billionb Research, surveillance and communications 8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research $200 millionc 9. Mandatory reporting Included under 2 and 3 above 10. Enhanced reporting $110 million TOTAL $1.5 billion a. Work is currently underway to break-out public health from the current category of “public health and administration.” b. This is an incremental investment in addition to funding currently available under Health Canada’s Health Promotion and Prevention Strategic Outcome area. c. Funding must be sequestered specifically for new initiatives related to public health. Additional money could also be acquired through funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which received an additional $500 million in 2002–2003 (announced in the 2003 federal budget) to enhance the Foundation’s support of public health infrastructure. [TABLE END] APPENDIX 3: CHRONOLOGY OF THE CMA’S RESPONSE TO SARS 2002 November 16 * First known case of atypical pneumonia (SARS) occurs in Guangdong province, China 2003 February 11 * World Health Organization (WHO) receives reports from the Chinese Ministry of Health about SARS; 305 persons affected and 5 deaths February 13 * Canadian index case arrives in Hong Kong for a family visit February 18-21 * Canadian index case is a guest at the Metropole hotel in Kowloon February 21 * A medical doctor from Guangdong checks into Metropole hotel in Kowloon. The physician, who became ill a week before staying at the hotel, is considered to be the original source of the infection * This leads subsequently to outbreaks in Vietnam, Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada after guests leave the hotel and return home February 23 * Canadian index case returns home to Toronto March 5 * Canadian index patient dies in Toronto, 9 days after the onset of her illness March 12 * WHO issues global alert about SARS March 13 * National and international media reports begin appearing about SARS * The Canadian index patient’s son, Canada’s second SARS victim, dies 15 days after the onset of his illness March 14 * First reports from Toronto about deaths from SARS March 16 * Health Canada receives notice of SARS patients in Ontario and British Columbia; begins regular updates on SARS on its website * Health Canada initiates its pan-Canadian communication infrastructure, based on its pandemic influenza contingency plans March 17 * CMA calls Health Canada to offer assistance and request “real time information.” CMA immediately placed on list of participants in daily pan-Canadian teleconferences. * CMA adds a SARS page to its website home page (cma.ca) with CMA Shortcuts to expert information and daily updates March 19 * CMA alerts all its divisions and affiliates to the Health Canada and CMA SARS web pages * eCMAJ includes SARS updates on its website March 20 * CMA divisions add a link to SARS information for health professionals to their websites * Health Canada requests CMA’s assistance to inform physicians of the public health management guidelines for SARS March 28 * CMA sends an email to 33,000 members (copied to divisions and affiliated societies) to alert them to Health Canada’s SARS public health management documents and SARS web page April 1 * CMA CEO initiates cross-directorate task force and deploys dedicated staff resources. Some other CMA programs deferred/delayed. Task force begins daily staff SARS Working Group meetings * CMA communicates with the Ontario Medical Association on a daily basis April 2 * CMA holds teleconference with divisional communication directors re: SARS April 3 * CMA contacts the British Medical Association to establish whether we can secure a supply of masks from European sources * CMA organizes a teleconference among national health care organizations to discuss SARS developments April 7 * CMA posts electronic grand rounds on SARS for clinicians on cma.ca; * CMA sends email and fax communication to physicians to raise awareness of SARS e-grand rounds on cma.ca * Working with the Mental Health Support Network of Canada, CMA prepares and posts on cma.ca, fact sheets for health professionals and the public on coping with the stress caused by SARS April 9 * CMA hosts second teleconference among national health care organizations to discuss SARS developments April 17 * Electronic grand rounds on SARS updated and promoted through cma.ca April 23 * CMA sends email to membership requesting volunteers for the CMA Volunteer Emergency SARS Relief Network April 24 * CMA consults with the American Medical Association regarding the possibility of US physicians volunteering for the relief network April 25 * CMA CEO sends letter to deputy minister of health about the urgent need to create a national ministerial SARS task force April 30-May 1 * CMA participates in Health Canada-sponsored international SARS conference in Toronto May 6 * Health Canada announces the National Advisory Group on SARS and Public Health, headed by Dr. David Naylor May 12 * Opinion editorial by Dr. Dana Hanson, CMA president, on SARS and public health surge capacity published in The Ottawa Citizen; May 28 * CMA organizes a meeting of national health care organizations to discuss lessons learned from SARS June 3 * CMA receives an invitation to submit a brief to the National Advisory Group on SARS and Public Health June 6 * CMA sends e-mail to targeted segment of its membership (community medicine, public health, infectious disease and medical microbiology) requesting volunteers for the CMA Volunteer Emergency SARS Relief Network June 25 * CMA president outlines the CMA’s Public Health Action Plan during a speech at the Canadian Club in Toronto * CMA submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and public health APPENDIX 4: CMA’S PROPOSED HEALTH EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM [TABLE CONTENT DOES NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY. SEE PDF FOR PROPER DISPLAY] Health alert may be declared in: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 * Any area under federal jurisdiction * Any community or province/territory with a risk of transmission to other provinces/territories or countries * Any community or province/territory with insufficient resources to manage the public health emergency within the capacity of the local public health authorities Definition of the area of concern Voluntary quarantine for individuals or property Increasing surveillance Chief public health officer takes the lead in coordinating the response Regulation or prohibition of travel Facilitating communication Reviewing and updating health emergency procedures Determination of local capacity to lead and respond Coordinating necessary response efforts with national disaster relief agencies, armed forces or law enforcement agencies at the federal–provinical–territorial level Medium to significant limitations of civil rights and freedoms Mandatory surveillance Assessing future resource requirements Deployment of a national response team Medium to significant limitations of civil rights and freedoms Evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property Providing the public with necessary information. Discretionary deployment of the national response team or on request of local authorities Quarantine of individuals and/or property with enforcement by law Implementing interventions, as appropriate, and emergency response actions Regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources Assessing further refinement of actions Restricting access to the area of concern Requisition, use or disposition of property Required consent of governor in council No No Yes Yes Yes Lead response team Municipal or provincial Provincial or national Provincial or national National or international International [TABLE END] REFERENCES 1. Garrett, L. Betrayal of trust: the collapse of global public health. New York: Hyperion; 2000. 2. Health Canada. National consultations, summary report: renewal of the federal health protection legislation. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1999. 3. Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health. Survey of public health capacity in Canada: highlights. Ottawa: The Committee; 2001. 4. Canadian Institutes for Health Information. National health expenditure trends: 1975–2002. Ottawa: CIHI; 2002. 5. Lévesque M. The economic impact of SARS. TD Economics Topic Paper. TD Bank Financial Group; 6 May 2003. Available: http://www.td.com/economics/topic/ml0503_sars.html (viewed: 20 June 2003). 1 Many countries (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Norway and the Netherlands) have developed critical masses of public health expertise at the national level. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, which has a critical mass, great depth of scientific expertise and the tools and fiscal resources to fund public health programs at both state and local levels through demonstration projects, is a sterling example of the effectiveness of such a central agency. 2 A review by the Canadian Institute for Health Information recognizes the problem with current expenditure tracking systems and has recommended separating public health from government administrative costs and prepayment administration in future health system cost estimates. 3 On 6 May, the TD Bank released a paper<5> suggesting that the cost of SARS to the Canadian economy may be between $1.5 and $2.1 billion.
Documents
Less detail

Canada Pension Plan Disability Program : CMA Presentation to the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1965
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2003-03-18
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2003-03-18
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association appreciates the opportunity to once again participate in the deliberations of the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I am accompanied today by Mr. William Tholl, Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Medical Association. Before I begin my remarks, I want to congratulate this Committee, and particularly the Chair of the Committee, for your efforts in regard to another federal program, the Disability Tax Credit. Your 2002 report on this program, Getting it Right for Canadians, no doubt led to some of the important measures in regard to disabilities undertaken by the government in the recent federal budget. The appointment of the Technical Advisory Committee on eligibility criteria and the $105 million allocated over the next two years to improve assistance for persons with disabilities is, in our view, significant progress. The CMA appreciates this opportunity to discuss issues relating to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) specifically as the program relates to the disability benefit. I will focus my remarks today in three areas: * Physician experience with federal health programs and forms * The need for common criteria * Recommendations for action While the subject matter before the Subcommittee today is the CPP disability program, we believe a broader focus on the issue of “disability” and federal health programs in general is needed. Issues related to the CPP disability program are issues common to other federal disability assistance programs. THE PHYSICIAN EXPERIENCE I don’t think I need to tell this Committee about the alarming shortages of physicians and other health care providers in Canada. Canada’s physicians have been stretched to the limit and beyond. Therefore, it’s more important than ever that physician’s time be managed in such a way as to maximize our interaction with patients. Unfortunately however, this is not the case. Increasingly physicians are spending more and more of their time filling out forms. Forms for federal health programs such as the CPP or for-private insurance claims, pension benefits, tax credit eligibility, pharmaceutical plans and workers compensation claims to name just a few. To figure out all the various forms and determine eligibility you almost need to be a physician, a lawyer and a tax expert. The result of the proliferation in the number of forms and their increasing complexity has resulted in less time for what physicians are trained to do; treating illness and providing care to patients. If you were to ask the average physician his or her greatest frustration with the health system, the response would be too much time spent administrating the system and not enough time in providing care to patients. In regard to the CPP specifically, we have had in the past a good working relationship with the officials who manage this program. We have worked together well in the past in regard to improving the forms and bring great integrity to the program which has resulted in a reduction of appeals under the program. The CMA believes that in terms of a federal health program, the CPP set the template both in terms of administrative processes and cooperation that should be adopted across all federal programs in this area. That said, there is still considerable room for improvement. I urge the Committee to take into consideration the cumulative impact these various health programs, such as the CPP, have on our health provider workforce. We must look at ways in which to relieve the heavy administrative burden so that physicians can concentrate their efforts on what they do best, patient care. COMMON CRITERIA As with our presentation on the Disability Tax Credit program, the CMA recommends that a standard of fairness and equity be applied across all federal disability benefit programs. Currently, there is virtually a different definition and a different assessment process for each and every program. A common frustration of physicians is that while a patient qualifies as “disabled” under one disability program, that same patient does not under another. When you look at some of the common criteria used to determine the level of a disability, the problem is readily apparent. The CPP criteria define “severe” as preventing an applicant from working regularly at any job and “prolonged” as long term or that which may result in death. However, the DTC program notes that “severe” is to be interpreted to mean markedly restricting any of the basic activities of daily living and that a disability must be “prolonged” over a period of at least 12 months. While daily living includes working regularly at any job it encompasses so much more. Under the CPP criteria the physician is responsible for determining how to define long term; six months or twelve months. Other programs, such as the Veterans benefits that have entirely different criteria, are added to this mixture. This is confusing for physicians, patients and others involved in the application process. If the terms, criteria and the information about the programs are not as clear as possible then we have no doubt that faulty interpretation on the part of physicians when completing the forms can occur. This could then inadvertently disadvantage those who, in fact, qualify for benefits. There needs to be some consistency in definitions across the various government programs. This does not mean that eligibility criteria must be identical. However, there must be a way for a more standardized approach. Inconsistency in the application and administration of the program is likely without a more standardized definition of the program. The reality is that certain individuals with conditions or disabilities may qualify for the CPP disability benefit in one region of the country, while in other regions, an individual with the same condition will be deemed ineligible. There are a number of conditions that society would today view as a “disability,” yet may not fit under the current program. Severe and prolonged is a rigid standard, especially as it is applied to some medical conditions. The reality is that such a standard cannot be applied fairly in all situations. There needs to be greater flexibility and more realistic criteria that takes into account the special nature of some medical conditions that may not meet yesterday’s standards. RECOMMENDATIONS Canada’s physicians offer four specific actions for the Committee to consider: 1. That an emphasis be placed on reducing the administrative burden placed on health care providers under all federal health programs. The CPP program, both in terms of the consultative and administration process, should serve as the template for change. Unlike other federal health programs, the cost of having the eligibility form completed by a physician is subsumed under the program itself. The CMA believes this should be the case for all federal health programs. 2. The establishment of a joint governmental and stakeholder advisory group, similar to the recently announced DTC Advisory Committee, to monitor and appraise the performance of the CPP disability program to ensure it meets its stated purpose and objectives. Representation on this advisory group would include senior program officials; health care providers; various disability organizations; and patient advocacy groups. 3. That there be some consistency in definitions across the various government programs. This would not circumvent the purposes or mandates of the programs. 4. That a comprehensive information package be developed for health care providers and the public that provides a description of each program, its eligibility criteria, the full range of benefits available, copies of sample forms, physical assessment and form completion payment information, etc. CONCLUSION To conclude, the CMA believes that the CPP is a deserving benefit to those Canadians living with a disability. We again congratulate the Committee for the progress it has achieved on behalf of people with disabilities in regard to the recent initiatives announced in the federal budget. The CMA looks forward to working with all concerned to improve the CPP program and all other federal disability health programs. Thank You.
Documents
Less detail

Health equity and the social determinants of health: A role for the medical profession

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10672
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Health equity is created when individuals have the opportunity to achieve their full health potential; equity is undermined when preventable and avoidable systematic conditions constrain life choices.1 These conditions are known as the social determinants of health. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines the social determinants of health as the circumstances in which people are born, develop, live and age.2 In 2002, researchers and policy experts at a York University conference identified the following list: income and income distribution; early life; education; housing; food security; employment and working conditions; unemployment and job security; social safety net; social inclusion/exclusion; and health services. 3 Research suggests that 15% of population health is determined by biology and genetics, 10% by physical environments, 25% by the actions of the health care system, with 50% being determined by our social and economic environment.4 Any actions to improve health and tackle health inequity must address the social determinants and their impact on daily life.5 THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH STATUS Social status is one of the strongest predictors of health at the population level. There is a social gradient of health such that those with higher social status experience greater health than those with lower social status. The social gradient is evident not only when comparing the most disadvantaged to the most advantaged; within each strata, even among those holding stable middle-class jobs, those at the lowest end fare less well than those at the higher end. The Whitehall study of civil servants in the United Kingdom found that lower ranking staff have a greater disease burden and shorter life expectancy than higher-ranking staff.6 Differences in medical care did not account for the differences in mortality.7 This gradient has been demonstrated for just about any health condition.8 Hundreds of research papers have confirmed that people in the lowest socio-economic groups carry the greatest burden of illness.9 In 2001, people in the neighbourhoods with the highest 20% income lived about three years longer than those in the poorest 20% neighbourhoods (four years for men; two years for women).10 Dietary deficiencies, common in food insecure households, can lead to an increased chance of chronic disease and greater difficulty in disease management. It is estimated that about 1.1 million households in Canada experience food insecurity, with the risk increasing in single-parent households and in families on social assistance.11 Studies suggest that adverse socio-economic conditions in childhood can be a greater predictor of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in adults than later life circumstances and behavioural choices.12 Effective early childhood development offers the best opportunity to reduce the social gradient and improve the social determinants of health,13 and offers the greatest return on investment.14 Low income contributes not only to material deprivation but social isolation as well. Without financial resources, it is more difficult for individuals to participate in cultural, educational and recreational activities or to benefit from tax incentives. Suicide rates in the lowest income neighbourhoods are almost twice as high as in the wealthiest neighbourhoods.15 This social isolation and its effects are most striking in Canada's homeless population. Being homeless is correlated with higher rates of physical and mental illness. In Canada, premature death is eight to 10 times higher among the homeless.16 The gradient in other social determinants can have an adverse impact as well. A study conducted in the Netherlands estimated that average morbidity and mortality in the overall population could be reduced 25-50% if men with lower levels of education had the same mortality and morbidity levels as those men with a university education.17 Employment status also follows this gradient, such that having a job is better than being unemployed. 18 Unemployment is correlated with increased blood pressure, self-reported ill health, drug abuse, and reductions in normal activity due to illness or injury.19 Unemployment is associated with increases in domestic violence, family breakups and crime. Finally, job security is relevant.20 Mortality rates are higher among temporary rather than permanent workers.21 Canada's Aboriginal people face the greatest health consequences as a result of the social determinants of health. Poverty, inadequate or substandard housing, unemployment, lack of access to health services, and low levels of education characterize a disproportionately large number of Aboriginal peoples.22 The crude mortality rate for First Nations is higher and life expectancy lower than the Canadian average.23 Aboriginal peoples experience higher rates of chronic disease, addictions, mental illness and childhood abuse.24 Aboriginal peoples have higher rates of suicide, with suicide being the leading cause of potential years of life lost in both the First Nations and Inuit populations.25 THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND CANADA'S HEALTH SYSTEM These differences in health outcomes have an impact on the health care system. Most major diseases including heart disease and mental illness follow a social gradient with those in lowest socio-economic groups having the greatest burden of illness.26 Those within the lowest socio-economic status are 1.4 times more likely to have a chronic disease, and 1.9 times more likely to be hospitalized for care of that disease.27 Chronic diseases such as diabetes account for 67% of direct health care costs and 60% indirect costs.28 Research has shown that Canadians with low incomes are higher users of general practitioner, mental health, and hospital services.29 People in the lowest income group were almost twice as likely as those in the highest income group to visit the emergency department for treatment. 30 Part of this may be caused by differences in access to care. Low-income Canadians are more likely to report that they have not received needed health care in the past 12 months.31 Those in the lowest income groups are 50% less likely than those in the highest income group to see a specialist or get care in the evenings or on weekends, and 40% more likely to wait more than five days for a doctor's appointment.32 Barriers to health care access are not the only issue. Research in the U.K.33 and U.S.34 has found that compliance with medical treatment tends to be lower in disadvantaged groups, leading to pain, missed appointments, increased use of family practice services and increased emergency department visits, and corresponding increases in cost. In the U.S., non-adherence has been attributed to 100,000 deaths annually.35 Researchers have reported that those in the lowest income groups are three times less likely to fill prescriptions, and 60% less able to get needed tests because of cost.36 These differences have financial costs. In Manitoba for example, research conducted in 1994 showed that those in the lowest income decile used services totaling $216 million (12.2%). In the same year, those in the highest income decile consumed $97 million (5.5%) of expenditures. If expenditures for the bottom half of the population by income had been the same as the median, Manitoba would have saved $319 million or 23.1% of their health care budget. 37 According to a 2011 report, low-income residents in Saskatoon consume an additional $179 million in health care costs than middle income earners.38 To reduce the burden of illness and therefore system costs, Canada needs to improve the underlying social and economic determinants of health of Canadians. However, until these changes have time to improve the health status of the population, there will still be a large burden of illness correlated to these underlying deficiencies. As a result, the health system will need to be adequately resourced to address the consequences of the social determinants of health. AREAS FOR ACTION The WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health identified four categories through which actions on social determinants can be taken. These include: * reducing social stratification by reducing inequalities in power, prestige, and income linked to socio-economic position; * decreasing the exposure of individuals and populations to the health-damaging factors they may face; * reducing the vulnerability of people to the health damaging conditions they face; and * intervening through health care to reduce the consequences of ill health caused by the underlying determinants.39 All of these areas offer possibilities for action by the physician community. The following section provides suggestions for action by the medical profession through: CMA and national level initiatives; medical education; leadership and research; and clinical practice. CMA and national level initiatives Despite the strong relationship between the social determinants of health and health, little in the way of effective action has resulted. CMA and its partners can and should, advocate for research and push for informed healthy public policy, including health impact assessments for government policies. Additionally, targeted population health programs aimed at addressing the underlying determinants should be supported. All Canadians need a better understanding of the health trends and the impacts of various social and economic indicators. Information about the differences in specific health indicators, collected over time,40 is essential to the task of describing underlying health trends and the impacts of social and economic interventions. Data within primary care practices could be assembled into (anonymous) community-wide health information databases, to address this need. CMA recommends that: 1. The federal government recognize the relationship of the social determinants of health on the demands of the health care system and that it implement a requirement for all cabinet decision-making to include a Health Impact Assessment. 2. Options be examined for minimizing financial barriers to necessary medical care including pharmaceuticals and medical devices necessary for health. 3. Federal and provincial/territorial governments examine ways to improve the social and economic circumstances of all Canadians. 4. Efforts be made to educate the public about the effect of social determinants on individual and population health. 5. Appropriate data be collected and reported on annually. This data should be locally usable, nationally comparable and based on milestones across the life course. Medical education Medical education is an effective means to provide physicians with the information and tools they require to understand the impact of social determinants on the health of their patients and deal with them accordingly.41 In 2001, Health Canada published a report in which they stated that the primary goal of medical education should be the preparation of graduates who know how to reduce the burden of illness and improve the health of the communities in which they practice.42 Among the report's recommendations was a call for greater integration of the social determinants in medical curricula.43 Although the CanMEDS framework has been a part of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's accreditation process since 2005, challenges to the integration of these competencies remain.44 The report called for a greater emphasis on providing medical students with firsthand experiences in the community and with distinct populations (service learning),45 which addresses the difficulties in teaching the social aspects of medicine within a traditional classroom or hospital setting.46 Many such programs exist across the country.47 However, these programs are still limited and there is a need to increase the availability of longitudinal programs which allow students to build on the skills they develop throughout medical school. Increasingly residency programs which focus on the social determinants of health are being offered.48 These programs are a means of providing physicians with the proper tools to communicate with patients from diverse backgrounds49 and reduce behaviours that marginalized patients have identified as barriers to health services.50 It also provides residents with physician role models who are active in the community. However, medical residents note a lack of opportunities to participate in advocacy during residency.51 Further, while experiential programs are effective in helping to reduce barriers between physicians and patients from disadvantaged backgrounds, greater recruitment of medical students from these marginalized populations should also be explored and encouraged. Finally, physicians in practice need to be kept up to date on new literature and interventions regarding the social determinants. Innovations which help address health equity in practice should be shared with interested physicians. In particular, there is a need for accredited continuing medical education (CME) and a means to encourage uptake.52 CMA recommends that: 6. Greater integration of information on the social determinants and health inequity be provided in medical school to support the CanMEDS health advocate role 7. All medical schools and residency programs offer service learning programs, to provide students with an opportunity to work with diverse populations in inner city, rural and remote settings, and to improve their skills in managing the impact of the social determinants on their patients. 8. CME on the social determinants of health and the physician role in health equity be offered and incentivized for practising physicians. Leadership and research Within many communities in Canada, there are physicians who are working to address social determinants and health equity within the patient populations they serve. This is done in many cases through collaboration with partners within and outside of the health care system. Providing these local physician leaders with the tools they need to build these partnerships, and influence the policies and programs that affect their communities is a strategy that needs to be explored. Evidence-based research about health equity, the clinical setting and the role of physicians is underdeveloped. Interested physicians may wish to participate in research about practice level innovations, as a means of contributing to the evidence base for 'health equity' interventions or simply to share best practices with interested colleagues. Further, physicians can provide the medical support to encourage the adoption of early childhood development practices for example, which support later adult health. In time, research will contribute to training, continuing medical education and potentially to clinical practice guidelines. Physicians can provide leadership in health impact assessments and equity audits within the health care system as well. Data is essential to identify health equity challenges within a program, to propose and test measures that address the issues underlying the disparities. Formal audits and good measurement are essential to develop evidence-based policy improvements.53 Innovative programs such as those within the Saskatoon Health Region and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto are examples of using these tools to improve access and reduce inequities. CMA recommends that: 9. Physicians who undertake leadership and advocacy roles should be protected from repercussions in the workplace, e.g., the loss of hospital privileges. 10. Physician leaders explore opportunities to strengthen the primary care public health interface within their communities by working with existing agencies and community resources. 11. Physician leaders work with their local health organizations and systems to conduct health equity impact assessments in order to identify challenges and find solutions to improve access and quality of care. 12. Physicians be encouraged to participate in or support research on best practices for the social determinants of health and health equity. Once identified, information sharing should be established in Canada and internationally. Clinical practice In consultation with identified health equity physician champions, a number of clinical interventions have been identified which are being undertaken by physicians across the country. These interventions could be undertaken in many practice settings given the right supports, and could be carried out by various members of the collaborative care team.1 First, a comprehensive social history is essential to understand how to provide care for each patient in the context of their life.54 There are a number of tools that can be used for such a consultation and more are in development.55 However, consolidation of the best ideas into a tool that is suitable for the majority of health care settings is needed. There is some concern that asking these questions is outside of the physician role. The CanMEDS health advocate role clearly sees these types of activities as part of the physician role.56 The 'Four Principles of Family Medicine' defined by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, affirms this role for physicians as well.57 Community knowledge was identified as a strategy for helping patients. Physicians who were aware of community programs and services were able to refer patients if/when social issues arose.58 Many communities and some health providers have developed community resource guides.59 For some physicians, developing a network of community resources was the best way to understand the supports available. As a corollary, physicians noted their work in helping their patients become aware of and apply for the various social programs to which they are entitled. The programs vary by community and province/territory, and include disability, nutritional supports and many others. Most if not all of these programs require physicians to complete a form in order for the individual to qualify. Resources are available for some of these programs,60 but more centralized supports for physicians regardless of practice location or province/territory are needed. Physicians advocate on behalf of their patients by writing letters confirming the medical limitations of various health conditions or the medical harm of certain exposures.61 For example, a letter confirming the role of mold in triggering asthma may lead to improvements in the community housing of an asthmatic. Additionally, letters might help patients get the health care services and referrals that they require. As identified leaders within the community, support from a physician may be a 'game-changer' for patients. Finally, the design of the clinic, such as hours of operation or location, will influence the ability of people to reach care.62 CMA recommends that: 13. Tools be provided for physicians to assess their patients for social and economic causes of ill health and to determine the impact of these factors on treatment design. 14. Local databases of community services and programs (health and social) be developed and provided to physicians. Where possible, targeted guides should be developed for the health sector. 15. Collaborative team-based practice be supported and encouraged. 16. Resources or services be made available to physicians so that they can help their patients identify the provincial/territorial and federal programs for which they may qualify. 17. Physicians be cognizant of equity considerations when considering their practice design and patient resources. 18. All patients be treated equitably and have reasonable access to appropriate care, regardless of the funding model of their physician. CONCLUSION Socio-economic factors play a larger role in creating (or damaging) health than either biological factors or the health care system. Health equity is increasingly recognized as a necessary means by which we will make gains in the health status of all Canadians and retain a sustainable publicly funded health care system. Addressing inequalities in health is a pillar of CMA's Health Care Transformation initiative. Physicians as clinicians, learners, teachers, leaders and as a profession can take steps to address the problems on behalf of their patients. REFERENCES 1 A full review of the consultations is provided in the companion paper The Physician and Health Equity: Opportunities in Practice. 1 Khalema, N. Ernest (2005) Who's Healthy? Who's Not? A Social Justice Perspective on Health Inequities. Available at: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chps/crosslinks_march05.cfm 2 World Health Organization (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf 3 Public Health Agency of Canada (N.D.) The Social Determinants of Health: An Overview of the Implications for Policy and the Role of the Health Sector. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/oi-ar/pdf/01_overview_e.pdf 4 Keon, Wilbert J. & Lucie Pépin (2008) Population Health Policy: Issues and Options. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/392/soci/rep/rep10apr08-e.pdf 5 Friel, Sharon (2009) Health equity in Australia: A policy framework based on action on the social determinants of obesity, alcohol and tobacco. The National Preventative Health Taskforce. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/0FBE203C1C547A82CA257529000231BF/$File/commpaper-hlth-equity-friel.pdf 6 Wilkinson, Richard & Michael Marmot eds. (2003) Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts: Second Edition. World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/98438/e81384.pdf 7 Khalema, N. Ernest (2005) Who's Healthy?... 8 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership Making Connections Project: Are Widening Income Inequalities Making Canada Less Healthy? Available at: http://www.opha.on.ca/our_voice/collaborations/makeconnxn/HDP-proj-full.pdf 9 Ibid 10 Wilkins, Russ; Berthelot, Jean-Marie; and Ng E. [2002]. Trends in Mortality by Neighbourhood Income in Urban Canada from 1971 to 1996. Health Reports 13 [Supplement]: pp. 45-71 11 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Available at: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf 12 Raphael, Dennis (2003) "Addressing The Social Determinants of Health In Canada: Bridging The Gap Between Research Findings and Public Policy." Policy Options. March 2003 pp.35-40. 13 World Health Organization (2008) Closing the gap in a generation... 14 Hay, David I. (2006) Economic Arguments for Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Canadian Policy Research Networks. Available at: http://www.cprn.org/documents/46128_en.pdf 15 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 16 Ibid. 17 Whitehead, Margaret & Goran Dahlgren (2006) Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up Part 1. World Health Organization Europe. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/74737/E89383.pdf 18 Wilkinson, Richard & Michael Marmot eds. (2003) "Social Determinants of Health... 19 Ferrie, Jane E. (1999) "Health consequences of job insecurity." In Labour Market Changes and Job Security: A Challenge for Social Welfare and Health Promotion. World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/98411/E66205.pdf 20 Marmot, Michael (2010) Fair Society Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: Executive Summary. Available at: http://www.marmotreview.org/AssetLibrary/pdfs/Reports/FairSocietyHealthyLivesExecSummary.pdf 21 World Health Organization (2008) Closing the gap in a generation... 22 Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Frequently Asked Questions (Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Directorate, 2009) Available at: http://www.ahf.ca/faq 23Health Council of Canada, "The Health Status Of Canada's First Nations, Métis And Inuit Peoples", 2005, Available at:http://healthcouncilcanada.ca.c9.previewyoursite.com/docs/papers/2005/BkgrdHealthyCdnsENG.pdf 24 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 25Health Council of Canada, (2005)"The Health Status Of Canada's First Nations, Métis And Inuit Peoples... 26 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership... 27 CIHI/CPHI (2012) Disparities in Primary Health Care Experiences Among Canadians with Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/PHC_Experiences_AiB2012_E.pdf 28 Munro, Daniel (2008) "Healthy People, Healthy Performance, Healthy Profits: The Case for Business Action on the Socio-Economic Determinants of Health." The Conference Board of Canada. Available at: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/Libraries/NETWORK_PUBLIC/dec2008_report_healthypeople.sflb 29 Williamson, Deanna L. et.al. (2006) "Low-income Canadians' experiences with health-related services: Implications for health care reform." Health Policy. 76(2006) pp. 106-121. 30 CIHI/CPHI (2012) Disparities in Primary Health Care Experiences Among Canadians... 31 Williamson, Deanna L. et.al. (2006) "Low-income Canadians'... 32 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 33 Neal, Richard D. et.al. (2001) "Missed appointments in general practice: retrospective data analysis from four practices." British Journal of General Practice. 51 pp.830-832. 34 Kennedy, Jae & Christopher Erb (2002) "Prescription Noncompliance due to Cost Among Adults with Disabilities in the United States." American Journal of Public Health. Vol.92 No.7 pp. 1120-1124. 35 Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten & M. Robin DiMatteo. Chapter 8: Assessing and Promoting Medication Adherence. pp. 81-90 in King, Talmadge E, Jr. & Margaret B. Wheeler ed. (2007) Medical Management of Vulnerable and Underserved Patients... 36 Mikkonen, Juha & Dennis Raphael (2010) Social Determinants of Health... 37 Dunn, James R. (2002) The Health Determinants Partnership... 38 Saskatoon Poverty Reduction Partnership (2011) from poverty to possibility...and prosperity: A Preview to the Saskatoon Community Action Plan to Reduce Poverty. Available at: http://www.saskatoonpoverty2possibility.ca/pdf/SPRP%20Possibilities%20Doc_Nov%202011.pdf 39 World Health Organization (2005) Action On The Social Determinants Of Health: Learning From Previous Experiences. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/action_sd.pdf 40 Braveman, Paula (2003) "Monitoring Equity in Health and Healthcare: A Conceptual Framework."Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. Sep;21(3):181-192. 41 Royal College of Physicians (2010) How doctors can close the gap: Tackling the social determinants of health through culture change, advocacy and education. Available at: http://www.marmotreview.org/AssetLibrary/resources/new%20external%20reports/RCP-report-how-doctors-can-close-the-gap.pdf 42 Health Canada (2001) Social Accountability: A Vision for Canadian Medical Schools. Available at: http://www.medicine.usask.ca/leadership/social-accountability/pdfs%20and%20powerpoint/SA%20-%20A%20vision%20for%20Canadian%20Medical%20Schools%20-%20Health%20Canada.pdf 43 Ibid. 44 Dharamsi, Shafik; Ho, Anita; Spadafora, Salvatore; and Robert Woollard (2011) "The Physician as Health Advocate: Translating the Quest for Social Responsibility into Medical Education and Practice." Academic Medicine. Vol.86 No.9 pp.1108-1113. 45 Health Canada (2001) Social Accountability: A Vision for Canadian Medical Schools... 46 Meili, Ryan; Fuller, Daniel; & Jessica Lydiate. (2011) "Teaching social accountability by making the links: Qualitative evaluation of student experiences in a service-learning project." Medical Teacher. 33; 659-666. 47 Ford-Jones, Lee; Levin, Leo; Schneider, Rayfel; & Denis Daneman (2012) "A New Social Pediatrics Elective-A Tool for Moving to Life Course Developmental Health." The Journal of Pediatrics. V.160 Iss. 3 pp.357-358; Meili, Ryan; Ganem-Cuenca, Alejandra; Wing-sea Leung, Jannie; & Donna Zaleschuk (2011) "The CARE Model of Social Accountability: Promoting Cultural Change." Academic Medicine. Vol.86 No.9 pp.1114-1119. 48 Cuthbertson, Lana "U of A helps doctors understand way of life in the inner city." Edmonton Journal Dec 22, 2010. Available at: http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=943d7dc3-927b-4429-878b-09b6e00595e1 49 Willems, S.; Maesschalck De, S.; Deveugele, M.; Derese, A. & J. De Maeseneer (2005) "Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor-patient communication: does it make a difference?" Patient Education and Counseling. 56 pp. 139-146. 50 Bloch, Gary; Rozmovits, Linda & Broden Giambone (2011) "Barriers to primary care responsiveness to poverty as a risk factor for health." BioMed Central Family Practice. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2296-12-62.pdf; Schillinger, Dean; Villela, Theresa J. & George William Saba. Chapter 6: Creating a Context for Effective Intervention in the Clinical Care of Vulnerable Patients. pp.59-67. In King, Talmadge E, Jr. & Margaret B. Wheeler ed. (2007) Medical Management of Vulnerable and Underserved Patients. 51 Dharamsi, Shafik; Ho, Anita; Spadafora, Salvatore; and Robert Woollard (2011) "The Physician as Health Advocate... 52 UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 53 Meili, Ryan (2012) A Healthy Society: How A Focus On Health Can Revive Canadian Democracy. Saskatoon: Canada. Purich Publishing Limited. pp.36 54 UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 55 Bloch, Gary (2011) "Poverty: A clinical tool for primary care "Family & Community Medicine, University of Toronto. Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/system/files/Poverty%20A%20Clinical%20Tool%20for%20Primary%20Care%20%28version%20with%20References%29_0.pdf ; Bricic, Vanessa; Eberdt, Caroline & Janusz Kaczorowski (2011) "Development of a Tool to Identify Poverty in a Family Practice Setting: A Pilot Study." International Journal of Family Medicine. Available at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfm/2011/812182/ ; Based on form developed by: Drs. V. Dubey, R.Mathew & K. Iglar; Revised by Health Providers Against Poverty (2008) " Preventative Care Checklist Form: For average-risk, routine, female health assessments." Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/Resourcesforhealthcareproviders ; Based on form developed by: Drs. V. Dubey, R.Mathew & K. Iglar; Revised by Health Providers Against Poverty (2008) " Preventative Care Checklist Form: For average-risk, routine, male health assessments." Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/Resourcesforhealthcareproviders 56 Frank, Dr. Jason R. ed. (2005) "The CanMEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework: Better standards. Better physicians. Better Care." Office of Education: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Available at: http://rcpsc.medical.org/canmeds/CanMEDS2005/CanMEDS2005_e.pdf 57 Tannenbaum, David et.al. (2011) "Triple C Competency-based Curriculum: Report of the Working Group on Postgraduate Curriculum Review-Part 1 58 UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 59 Doyle-Trace L, Labuda S. Community Resources in Cote-des-Neiges. Montreal: St Mary's Hospital Family Medicine Centre, 2011. (This guide was developed by medical residents Lara Doyle-Trace and Suzan Labuda at McGill University.); Mobile Outreach Street Health (N.D.) Pocket MOSH: a little MOSH for your pocket: A Practitioners Guide to MOSH and the Community We Serve. Available at: http://www.cdha.nshealth.ca/mobile-outreach-street-health 60 Health Providers Against Poverty (N.D.) Tools and Resources. Available at: http://www.healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca/Resourcesforhealthcareproviders 61 Meili, Ryan (2012) A Healthy Society: How A Focus...pp.61; UCL Institute of Health Equity (2012) The Role of the Health Workforce in Tackling Health Inequalities... 62 Rachlis, Michael (2008) Operationalizing Health Equity: How Ontario's Health Services Can Contribute to Reducing Health Disparities. Wellesley Institute. Available at: http://wellesleyinstitute.com/files/OperationalizingHealthEquity.pdf
Documents
Less detail

Presentation to the New Democratic Party on Bill C-38

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10439
Date
2012-05-17
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2012-05-17
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Bill C-38 covers a lot of ground and we welcome the occasion to discuss it. Right at the outset, let me remind you that the Canadian Medical Association has a long tradition of staunch non-partisanship. Our mandate is to be the national advocate for the highest standards in health and health care. In a bill as wide-ranging as this one, there is a great deal I could talk about. In the time allotted, however, I am going to frame my brief remarks around three themes... namely: First, what is very clearly in the bill; Second, what is lacking in the bill, and Third, what I would characterize as a general lack of clarity and consultation on certain aspects of the federal government's actions on health care. First, I will comment on one of the key measures contained in the budget bill. We are greatly concerned about the move to raise the age of eligibility for Old Age Security. Many seniors have low incomes and delaying this relatively modest payment by two years is certain to have a negative impact. For many older Canadians, who tend to have more complex health problems, medication is a life line. We know that, already, many cannot afford their meds. Gnawing away at Canada's social safety net will no doubt force hard choices on some of tomorrow's seniors... the choice between whether to buy groceries or to buy their medicine. I think it is safe to say it would not hold up to a cost-benefit analysis. People who skip their meds, or lack a nutritious diet or enough heat in their homes, will be sicker. In the end, this will put a greater burden on our health care system. Let me now turn to a couple of things we were hoping to see in the budget but that are not there. As we all know, the Finance Minister announced the government's plans for the Canada Health Transfer in December. The CMA was encouraged when the Minister of Health subsequently spoke about collaborating with the provinces and territories on developing accountability measures for this funding. We look forward to this accountability plan for the minimum of $446 billion that will flow to the provinces and territories in federal transfers for health over the next twelve years. In both 2008 and 2009, the Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index ranked Canada last out of 30 countries in terms of value for money spent on health care. We believe that federal government should lever its spending on health care to bring change to the system. It could introduce incentives, measurable goals, pan-Canadian metrics and measurement that would link health care spending to comparable health outcomes. This would recognize, too, that the federal government is itself the fifth-largest jurisdiction in health care delivery. We believe the federal government has a role to play in leading this change and that transferring billions of federal dollars in the absence of this leadership shortchanges Canadians. This budget thus represents an opportunity lost to find ways to transform the health care system and help Canadians get better value and better patient care for the money they spend on health care. The other major piece missing from this budget is any move to establish a national pharmaceutical strategy. A pharmaceutical strategy that would ensure consistent coverage and secure supply across the country remains unfinished business from eight years ago. Access to pharmaceutical treatments remains the most glaring example of inequity of our health care system. I should point out that the Senate Social Affairs Committee in its recent report on the 2004 Health Accord also recommended the implementation of a national pharmaceutical strategy. Now I come to the third part of my remarks, which is about a general lack of clarity in regard to certain aspects of the federal government's responsibilities vis-a- vis health care. Since the budget was tabled, the federal government has announced $100 million in cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program and eliminated the National Aboriginal Health Organization. As far as we know, no one was consulted on these changes, and since they are not in the budget bill, there is no opportunity for debate on the potential implications on the health of Canadians. We are also uncertain about the impact of changes in service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada, changes in the mental health programs at the Department of National Defence, and plans to consolidate some of the functions of the Health Canada and the Canadian Public Health Agency. There are many unknowns and these are serious matters that warrant serious consideration. The government committed that it would not balance the books on the backs of the provinces, yet there appears to be a trend toward the downloading of health care costs to federal client groups or the provinces and territories or individuals. As we have seen in the past, cost downloading is not the same as cost saving. In fact, when health is impacted, the costs will be inevitably higher, both in dollars and in human suffering. Thank you.
Documents
Less detail

Protecting the national blood supply from the West Nile Virus : CMA Submission to House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1964
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2003-02-19
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2010-02-27
Date
2003-02-19
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health care and patient safety
Text
INTRODUCTION On behalf of its more than 54,000 members, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health with recommendations in regard to protecting the national blood supply from the West Nile Virus (WNV). As physicians, we understand both the perceived and actual risks associated with blood-borne diseases and the impact on individuals, families and communities. BACKGROUND WNV has emerged in North America, presenting a threat to public, animal and equine health. The most serious human manifestation of WNV infection is fatal encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). WNV is spread by the bite of an infected mosquito and can infect people, many types of birds, horses and some other animals. Most people who become infected with WNV will have either no symptoms or only mild ones. However, on rare occasions, WNV infection can result in severe and sometimes fatal illnesses. Certain people, including seniors, the young and those with weak immune systems, are at greater risk for serious health effects. In 2002, West Nile Virus was documented in five provinces (Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan). Further to this, the United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first documented cases of person-to-person West Nile Virus transmission through organ transplantation, blood and blood product transfusion and possibly breastfeeding. It is imperative that the risk associated with the transmission of West Nile Virus through blood transfusions be minimized. We understand that the Canadian Blood Services (CBS) is working towards a validated laboratory test which may be available by the next mosquito season and that in the absence of this test there are a number of contingency plans. It appears that the CBS and Hema Quebec are maintaining vigilance and maximizing efforts towards controlling contamination through blood. This is commendable. We believe that these efforts are one component of what is required to maintain the health and safety of Canadians from the spread of known and emerging diseases. A second component is to ensure that communication about WNV to the public is accurate, timely and consistent. Effective risk communication is imperative not only to promote a safe blood supply, but also to manage risk perception associated with a positive test for WNV. A comprehensive approach is required to protect the public from emerging health problems such as the WNV. A strong public health infrastructure is necessary to ensure that governments are able to protect and promote health and to prevent illness. This involves prevention, early detection, containment, communication and information dissemination. STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH Through its public health infrastructure, society protects and promotes health and works to prevent illness, injury and disability. In today’s world these public health functions require an increasingly specialized and well-trained workforce; sophisticated surveillance, monitoring and information systems; and adequate and continuously available laboratory support. Its ultimate effectiveness, however, depends upon the ability of the system to communicate crucial information and health advice to the right professionals in real time, when they need it. The devastating impact of the failure to effectively communicate essential information is evident in examples as diverse, yet dramatic, as the tragedy of Walkerton and the untimely death of Vanessa Young. In both cases the information health professionals needed to make optimum decisions was not accessible in a reliable and timely manner. Reports indicate that across this country public health workers are stretched to the limit to perform routine work. The public health infrastructure is put to the test further whenever there is a disaster, large or small, in Canada and, not withstanding best efforts, it does not always pass. The public health system is also challenged by the potential for a disconnect in communications between differing jurisdictions that may be found when, for example, First Nations communities under federal jurisdiction overlap areas of provincial/territorial jurisdiction. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the anthrax scare in the United States, Canadians must be assured of a rapid, knowledgeable, expert response to emergency public health challenges. Commissioner Roy Romanow suggests in the recent report of the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care that “a portion of the proposed new Primary Health Care Transfer should be targeted to expanding efforts by provinces and territories to prevent illnesses and injuries, promote good health, and integrate those activities with primary health care.” The Fifth Report of the Senate Committee on Science, Technology and Social Affairs, chaired by Senator Kirby, notes that “The major problem with public health programs is that funding is low, and usually unstable or inconsistent. As a result, the public health infrastructure in Canada is under considerable stress and has deteriorated substantially in recent years.” The Senate Committee recommended that the federal government, “ensure strong leadership and provide additional funding of $200 million to sustain, better coordinate and integrate the public health infrastructure in Canada as well as relevant health promotion efforts.” During the First Ministers’ meeting in September 2000, the First Ministers committed to strengthening their investments and commitments to public health, including the development of strategies and policies that recognize the determinants of health, enhance disease prevention and improve public health. They made several commitments towards achieving the goal, including: * Promoting those public services, programs and policies that extend beyond care and treatment and which make a critical contribution to the health and wellness of Canadians; * Addressing key priorities for health care renewal and supporting innovations to meet the current and emerging needs of Canadians; * Reporting regularly to Canadians on health status, health outcomes, and the performance of publicly funded health services, and the actions taken to improve these services. In 1999, the Auditor General found Health Canada unprepared to fulfill its responsibilities in public health; communication between multiple agencies was poor and weaknesses in the key surveillance system impeded the effective monitoring of communicable and noncommunicable diseases and injuries. In 1997, Justice Horace Krever reported that the “public health departments in many parts of Canada do not have sufficient resources to carry out their duties.” RECOMMENDATIONS The capacity of the public health care sector to deliver disease prevention and health promotion programs in Canada is currently inadequate, and its ability to respond varies from coast to coast. This is due to a lack of trained professionals and a lack of operational funds. Enhanced commitments are needed from governments at all levels to ensure that adequate human resources and infrastructure are in place to respond to public health issues when they arise. This includes the expansion of the public health training programs to enhance the resources in this field. The ability of the public health system to respond to these issues has a direct impact on the wellbeing of the people of Canada in a manner as important as the ability of the acute care system to respond to medical emergencies. Therefore the CMA recommends that: The federal government invest in human resources and infrastructure needed to develop an adequate and effective public health system capable of responding to emerging public health issues. The public health system is complex and multifactorial. It is therefore imperative that different departments and sectors coordinate and communicate effectively to coordinate efforts and avoid duplication. The development of an adequate surveillance system and consideration of mandatory reporting of WNV infections in humans is one component of this requirement. In addition to collecting these data, a more extensive communication and dissemination plan should be developed to enhance the impact of skilled professionals, programs and policies. Responsible messaging should be developed in a timely manner, for the public and for individuals who are detected to have (or previously had) a WNV infection. Such messaging must carefully balance public awareness of risk against threats to the CBS/Hema Quebec donor pool and the creation of anxiety in people who need to use blood or blood products. It is essential that the federal government take a leadership role to ensure that the communication tools and information technology necessary to enable a more rapid and informed response to situations such as identification of emerging diseases in the blood supply, natural disasters, disease outbreaks, newly discovered adverse drug reactions, and man-made disasters or bio-terrorism are accessible in real time in all regions of the country. In its pre budget submission, the CMA called on the government to strengthen the public health system to ensure that governments are able to protect and promote health and to prevent illness. This involves the detection of emerging health problems, like West Nile Virus transmission, as well as containment, communication and information dissemination. Therefore the CMA recommends that: The federal government provide a one-time infusion of $30 million for the creation of a R.R.E.A.L (Rapid, Reliable, Effective, Accessible and Linked) Health Communication and Coordination Initiative which would strengthen Canada’s public health infrastructure and enhance coordination and communication amongst all levels of government, public health officials, health educators, community service providers, physicians and organizations such as the Canadian Blood Service/Hema Quebec, Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Medical Association.
Documents
Less detail

Restricting marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children and youth in Canada: A Canadian health care and scientific organization policy consensus statement

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10676
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2012-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Restricting Marketing of Unhealthy Foods and Beverages to Children and Youth in Canada: A Canadian Health Care and Scientific Organization Policy Consensus Statement POLICY GOAL Federal government to immediately begin a legislative process to restrict all marketing targeted to children under the age of 13 of foods and beverages high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium and that in the interim the food industry immediately ceases marketing of such food to children. PURPOSE OF STATEMENT This policy consensus statement was developed to reflect the growing body of evidence linking the promotion and consumption of diets high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium1 to cardiovascular and chronic disease (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, cancer, and heart disease and stroke)— leading preventable risk factors and causes of death and disability within Canada and worldwide. (1-3) (1) For the remainder of the document, reference to foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium will be framed as foods high in fats, sugars or sodium. The current generation of Canadian children is expected to live shorter, less healthy lives as a result of unhealthy eating. (4) Canadians’ overconsumption of fat, sodium and sugar, rising rates of childhood obesity, growing numbers of people with cancer, heart disease and stroke, and the combined strain they exert on the health care system and quality of life for Canadians necessitates immediate action for Canadian governments and policy-makers. Restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages directed at children is gaining increasing international attention as a cost-effective, population-based intervention to reduce the prevalence and the burden of chronic and cardiovascular diseases through reducing children’s exposure to, and consumption of, disease-causing foods. (2,5,6) In May 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO released a set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children (5) and called on governments worldwide to reduce the exposure of children to advertising messages that promote foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium and to reduce the use of powerful marketing techniques. In June 2012, the follow-up document, A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children, (7) was released. The policy aim should be to reduce the impact on children of marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars, or sodium. WHO (2010): Recommendation 1 What this policy consensus statement offers is the perspective of many major national health care professional and scientific organizations to guide Canadian governments and non-government organizations on actions that need to be taken to protect the health of our future generations, in part by restricting the adverse influence of marketing of foods high in fat, sugar or sodium to Canadian children and youth. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND RATIONALE -Young children lack the cognitive ability to understand the persuasive intent of marketing or assess commercial claims critically. (8) in 1989 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that “advertisers should not be able to capitalize upon children’s credulity” and “advertising directed at young children is per se manipulative”.(5) -The marketing and advertising of information or products known to be injurious to children’s health and wellbeing is unethical and infringes on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which stipulates that, “In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” (9) - Unhealthy food advertising during children’s television programs in Canada is higher than in many countries, with children being exposed to advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages up to 6 times per hour. (10) - Unhealthy food and beverage advertising influences children’s food preferences, purchase requests and consumption patterns and has been shown to be a probable cause of childhood overweight and obesity by the WHO. (1,8,11) - The vast majority of Canadians (82%) want government intervention to place limits on advertising unhealthy foods and beverages to children. (12) - The regulation of food marketing to children is an effective and cost-saving population-based intervention to improve health and prevent disease. (13,14) - Several bills have been introduced into the House of Commons to amend the Competition Act and the Food and Drug Act to restrict commercial advertising, including food, to children under 13 years of age. None have yet been passed. (15) - Canada’s current approach to restricting advertising to children is not effective and is not in line with the 2010 WHO recommendations on the marketing of foods and beverages to children, nor is it keeping pace with the direction of policies being adopted internationally, which ban or restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing targeted to children. (16,17) LEGISLATIVE RULING The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that “advertising directed at young children is per se manipulative” Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (AG), 1989 FOOD MARKETING TO CHILDREN: A TIMELY OPPORTUNITY FOR CANADA Childhood obesity and chronic disease prevention are collective priorities for action of federal, provincial and territorial (F/P/T) governments. (3,5,18,19) Strategy 2.3b of the 2011 Federal, Provincial and Territorial Framework for Action to Promote Healthy Weights stipulates “looking at ways to decrease the marketing of foods and beverages high in fat, sugar and/or sodium to children. “(5, p. 31) The 2010 Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada has also identified the need to “continue to explore options to reduce the exposure of children to marketing for foods that are high in sodium" as a key activity for F/P/T governments to consider. (19, p. 31) In their 2010 set of recommendations, the WHO stipulated that governments are best positioned to lead and ensure effective policy development, implementation and evaluation. (6) To date, there has been no substantive movement by the federal government to develop coordinated national-level policies that change the way unhealthy foods and beverages are produced, marketed and sold. Current federal, provincial and industry-led self-regulatory codes are inconsistent in their scope and remain ineffective in their ability to sufficiently reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing, nor have they been adequately updated to address the influx of new marketing mediums to which children and youth in Canada are increasingly subjected. Quebec implemented regulations in 1980 restricting all commercial advertising. (20) Although the ban has received international recognition and is viewed as world leading, several limitations remain, in part due exposure of Quebec children to marketing from outside Quebec, weak enforcement of the regulations and narrow application of its provisions. Accordingly, the undersigned are calling on the federal government to provide strong leadership and establish a legislative process for the development of regulations that restrict all commercial marketing of foods and beverages high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium to children. Strong federal government action and commitment are required to change the trajectory of chronic diseases in Canada and institute lasting changes in public health. Specifically: Efforts must be made to ensure that children…are protected against the impact of marketing [of foods with a high content of fat, sugar and sodium] and given the opportunity to grow and develop in an enabling food environment — one that fosters and encourages healthy dietary choices and promotes the maintenance of healthy weight. (7, p. 6) Such efforts to protect the health of children must go beyond the realm of federal responsibility and involve engagement, dialogue, leadership and advocacy by all relevant stakeholders, including all elected officials, the food and marketing sector, public health, health care professional and scientific organizations, and most importantly civil society. The undersigned support the development of policies that are regulatory in nature to create national and/or regional uniformity in implementation and compliance by industry. “Realizing the responsibility of governments both to protect the health of children and to set definitions in policy according to public health goals and challenges — as well as to ensure policy is legally enforced — statutory regulation has the greatest potential to achieve the intended or desired policy impact.” WHO (2012), p. 33 POLICY/LEGISLATIVE SPECIFICATIONS The following outline key definitions and components of an effective and comprehensive policy on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children and should be used to guide national policy scope and impact. - Age of Child: In the context of broadcast regulations, the definition of “age of child” typically ranges from under 13 years to under 16 years. In Canada, Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act (20) applies to children under 13 years of age. Consistent with existing legislation, this report recommends that policies restricting marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages be directed to children less than 13 years of age at a minimum. While the science on the impact of marketing on children over 13 is less extensive, emerging research reveals that older children still require protection and may be more vulnerable to newer forms of marketing (i.e., digital media ), in which food and beverage companies are playing an increasingly prominent role. (21-23) Strong consideration should be given to extending the age of restricting the marketing of unhealthy food and beverage to age 16. - Unhealthy Food and Beverages: In the absence of a national standardized definition for “healthy” or “unhealthy” foods, this document defines unhealthy foods broadly as foods with a high content of saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars or sodium, as per the WHO recommendations. (5) It is recommended that a robust and comprehensive definition be developed by an interdisciplinary stakeholder working group. - Focus on Marketing: Marketing is more than advertising and involves: …any form of commercial communication or message that is designed to, or has the effect of, increasing the recognition, appeal and/ or consumption of particular products and services. It comprises anything that acts to advertise or otherwise promote a product or service. (6, p. 9) This definition goes beyond the current legal definition of advertisement outlined in the Food and Drug Act as “any representation by any means whatever for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the sale or disposal of any food, drug, cosmetic or device.” (24) - Marketing Techniques, Communication Channels and Locations: Legislation restricting unhealthy food marketing needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to address the broad scope of marketing and advertising techniques that have a particularly powerful effect on children and youth. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: . Television . Internet . Radio . Magazines . Direct electronic marketing (email, SMS) . Mobile phones . Video and adver-games . Characters, brand mascots and/or celebrities, including those that are advertiser-generated . Product placement . Cross-promotions . Point-of-purchase displays . Cinemas and theatres . Competitions and premiums (free toys) . Children’s institutions, services, events and activities (schools, event sponsorship) . “Viral and buzz marketing” (25,26) . Directed to Children: The criteria used by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (20) to determine whether an advertisement is “directed at children” offers a starting point in developing national legislation regarding child-directed media. The loopholes in the Quebec Consumer Protection Act criteria, namely allowing advertising of unhealthy foods and beverages directed at adults during children’s programming, will necessitate the development of an alternative approach or set of criteria that reflects the range of media to which children are exposed and when they are exposed, in addition to the proportion of the audience that is made up of children. Quebec Consumer Protection Act Article 249 To determine whether or not an advertisement is directed at persons under thirteen years of age, account must be taken of the context of its presentation, and in particular of: a)the nature and intended purpose of the goods advertised; b)the manner of presenting such advertisement; c)the time and place it is shown. ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Federal Government Leadership 1.1 Immediately and publicly operationalize the WHO set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. In working toward the implementation of the WHO recommendations, the federal government is strongly urged to accelerate implementation of the WHO Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Beverages to Children. To this end, the Government of Canada is urged to: 1.2 Convene a Federal, Provincial and Territorial Working Group on Food Marketing to Children to develop, implement and monitor policies to restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children. As stipulated within the WHO Implementation Framework: The government-led working group should ultimately reach consensus on the priorities for intervention, identify the available policy measures and decide how they best can be implemented. (7, p.13) 1.3 In developing policies, it is recommended that the working group: - Develop standardized criteria and an operational definition to distinguish and classify “unhealthy” foods. Definitions should be developed using objective, evidence-based methods and should be developed and approved independent of commercial interests. - Develop a set of definitions/specifications that will guide policy scope and implementation. Consistent with the WHO recommendations, the working group is encouraged to apply the policy specifications identified above. - Set measurable outcomes, targets and timelines for achievement of targets for industry and broadcasters to restrict unhealthy food marketing to children in all forms and settings. It is recommended that policies be implemented as soon as possible and within a 3-year time frame. - Establish mechanisms for close monitoring and enforcement through defined rewards and/or penalties by an independent regulatory agency that has the power and infrastructure to evaluate questionable advertisements and enforce penalties for non-compliance.(2) (2) Such an infrastructure could be supported though the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), similar to the authority of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Food and Drug Act via the development of an advertising investigation arm. The nature and extent of penalties imposed should be sufficiently stringent to deter violations. Enforcement mechanisms should be explicit, and infringing companies should be exposed publicly. - Develop evaluation mechanisms to assess process, impact and outcomes of food marketing restriction policies. Components should include scheduled reviews (5 years or as agreed upon) to update policies and/or strategies. To showcase accountability, evaluation findings should be publicly disseminated. 1.4 Provide adequate funding to support the successful implementation and monitoring of the food marketing restriction policies. 1.5 Collaborate with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and other granting councils to fund research to generate baseline data and address gaps related to the impact of marketing in all media on children and how to most effectively restrict advertising unhealthy foods to children. (27) 1.6 Fund and commission a Canadian economic modeling study to assess the cost-effectiveness and the relative strength of the effect of marketing in comparison to other influences on children’s diets and diet-related health outcomes. Similar studies have been undertaken elsewhere and highlight cost– benefit savings from restricting unhealthy food marketing. (13,14) 1.7 Call on industry to immediately stop marketing foods to children that are high in fats, sugar or sodium. 2. Provincial, Territorial and Municipal Governments 2.1 Wherever possible, incorporate strategies to reduce the impact of unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children into provincial and local (public) health or related strategic action plans, and consider all settings that are frequented by children. 2.2 Pass and/or amend policies and legislation restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children that go beyond limitations stipulated in federal legislation and regulations and industry voluntary codes. 2.3 Until federal legislation is in place, strike a P/T Steering Committee on Unhealthy Food Marketing to Children to establish interprovincial consistency related to key definitions and criteria and mechanisms for enforcement, as proposed above. 2.4 Collaborate with local health authorities, non- governmental organizations and other stakeholders to develop and implement education and awareness programs on the harmful impacts of marketing, including but not limited to unhealthy food and beverage advertising. 2.5 Call on industry to immediately stop marketing foods to children that are high in fats, sugar or sodium. 3. Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), Health Care Organizations, Health Care Professionals 3.1 Publicly endorse this position statement and advocate to all Canadian governments to restrict marketing of unhealthy foods to children and youth in Canada. 3.2 Collaborate with governments at all levels to facilitate implementation and enforcement of federal/provincial/municipal regulations or policies. 3.3 Wherever possible, incorporate and address the need for restrictions on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children into position papers, strategic plans, conferences, programs and other communication mediums. 3.4 Support, fund and/or commission research to address identified research gaps, including the changing contexts and modes of marketing and their implications on the nutritional status, health and well-being of children and youth 3.5 Call on industry to immediately stop the marketing of foods high in fat, sugar or sodium. 4. Marketing and Commercial Industry 4.1 Immediately cease marketing foods high in fats, sugar or sodium. 4.2 Amend the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CAI) nutrition criteria used to re-define “better-for-you products” to be consistent with currently available international standards that are healthier and with Canadian nutrient profiling standards, once developed. BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE BASE Non-communicable diseases (diabetes, stroke, heart attack, cancer, chronic respiratory disease) are a leading cause of death worldwide and are linked by several common risk factors including high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, obesity, unhealthy diets and physical inactivity. (1,2,3 28) The WHO has predicted that premature death from chronic disease will increase by 17% over the next decade if the roots of the problem are not addressed. (2) Diet-related chronic disease risk stems from long- term dietary patterns which start in childhood (8,28). Canadian statistics reveal children, consume too much fat, sodium and sugars (foods that cause chronic disease) and eat too little fiber, fruits and vegetables (foods that prevent chronic disease). (3) There is evidence that (television) advertising of foods high in fat, sugar or sodium is associated with childhood overweight and obesity. (6,11) Children and youth in Canada are exposed to a barrage of marketing and promotion of unhealthy foods and beverages through a variety of channels and techniques – tactics which undermine and contradict government, health care professional and scientific recommendations for healthy eating. (10,26) Available research indicates that food marketing to children influences their food preferences, beliefs, purchase requests and food consumption patterns. (8,29) A US study showed that children who were exposed to food and beverage advertisements consumed 45% more snacks than their unexposed counterparts. (30) Similarly, preschoolers who were exposed to commercials for vegetables (broccoli and carrots) had a significantly higher preference for these vegetables after multiple exposures (n=4) compared to the control group. (31) Economic modeling studies have shown that restricting children’s exposure to food and beverage advertising is a cost effective population based approach to childhood obesity prevention, with the largest overall gain in disability adjusted life years. (13,14). Canada has yet to conduct a comparable analysis. Marketing and Ethics Foods and beverages high in fats, sugars or sodium is one of many health compromising products marketed to children. It has been argued that policy approaches ought to extend beyond marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to one that restricts marketing of all products to children, as practiced in Quebec (7,26,32). Article 36 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is a signatory, states that, “children should be protected from any activity that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development.” (9) Restricting marketing of all products has been argued to be the most comprehensive policy option in that it aims to protect children from any commercial interest and is grounded in the argument that children have the right to a commercial-free childhood (7, 25,26,32). The focus on restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing was based in consultations with national health organizations whose mandates, at the time of writing, were more aligned with a focus on unhealthy foods and beverages. This policy statement is not opposed to, and does not preclude further policy enhancements to protect children from all commercial marketing, and therefore encourages further advocacy in this area. In order to inform the debate and help underpin future policy direction, further research is needed. Canada’s Food and Beverage Marketing Environment Television remains a primary medium for children’s exposure to advertising, with Canadian children aged 2–11 watching an average of 18 hours of television per week. (26) In the past two decades, the food marketing and promotion environment has expanded to include Internet marketing, product placement in television programs, films and DVDs, computer and video games, peer-to-peer or viral marketing, supermarket sales promotions, cross- promotions between films and television programs, use of licensed characters and spokes-characters, celebrity endorsements, advertising in children’s magazines, outdoor advertising, print marketing, sponsorship of school and sporting activities, advertising on mobile phones, and branding on toys and clothing. (25,26) A systematic review of 41 international studies looking at the content analysis of children’s food commercials found that the majority advertised unhealthy foods, namely pre-sugared cereals, soft drinks, confectionary and savoury snacks and fast food restaurants. (33) In an analysis of food advertising on children’s television channels across 11 countries, Canada (Alberta sample) had the second-highest rate of food and beverage advertising (7 advertisements per hour), 80% of which were for unhealthy foods and beverages defined as “high in undesirable nutrients and/or energy.” (10) Illustrating the influence of food packaging in supermarkets, two Canadian studies found that for six food product categories 75% of the products were directed solely at children through use of colour, cartoon mascots, pointed appeals to parents and/or cross-merchandising claims, games or activities. Of the 63% of products with nutrition claims, 89% were classified as being “of poor nutritional quality” due to high levels of sugar, fat, or sodium when judged against US-based nutrition criteria. Less than 1% of food messages specifically targeted to children were for fruits and vegetables. (34,35) Food is also unhealthily marketed in schools. A recent study of 4,936 Canadian students from grades 7 to 10 found that 62% reported the presence of snack-vending machines in their schools, and that this presence was associated with students’ frequency of consuming vended goods. (36) In another Canadian analysis, 28% of elementary schools reported the presence of some form of advertising in the school and 19% had an exclusive marketing arrangement with Coke or Pepsi. (37) Given children’s vulnerability, a key tenant of the WHO recommendations on marketing to children is that “settings where children gather should be free from all forms of marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, and free sugars or sodium.” (6, p.9) and need to be included in development of food marketing policies directed at children. The Canadian public wants government oversight in restricting unhealthy food marketing to children. A nation-wide survey of over 1200 Canadian adults found 82% want limits placed on unhealthy food and beverage advertising to children; 53% support restricting all marketing of high-fat, high-sugar or high-sodium foods aimed directly at children and youth. (12) Canada’s Commercial Advertising Environment Internationally, 26 countries have made explicit statements on food marketing to children and 20 have, or are in the process of, developing policies in the form of statutory measures, official guidelines or approved forms of self-regulation. (38) The differences in the nature and degree of these restrictions is considerable, with significant variation regarding definition of child, products covered, communication and marketing strategies permitted and expectations regarding implementation, monitoring and evaluation. (38,39) With the exception of Quebec, Canada’s advertising policy environment is restricted to self-regulated rather than legislative measures with little monitoring and oversight in terms of measuring the impact of regulations on the intensity and frequency of advertising unhealthy foods and beverages to children. (39) Federal Restrictions Nationally, the Food and Drug Act and the Competition Act provide overarching rules on commercial advertising and (loosely) prohibit selling or advertising in a manner that is considered false, misleading or deceptive to consumers. These laws, however, contain no provisions dealing specifically with unhealthy food advertising or marketing to children and youth. (26) The Consumer Package and Labeling Act outlines federal requirements concerning the packaging, labeling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged non- food consumer products. Packaging and labels, however, are not included under the scope of advertising and therefore not subject to the administration and enforcement of the Act and regulations. (26) Such loopholes have prompted the introduction of three private member's bills into the House of Commons to amend both the Competition Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Tabled in 2007, 2009 and 2012, respectively, none of the bills have, to date, advanced past the First Reading. (15) Industry Restrictions The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code) and the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children (BCAC) together cover Canadian broadcast and non- broadcast advertising. (23) While both have explicit provisions/clauses to cover advertising directed to children (12 years and younger), neither address or explicitly cover unhealthy food and beverage advertising. Further excluded are other heavily used and persuasive forms of marketing directed to children, including in-store promotions, packaging, logos, and advertising in schools or at events, as well as foreign media. (40) Formed in 2008, the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CAI) defines marketing standards and criteria to identify the products that are appropriate or not to advertise to children under 12 years old. Under this initiative, participating food companies (N=19) are encouraged to direct 100% of their advertising to children under 12 to “better-for-you” products. (41) In 2010, the scope of CAI was expanded to include other media forms, namely video games, child- directed DVDs and mobile media. Despite reportedly high compliance by CAI participants, (41) several fundamental loopholes undermine its level of protection and effectiveness, namely: - Participation is voluntary, exempting non- participators such as President’s Choice, Wendy’s and A&W, from committing to CAI core principles. - Companies are allowed to create their own nutrient criteria for defining “better-for-you” or “healthier dietary choice” products. (32) A 2010 analysis revealed that up to 62% of these products would not be acceptable to promote to children by other countries’ advertising nutrition standards. (16) - Companies are able to adopt their own definition of what constitutes “directed at children” under 12 years. (32) Participants' definitions of child audience composition percentage range from 25% to 50%, significantly more lenient than current Quebec legislation and other international regulatory systems. (7,42,43) - The initiative excludes a number of marketing and advertising techniques primarily directed at children, namely advertiser-generated characters (e.g., Tony the Tiger), product packaging, displays of food and beverage products, fundraising, public service messaging and educational programs. (26,27) Provincial Restrictions The Quebec Consumer Protection Act states that “no person may make use of commercial advertising directed at persons under thirteen years of age.” (26) Despite its merits, the effectiveness of the Quebec ban has been compromised. In its current form, the ban does not protect children from cross-border leakage of child-directed advertisements from other provinces. (40) One study found that while the ban reduced fast food consumption by US$88 million per year and decreased purchase propensity by 13% per week, the outcomes primarily affected French-speaking households with children, not their English-speaking counterparts. (44) A more recent study looking at the ban’s impact on television advertising arrived at similar conclusions and found that Quebec French subjects were exposed to significantly fewer candy and snack promotions (25.4%, p<0.001) compared to the Ontario English (33.7%) and Quebec English (39.8%) groups. (40) The ban has further been criticized for having a weak definition of “advertisement”, which allows adult-targeted advertisements for unhealthy foods during children’s programming (37) and having weak regulatory and monitoring structures. (37,40) In assessing the effectiveness of Quebec’s legislation in reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food advertising, it is important to note that the ban was not developed to target or reduce the marketing of foods and beverages specifically, but rather to reduce the commercialization of childhood. (27) Public Policy: The Way Forward Several legislative approaches have been undertaken internationally to restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing. (7,43,45) While more research is needed with regards to the impact of restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing on child health outcomes (i.e., obesity), a US study estimated that between 14-33% of instances of childhood obesity could be prevented by eliminating television advertising for unhealthy food. (46) An Australian study found that a restriction on non-core-food advertisement between 7am and 8:30pm could reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food advertising by almost 80%. (47) An evaluation of the UK regulations which restricts television advertising of all foods high in fat, sugar and sodium found that since its introduction there has been a 37% reduction in unhealthy food advertisement seen by children. (25) Restrictions on food marketing are being increasingly advocated internationally. A 2011 International Policy Consensus Conference identified regulating marketing to children as a key policy strategy to prevent childhood obesity. (48) A similar recommendation was made at the September 2011 United Nations high-level meeting on the prevention and control of non- communicable diseases. Restrictions on television advertising for less healthful foods has also been identified as an effective (Class I; Grade B) population-based strategy to improve dietary behaviors in children by the American Heart Association. (49) Within Canada, non-governmental and other health organizations are assuming an equally active role. Among others, the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, the Dietitians of Canada, the Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention, the Simcoe Board of Health, the Thunder Bay and District Board of Health and the Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Board of Health have issued position papers or statements urging the federal government to implement more stringent regulations on food and beverage marketing to children. (26,42,48) Conclusions The current voluntary, industry self-regulated and ineffective system of restricting the marketing and advertising of foods and beverages fails to protect Canadian Children and thereby contributes to the rising rates of childhood obesity and the likelihood of premature death and disability in our children’s and future generations. Strong federal government leadership and nationwide action from other levels of government and other key stakeholders are needed. Regulation restricting unhealthy food advertising is internationally supported, with a growing evidence base for expanding such regulation to all forms of food marketing. This policy statement offer an integrated, pragmatic and timely response to the national stated priorities of childhood obesity and chronic disease prevention in Canada and supports the F/P/T vision of making Canada, “…a country that creates and maintains the conditions for healthy weights so that children can have the healthiest possible lives.” (4) This policy statement was funded by The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC) and the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (CIHR) Chair in Hypertension Prevention and Control, prepared with the assistance of an ad hoc Expert Scientific Working Group, reviewed and approved by the Hypertension Advisory Committee and endorsed by the undersigned national health organizations. HYPERTENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Manuel Arango, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Norm Campbell, Canadian Society of Internal Medicine Judi Farrell, Hypertension Canada Mark Gelfer, College of Family Physicians of Canada Dorothy Morris, Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses Rosana Pellizzari, Public Health Physicians of Canada Andrew Pipe, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Maura Rickets, Canadian Medical Association Ross Tsuyuki, Canadian Pharmacists Association Kevin Willis, Canadian Stroke Network STAFF Norm Campbell, HSFC/CIHR Chair in Hypertension Prevention and Control, Chair Tara Duhaney, Policy Director, Hypertension Advisory Committee REFERENCES 1. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. WHO Technical Report Series No. 916. Geneva, WHO; 2003. Available at: http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/who_fao_expert_report.pdf. Accessed December 2011 2. World Health Organization. 2008-2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/nmh/Actionplan-PC-NCD- 2008.pdf. Accessed December 2011 3. Public Health Agency of Canada. Tracking Heart Disease and Stroke in Canada. Ottawa, 2009. Available at: http://www.phac- aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2009/cvd-avc/pdf/cvd-avs-2009- eng.pdf. Accessed January 2012 4. Olshansky SJ, Passaro DJ, Hershow RC et al. A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:1138-45 5. Public Health Agency of Canada. Curbing Childhood Obesity: A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Framework for Action to Promote Healthy Weights. Ottawa, PHAC; 2011 Available at: http://www.phac- aspc.gc.ca/hp-ps/hl-mvs/framework- cadre/2011/assets/pdf/co-os-2011-eng.pdf. Accessed January 2012 6. World Health Organization. Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. Geneva: WHO; 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/recsmarketing/en/index.html. Accessed December 2011 7. World Health Organization. A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children. Geveva: WHO; 2012. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/MarketingFramework2012.pdf. Accessed June 2012 8. Kunkel D, Wilcox B, Cantor J, Palmer E, Linn S, Dowrick P. Report of the APA Taskforce on Advertising and Children. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2004. Available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/advertising-children.pdf. Accessed January 2012 9. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations, 2009 Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm. Accessed February, 2012 10. Kelly B, Halford JCG, Boyland E, Chapman K, Bautista- Castaño I, Berg C, et al. Television food advertising to children: A global perspective. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:1730-5. Available at: http://www.studenttutor.ca/resources/Television%20Food%20Advertising- %20a%20Global%20Perspective.pdf 11. McGinnis JM, Gootman JA, Kraak VI (Eds.) Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. Washington, DC: IOM; 2006. 12. Ipsos Reid. Canadians’ Perceptions of, and Support for, Potential Measures to Prevent and Reduce Childhood Obesity. Prepared for the Public Health Agency of Canada. Ottawa, November 2011. Available at: http://www.sportmatters.ca/files/Reports/Ipsos%20Obesity%202011.pdf. Accessed February 2012 13. Cecchini M, Sassi F, Lauer JA, Lee YY, Guajardo- Barron V, Chisholm D. Tackling of Unhealthy Diets, physical inactivity, and obesity: Health effects and cost-effectiveness. Lancet 2010; 376 (9754): 1775- 84 Available at: http://www.who.int/choice/publications/Obesity_Lancet.pdf 14. Magnus A, Habby MM, Carter R, Swinburn B. The cost-effectiveness of removing television advertising of high fat and/or high sugar food and beverages to Australian children. Int J Obes.2009; 33: 1094-1102. Available at: http://eurobesitas.ch/articles/pdf/Magnus_ijo2009156a.pdf 15. Parliament of Canada. Private Member’s Bills. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?billId=4328259&Mode=1&View=3&Language=E. Accessed April 2012 16. Conrad S. Innovations in Policy Evaluation: Examining the food and beverages included in the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2010 17. Alberta Policy Coalition for Cancer Prevention. Using Public Policy to Promote Healthy Weights for Canadian Children. Submission to the “Our Health, Our Future – National Dialogue on Healthy Weights” consultation, 2011. 18. Public Health Agency of Canada. The integrated pan- Canadian healthy living strategy. 2005. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hl-vs- strat/pdf/hls_e.pdf. Accessed January 2012 19. Health Canada. Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada: Recommendations of the Sodium Working Group. Ottawa, Ontario, July 2010. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/sc-hc/H164-121-2010-eng.pdf. Accessed December 2011 20. Quebec Consumer Protection Office. The Consumer Protection Act: Application Guide for Sections 248 and 249. Quebec, 1980 21. Montgomery K, Chester J. Interactive Food and Beverage Marketing: Targeting Adolescents in the Digital Age. J Adolesc Health. 2009: S18-S29. Available at: http://digitalads.org/documents/PIIS1054139X09001499.pdf 22. Harris JL, Brownell KD, Bargh JA. The Food Marketing Defense Model: Integrating Psychological Research to Protect Youth and Inform Public Policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2009; 3(1): 211-271. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/acmelab/articles/Harris%20Brownell%20Bargh%20SIPR.pdf 23. Pechman C, Levine L, Loughlin S, Leslie F. Impulsive and Self-Conscious: Adolescents' Vulnerability to Advertising and Promotion. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 2005; 24 (2): 202-221. Available at: http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/ Publications/JournalofPublicPolicyandMarketing/2005/24/2/jppm.24.2.202.pdf 24. Health Canada. Food and Drugs Act . R.S., c. F-27. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1985. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/. Accessed February 2012 25. Mackay S, Antonopoulos N, Martin J, Swinburn B. A comprehensive approach to protecting children from unhealthy food advertising. Melbourne, Australia: Obesity Policy Coalition; 2011. Available at: http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/1105/ m308363_v1_protecting-children- email1%20final%2013.04.11.pdf. Accessed January 2012 26. Cook B. Policy Options to Improve the Children’s Advertising Environment in Canada. Report for the Public Health Agency of Canada Health Portfolio Task Group on Obesity and Marketing. Toronto; 2009. 27. Toronto Board of Health. Food and Beverage Marketing to Children. Staff Report to the Board of Health. Toronto: Board of Health; 2008. Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-11151.pdf. Accessed January 2012 28. The Conference Board of Canada. Improving Health Outcomes: The Role of Food in Addressing Chronic Diseases. Conference Board of Canada, 2010. Available at: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/be083acf- 4c96-4eda-ae80-ee44d264758a/12- 177_FoodandChronicDisease.pdf. Accessed June 2012 29. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite. 2012 (in press). Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312001511 30. Harris JL, Bargh JA, Brownell KD. Priming Effects of Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior. Health Psychol. 2009; 28(4):404-13. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/acmelab/articles/Harris_Bargh_Brownell_Health_Psych.pdf 31. Nicklas TA, Goh ET, Goodell LS et al. Impact of commercials on food preferences of low-income, minority preschoolers. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2011; 43(1):35-41. 32. Elliott C. Marketing Foods to Children: Are We Asking the Right Questions. Child Obes. 2012; 8(3): 191-194 33. Hastings G, Stead M, McDermott L, Forsyth A, Mackintosh AM, Rayner M, Godfrey C, Caraher M, Angus K. Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children. Final Report to the UK Food Standards Agency. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde Centre for Social Marketing; 2003. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/promofoodchildrenexec.pdf. Accessed February 2012 34. Elliott C. Marketing fun foods: A profile and analysis of supermarket food messages targeted at children. Can Public Policy. 2008; 34:259-73 35. Elliott C. Assessing fun foods: Nutritional content and analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children. Obes Rev. 2008; 9: 368-377. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/elliott2.pdf 36. Minaker LM, Storey KE, Raine KD, Spence JC, Forbes LE, Plotnikoff RC, McCargar LJ. Associations between the perceived presence of vending machines and food and beverage logos in schools and adolescents' diet and weight status. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14(8):1350-6 37. Cook B. Marketing to Children in Canada: Summary of Key Issues. Report for the Public Health Agency of Canada. 2007. Available at: http://www.cdpac.ca/media.php?mid=426. Accessed January 2012 38. Hawkes C, Lobstein T. Regulating the commercial promotion of food to children: a survey of actions worldwide. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011; 6(2):83-94. 39. Hawkes C, Harris J. An analysis of the content of food industry pledges on marketing to children. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14:1403-1414. Available at: http://ruddcenter.yale.edu/resources/upload/docs/ what/advertising/MarketingPledgesAnalysis_PHN_5.11.pdf 40. Potvin-Kent M, Dubois, L, Wanless A. Food marketing on children's television in two different policy environments. Int J of Pediatr Obes. 2011; 6(2): e433-e441. Available at: http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/PotvinKent%20IJPO%202011.pdf 41. Advertising Standards Canada. Canadian children’s food and beverage advertising initiative: 2010 compliance report. Available at: http://www.adstandards.com/en/childrensinitiative/ 2010ComplianceReport.pdf. Accessed March 2012 42. Dietitians of Canada. Advertising of Food and Beverage to Children. Position of Dietitians of Canada. 2010. Available at: http://www.dietitians.ca/Downloadable- Content/Public/Advertising-to-Children-position- paper.aspx. Accessed January 2012 43. Hawkes C. Marketing food to children: a global regulatory environment. World Health Organization. 2004(b). Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf. Accessed February 2012 44. Dhar T, Baylis K. Fast-food Consumption and the Ban on Advertising Targeting Children: The Quebec Experience. Journal of Marketing Research. 2011; 48 (5): 799-813. Available at: http://www.marketingpower.com/aboutama/documents/jmr_forthcoming/fast_food_consumption.pdf 45. World Health Organization. Marketing of Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages of Children. Report of a WHO Forum and Technical Meeting. Geneva: WHO; 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/Oslo%20meeting%20layout%2027%20NOVEMBER. pdf. Accessed January 2012 46. Veerman JL, Van Beeck, Barendregt JJ, Mackenbach JP. By how much would limiting TV food advertising reduce childhood obesity? Eur J Public Health. 2009; 19(4): 365-9. Available at: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/365. full.pdf+html 47. Kelly B, King L, Mauman A, Smith BJ, Flood V. The effects of different regulation systems on television food advertising to children. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007; 31(4): 340-343. 48. Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention. Canadian Obesity Network - International Consensus: Take Action to Prevent Childhood Obesity (Press Release). 2011. Available at: http://www.abpolicycoalitionforprevention.ca/ 49. Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL et al. Population Approaches to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Smoking Habits: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1514-1563
Documents
Less detail

The Right Drugs, at the Right Times, for the Right Prices: Toward a Prescription Drug Policy for Canada : CMA Presentation to House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1955
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2003-11-06
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2003-11-06
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Every year, three hundred million prescriptions – about 10 for every man, woman and child – are filled in Canada. Prescription drugs have benefited both the health of Canadians, and the health care system itself; they have meant dramatically improved quality of life for many Canadians, and have saved the country a great deal in hospitalization, social benefits and other expenses. However, it could be questioned whether all of Canada’s prescription drug use is appropriate; patients may be receiving too few medications, too many medications or suboptimal medications for their conditions. In addition, prescription drugs carry a price tag of their own. Since 1975, expenditures on prescription medication have risen faster than any other category in the health sector in Canada, and more is now spent on prescription drugs than on physician services. Governments, health care providers, drug manufacturers and the public must constantly strive to ensure that Canadians receive optimal and appropriate prescription drug therapy: the right drugs, at the right times, for the right prices. A considered, coherent, comprehensive, “made in Canada” approach to prescription drug policy should: * Put the health of the patient first; * Promote and enhance quality prescribing; * Respect, sustain and enhance the therapeutic relationship between patients and health professionals; * Promote patient compliance with drug therapy; * Respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. Prescription drug policy in Canada should address: Access: to * efficacious new drugs within an appropriate time; * coverage for medically necessary drugs for catastrophic care; * generic drugs at reasonable prices; * a patient/physician consultation as part of the prescribing process; * continued research and development capacity in Canada. Information for health care providers and the public that is balanced and accurate. Safety: through mechanisms for the systematic monitoring of prescription drugs and their effects. Canada’s doctors are committed to working with others to ensure that Canadians receive the right drugs, at the right times, for the right prices. Summary of CMA Recommendations: 1. That the federal government implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce review times to a level at or better than that in other OECD countries. 2. That the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on drugs and delivery mechanisms that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 3. That Health Canada apply a priority review process to all drugs that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 4. That governments and insurance providers conduct research to identify the current gaps in prescription drug coverage for all Canadians, and develop policy options for providing this coverage, including consideration of the roles of public and private payers. 5. That the federal government monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of prescription medications to ensure their continued availability to Canadians. 6. That prescribing of medication be done within the context of the therapeutic relationship which exists between the patient and the physician. 7. That brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA) not be permitted in Canada. 8. That the federal government enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act to the full extent of the law. 9. That the federal government develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. 10. That all stakeholders join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in prescribing. 11. That government accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a systems approach to support a culture of safety. 12. That a post-marketing surveillance system be implemented to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. PURPOSE The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has prepared this submission for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health’s review of prescription drugs in Canada. We applaud this review and welcome the opportunity to present the views of Canada’s medical community. Our vision is simple: that all Canadians should receive, if appropriate, the right drugs for their conditions, at the right times, for the right prices. Governments, health care providers, drug manufacturers and the public should all work together to develop a “made in Canada” prescription drug policy to realize this vision. This policy must be considered, coherent and comprehensive, and should: * Put the health of the patient first; * Promote and enhance quality prescribing; * Respect, sustain and enhance the therapeutic relationship between patients and health professionals; * Promote patient compliance with drug therapy; * Respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. In developing this policy we consider it particularly important to address the issues of: Access to quality health care In this context, the CMA’s vision of a National Access Strategy includes appropriate access to * efficacious new drugs within an appropriate time, * coverage for medically necessary drugs for catastrophic care, * generic drugs at reasonable prices, * a patient/physician consultation as part of the prescribing process, * continued research and development capacity in Canada. * Information for health care providers and the public that is balanced and accurate. * Safety: through mechanisms for the systematic monitoring of prescription drugs and their effects. Canada’s doctors look forward to working with others to realize our vision. In this submission we will discuss the steps that the CMA recommends be taken. INTRODUCTION The value of prescription medications Prescription drugs play an important role in preventing and treating health conditions. Every year, three hundred million prescriptions – about 10 for every man, woman and child – are filled in Canada1. In recent years, powerful new medications have meant dramatically improved quality of life, or substantial change in modes and patterns of treatment, for many Canadians. Anti-retroviral treatment has saved thousands of people with HIV infection from rapid, fatal progression to AIDS. Thanks to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) millions of people with chronic depression who might otherwise have been incapacitated or institutionalized can lead normal, productive lives in the community. Drugs to treat peptic ulcer disease have changed its treatment profile from one based mainly on surgery to a largely medical one. Though the cumulative savings on hospital care, lost workforce productivity, social benefits and disability insurance payments due to prescription drug use have not been quantified, they have undoubtedly been significant. Areas of Concern In short, prescription drugs have benefited both the health of Canadians, and the health care system itself. However, they have also created concerns that must be addressed. Utilization: is it Appropriate? Experts have questioned whether all of Canada’s prescription drug use is appropriate: are patients receiving too many medications, too few medications, or suboptimal medications for their conditions? Over-utilization of prescription drugs has been a topic of some attention, but under-utilization also exists. For example, as many as 60% of people with high blood pressure may not be receiving treatment; many of these people do not even know they have the condition.2 In addition, patient compliance with prescription drug therapy is increasingly recognized as a problem, especially for long-term or chronic conditions. Compliance is a potential issue in all treatments but is of special concern in conditions where few clinical symptoms are present: for example in hypertension, where lack of treatment over the long term may result in kidney damage, vascular and opthalmological damage, stroke or heart disease. One study found that only 50% of patients comply with long-term drug therapy, and an even smaller percentage comply with lifestyle alterations.3 Partial compliance with antibiotic therapy for infectious diseases is well recognized as one cause of anti-microbial resistance to common infectious pathogens. Cost: is it too high? More is now spent on prescription medicine than on physician services. Since 1975, expenditures on prescription medication have risen faster than any other category;4 during the 1990’s they rose more than twice as quickly as overall spending on health care.5 In 2002 retail spending on drugs in Canada (prescribed and non-prescribed) was estimated to be at least 16% of total health care spending. Prescription medication accounts for 80% of this category, up from 70.3% in 1990. What drives drug expenditure in Canada? There is considerable debate on this subject, but some of the drivers are believed to be: * Increased utilization: as the population ages there is an increased prevalence of conditions such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis, which often require pharmacological treatment. * Newer (patented) drugs, which are more expensive than generics, dominate the prescription market. Between 1995 and 2000, five drug categories (including cholesterol lowering agents, high blood pressure drugs, acid-reducing agents and anti-depressants) contributed significantly to the overall rise in drug costs.5 These categories are dominated by newer, patented drugs, many of which are heavily promoted. * Prices of generic drugs, though lower than those of patented drugs, are higher in Canada than in some other countries. For example, generic drug prices are 26% lower in Germany and 68% lower in New Zealand.6 * Marketing practices such as mass media direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) in the United States, and its attendant “spillover” into the Canadian marketplace, may contribute to increased utilization. In Canada the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) maintains price controls on brand-name drugs. Similar price-control mechanisms exist in European Union countries. However, no such controls exist for generic medications in Canada. All in all, prescription medications can be costly for Canadians, especially for those who lack any kind of insurance coverage. The Role of Physicians and the Canadian Medical Association Canada’s doctors are committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to the right drugs, at the right times, at the right prices, to help them achieve the right results – in other words, the best possible health outcomes. The goal of drug therapy is to improve patients’ health and quality of life by preventing, eliminating or controlling diseases or symptoms. Patients, physicians and pharmacists must work in collaboration to achieve this goal. The physician’s role in drug therapy goes well beyond the act of writing out a prescription; it encompasses: * Diagnosing diseases, assessing the need for drug therapy and designing the medication regime; * Working with patients to set treatment goals and monitor progress toward them; * Monitoring the patient’s response to drug therapy, revising the care plan when necessary to support compliance and achieve the best possible health outcomes; * Sharing with the patient specific information about the diseases and the drug therapy, including its effects and potential side effects (including, in some cases, the potential for prescription drug addiction).7 The CMA’s activity has been focused on promoting excellence in prescribing, and on disseminating drug information to physicians.8 In 1999, the CMA worked with Health Canada and the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) to convene an expert roundtable on the subject of “Best Practices in Prescribing”. This was but one effort of the profession to explore why some therapies appear to be under-prescribed, while others may be over-prescribed. CMA has developed principles on the issues of physician information and of providing information on prescription drugs to consumers; both these documents will be discussed later in this submission. CMA and CPhA have also developed a joint policy statement on approaches to enhancing the quality of drug therapy (attached as Appendix I). In addition CMA is co-funding, with the Canadian Institute of Health Research, an interdisciplinary research team focussed on Drug Policy Futures. The team’s identified areas of study include: financing and public expectations; improving quality; health care evaluation and technology assessment; and public advice-seeking in the era of e-health. The CMA publishes Drugs of Choice, a definitive Canadian guide to first- and second-line drug therapies for hundreds of clinical conditions. It is now in its third edition. In addition CMA maintains an extensive database of clinical practice guidelines, including prescribing guidelines, available to physicians and the public through the CMA Web site, and has developed an on line course for physicians on Safe Medication Practices. The cma.ca web site also provides access to a Canadian online drug database that can be downloaded and used with state-of-the-art PDA (personal device) technology at the point of clinical care. CMA’S PRIORITIES FOR ACTION A) Access to quality health care CMA’s history of advocating for access to needed health care services goes back many years. In 2004, a National Access Strategy will be one of the association’s highest-priority activities. With respect to prescription drugs there are several access-related problems: slow approval of new drugs, uneven insurance coverage, and the possible consequences of cross-border shopping on the availability of drugs in Canada. i) Drug Approvals: The Right Drug at the Right Time CMA recommends: 1. That the federal government implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce review times to a level at or better than that in other OECD countries. 2. That the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on drugs and delivery mechanisms that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. 3. That Health Canada apply a priority review process to drugs that demonstrate a substantial improvement over products already on the market. Stakeholders have repeatedly drawn attention to the slowness of Canada’s drug review process. Between 1996 and 1998 Canadian approval times (median 518 days) were significantly longer than Sweden (median 371 days), the UK (median 308 days) and the United States (median 369 days). These have not improved significantly even after Health Canada implemented a cost-recovery approach to funding the drug review process. Delays in the drug review process mean delays in access to new, potentially life-saving medications. For example, 15 other countries approved Singulair, a major breakthrough in asthma therapy, before it was approved in Canada, even though the drug was developed in Montreal! Approximately 10% of children between 5 and 14 years of age have asthma and could have benefited from this relatively safe drug. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a medication for treatment of acute stroke, was approved for use in the United States in 1996 but was not approved in Canada until 1999. Canada’s long drug review times are mainly attributed to lack of resources at Health Canada. CMA recommends that Canada implement a timely and efficient drug review process to reduce these times to an appropriate level. The 2003 federal budget announcement of $190 million over five years to improve the timeliness of the regulatory process was encouraging. We hope that this will soon translate into a significant reduction in drug review times. Many drugs submitted for approval are not genuinely innovative; some are virtual copies of drugs already on the market. Others, however, could offer substantial improvement over what is currently available. They could be more clinically effective; or they could have fewer side effects; or their mechanism of delivery could increase compliance (for example, medication that can be taken only once a day instead of three or four times a day). CMA recommends that the pharmaceutical industry give priority to research and development on products and delivery mechanisms that offer substantial additional benefit to Canadian patients. It seems logical that drugs that offer benefits not yet available to Canadians should reach patients who need them more quickly. Recently, Health Canada implemented a priority review process for drugs to treat serious, life threatening or debilitating conditions, for which there is substantial evidence that the drug is a significant improvement over existing therapies. This is a promising step. CMA recommends that Health Canada apply a priority review process to all drugs deemed to offer substantial improvement over what is already on the market. This will also serve as an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to emphasize drugs that offer substantial benefit in their research and development plans. ii) Coverage: Making the System Work CMA recommends: 4. That governments and insurance providers conduct research to identify the current gaps in prescription drug coverage for Canadians, and develop policy options for providing this coverage, including consideration of the roles of public and private payers. Coverage for all Canadians. Prescription drugs are Canada’s most notable example of a public/ private partnership in health services delivery. Our country’s blend of public and private drug insurance coverage has worked reasonably well; but there is room for improvement. The Canada Health Act’s mandate covers “drugs, biologicals and related preparations when administered in the hospital”. Provincial and territorial drug programs vary with most covering only seniors and people on social assistance.9 Many Canadians get their drug coverage through private plans offered by their employers. But many people in Canada lack any kind of drug coverage. We do not know exactly how many. According to a report prepared for the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, 2% to 4% of Canadians have no coverage, but other reports place the number closer to 10%.10,11 At a minimum, 1 million to 3 million Canadians are in need of basic prescription drug coverage. Drug therapy may be more cost-efficient than some forms of hospital care. Is the current health care system promoting inefficiency by covering hospital services more completely than prescription drug therapy? In 1997 the National Forum on Health recommended that drugs become part of the publicly funded system. However, such a system would be prohibitively expensive; estimates range from $12.4 billion for a combined public and private model (with co-payments) to $13.8 billion for fully funded, public only model (no co-payments).12 The report of the Romanow Commission acknowledged this when it emphasized the need to “move in a gradual but deliberate and dedicated way to integrate prescription drugs more fully into the continuum of care”. For the short term, the report recommended a Catastrophic Drug Transfer to ensure that Canadians who face the greatest financial burden can continue to access the medications they need. The Trillium program in Ontario is an example of such a program. We need to know more about both the number of people who need drug coverage and the best means of providing them with it. As a first step, CMA recommends that the government, insurance providers and all partners in the public and private sectors conduct research to more accurately identify current gaps in prescription drug coverage, and develop policy options for bridging them. Given the ever larger role that prescription drug therapy is playing in health care in Canada, governments should consider expanding the current basket of “core services” to include prescription drugs. Under the Canada Health Act provinces and territories must ensure that medically necessary physician and hospital services are provided on a first-dollar basis. CMA has recommended that the scope of the basket of core services be updated regularly to reflect the realities of health care delivery and the needs of Canadians. Given the potential of prescription drugs to improve the system’s cost-effectiveness, we believe that Canadian governments must consider whether the concept of “core services” needs to be revised to reflect their importance, provided that this does not further compromise access to medically necessary hospital and physician services. Drug Pricing Policies: Toward a Policy for All Drugs in Canada. As mentioned previously, PMPRB controls the prices of brand-name patent medications in Canada. However, generic drug make up 40% of the drugs prescribed in this country. Canada has no mechanism to control the prices of generic drugs, as do some other countries (France, for example, has a decree stating that the price of a generic product must be at least 30% less than the price of the original patented brand.) 6 Most provinces have policies encouraging substitution of a brand drug by a comparable generic where appropriate. CMA believes it is time for Canadian governments to explore mechanisms for ensuring appropriate pricing of generic medications. Product Substitution: Making health the first priority. Even under their current system of limited coverage, federal and provincial governments have expressed concern about the cost of their drug programs, and implemented measures to reduce this cost. One of these is drug product substitution. Generic substitution, discussed in the previous section, is now commonplace; British Columbia has taken the concept further with its system of reference-based pricing. While CMA recognizes the motives behind drug product substitution, we believe that it should only be implemented if it does not jeopardize quality of care or patient confidentiality. Doctors would be happy to participate in discussion of initiatives around drug product substitution, to ensure that the health of the patient continues to be the highest priority to all stakeholders. iii) Access and Cross-Border Prescribing CMA recommends: 5. That the federal government monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of prescription medications to ensure their continued availability to Canadians. 6. That prescribing of medication be done within the context of the therapeutic relationship that exists between the patient and the physician. Prices of brand-name prescription drugs prices are higher in the US, where no price review body exists, than they are in Canada. As a result access to the need for prescription medication can pose considerable financial hardship, particularly for America’s elderly and poor. The rising cost of brand-name medications in the United States has led many Americans to look to Canada for less expensive alternatives. At least one US city, Springfield, Massachusetts, has begun a voluntary program to purchase prescription medication from Canada for its workers and retirees13 and the State of Illinois is examining the feasibility of following Springfield’s lead.14 US drug costs have also spurred a growth industry in Canada: Internet pharmacies. According to estimates in US media, approximately $650 million (US) worth of prescriptions are sold online every year.15 The prospect of accessing cheaper Canadian drugs is particularly appealing to elderly Americans who have turned to the Internet to purchase prescriptions they would be unable to afford at home. The burgeoning cross-border export of pharmaceuticals has had its consequences. Several brand-name multinational pharmaceutical manufactures have moved to stop or limit supplies to those Canadian pharmacies they believe are selling drugs over the Internet. They must now order directly from the manufacturer instead of from wholesalers.16 The brand-name companies have also held out the prospect of boycotting Canada in response to legislation passed by the US House of Representatives that would allow the importation of drugs by Americans.17 This legislation is now before the US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The US Food and Drug Administration has opposed importation on safety grounds. The CMA shares the increasingly prevalent concern that cross-border export will result in reduced access to prescription drugs in Canada, and damage the research and development capacity of brand-name prescription drug manufacturers in Canada. Therefore the CMA recommends that Canada monitor and, if necessary, regulate the export of brand-name drugs to ensure their continued availability in this country. Many Internet pharmacies offer the services of physicians who will sign prescriptions without seeing the patient in a consultation. This is not acceptable to the CMA, or to the regulatory Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons or the Canadian Medical Protective Association. It is clear that, in principle, to form an appropriate therapeutic relationship a physician must take a history, perform an appropriate physical examination, and order and interpret appropriate diagnostic tests on her patients. The role of the physician in drug therapy is a complex one; to be most effective it requires a strong ongoing professional relationship between patient and physician. This relationship is the foundation of medical practice; it is key to a prescribing decision and it must be maintained. Our position is discussed in greater detail in CMA’s Statement on Internet Prescribing (attached as Appendix II). B) Consumer Drug Information: From DTCA to DTCI CMA recommends: 7. That brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA) not be permitted in Canada. 8. That the federal government enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act to the full extent of the law. 9. That the federal government develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. In the past few years an increasing amount of information on prescription medication has become available to consumers. Much of this reaches Canadians in the form of direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) for specific brands, transmitted across the border from the United States, where it is a billion-dollar-a-year business. DTCA is not legal in Canada, except for notification of price, quantity and the name of the drug. However, advertisers have taken advantage of loopholes in the law to promote brand-name drugs in this country – for example, the controversial television campaign for Viagra. DTCA is also transmitted by print and TV across the border from the United States, and worldwide through the Internet. There is a strong lobby for a relaxation of the DTCA restrictions in Canada. DTCA boosts sales of advertised drugs. In 1999, 25 drugs accounted for 40% of that year’s increase in retail drug spending in the US; all these drugs were advertised to the public.18 Further, DTCA adversely affects the patient/physician relationship. Doctors report feeling pressure and ambivalence when patients ask them to prescribe a specific brand-name drug. 19,20 About 20% of respondents to the CMA’s 2003 physician survey felt patients’ request for advertised drugs had a negative impact on the patient/physician relationship.21 Advocates for DTCA maintain that it provides “consumers” with the information they need to become partners in their own health care. They maintain that DTCA does not undermine the patient/physician relationship, because it does not alter the fact that ultimate prescribing authority remains in the hands of the physician. However, the CMA believes that direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is inappropriate. DTCA * does not communicate risk adequately, or provide enough information to allow the consumer to make appropriate drug selections. Generally it does not provide information about other products or therapies that could be used to treat the same condition, * stimulates demand by exaggerating the risks of a disease and generating unnecessary fear, * contributes to a culture of “overmedicalization” by treating normal human conditions such as aging and baldness as diseases, and offering “a pill for every ill”. Brand-specific direct to consumer prescription drug advertising should not be permitted in Canada. CMA calls on the federal government to enforce the existing restrictions on DTCA found in the Food and Drug Act and its regulations to the full extent of the law. We believe that the public has a right to accurate, unbiased direct to consumer information (DTCI) on drugs and other therapies, to enable patients to make decisions regarding their own health care. This information may increase the appropriateness of prescription drug use. For example, it may encourage consumers to get treatment for conditions that are currently under-treated. However, there are more effective ways to provide this information than brand-name advertising. CMA has developed “Principles for Providing Information about Prescription Drugs to Consumers” as an alternative to DTCA; these are attached as Appendix III. We call on Canadian stakeholders, including governments, health professionals, consumer groups and industry, to work together to provide information for the public based on these principles. Further, the CMA calls on the federal government to develop and fund a comprehensive program to provide accurate, unbiased prescription drug information to patients. C) Safety: Ensuring Best Practices in Prescribing CMA recommends: 10. That all stakeholders join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in prescribing. 11. That government accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a systems approach to support a culture of safety. 12. That a post-marketing surveillance system be implemented to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. The health care system is complex, involving many inter-related and interdependent factors which could influence the frequency and intensity of medication incidents. Such “systems factors” might include * shortage of qualified health professionals (physicians, nurses and others), * inappropriate use of new technology, * unclear labeling or similar-looking drug preparations, * prescription drug misuse, including over-prescribing or under-prescribing of certain medications. Canada’s doctors are working to promote drug safety on a number of fronts. For example, CMA is working with governments at all levels to ensure that we do not “enrich the nation’s urine” through unnecessary prescribing. The Canadian Medical Association Journal regularly publishes research on prescribing practices. CMA also publishes Safe Medication Practices, a physician guide to patient safety; a companion online course is available on the cma.ca web site. We propose that the health care system work to create a culture that promotes optimal prescribing, by fostering outcomes research, creating supportive infrastructures, strengthening the capacity for post-marketing surveillance, and making the best possible use of technology. Our suggestions are discussed below. Closing the Care Gap. Given our present knowledge base, it is often difficult to ascertain whether current drug utilization patterns lead to improvements in health. For example, research on compliance with drug therapy, and the factors that improve it, is in its infancy and though we know that direct-to-consumer advertising affects drug sales we have yet to determine whether it affects health outcomes. A commitment to outcome-based research on drug utilization would help us find the answers to these and other questions. Research on prescribing patterns should respect the conditions outlined in CMA’s “Principles Concerning Physician Information” (attached as Appendix IV). The CMA calls on all stakeholders (governments, health professionals and the private sector) to join in supporting and encouraging outcome-based research to ascertain best practices in drug utilization and prescribing, and close care gaps when they are identified. Creating an infrastructure for safety. The CMA has no doubt of the overall quality of the prescription medications approved for use in Canada. However, the more drugs are used, the greater their potential for unintended harm. Studies in the United States have found that almost 2% of patients admitted to hospitals experienced a significant adverse drug event, and that the number of deaths due to medications increased over 200% over five years.22 Though studies are still in progress in Canada, we assume that rates of adverse medication events are similar in the two countries. The 2003 federal budget committed $10 million per year to establish a Patient Safety Institute to monitor and prevent medical incidents. This is an important step toward building a safer health care system, and Canada’s doctors are committed to moving this initiative forward. The CMA, with 11 other health care organizations, is a member of the Canadian Coalition on Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention. This initiative is led by Health Canada and has recently been funded through the Patient Safety Initiative. The federal government has also recently funded the Canadian Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention System to collect data on medication incidents and disseminate information designed to reduce their risk. The CMA believes that to be effective a patient safety initiative must * be voluntary, * be non-punitive; and * protect the privacy and confidentiality of physicians and patients. Further, efforts towards ensuring patient safety should address in a timely manner the “systems” issues referred to above, supporting and fostering a culture of safety. CMA is calling on governments to accelerate activities to establish the Patient Safety Institute using a “systems” approach. Strengthening Post-Marketing Surveillance. No matter how rigourous the drug approval and review process, it cannot identify all of a medication’s effects; many of these are only identified once the drug is in widespread use in the general population. A strong post-marketing surveillance system is needed to gather this knowledge and ensure patient safety. A post marketing surveillance system should include timely collection of data related to * adverse drug reactions, * medication incidents, * targeted drug effectiveness studies, * optimal utilization of medications. The goal of an enhanced post-marketing surveillance system is to monitor the ongoing safety and risk/benefit ratio of medications once they have been approved and are being used in the broad population. An ideal surveillance system would go beyond collecting and collating data, to analyze it and produce information that health care professionals and policy makers can use in decision-making at the population level. For example, data could be used to * communicate product related risks to health professionals and patients, * determine the incidence of adverse drug reactions and medication incidents in the Canadian population as a whole and various subgroups over time, as well as their health and economic impact. Currently post-marketing surveillance of drugs in Canada is inadequate, relying on reporting which is often erratic and inconsistent, and for which reporters are not compensated. Canada needs a coordinated post-marketing surveillance system to monitor the ongoing safety of marketed drugs. Surveillance should include medication incidents and adverse drug reactions, and should document and consider the effect of the “systems factors” contributing to these events. Making use of supportive technology. We mentioned that the current reporting system is erratic and inconsistent. An investment in supportive technology would reduce inconsistencies by increasing physicians’ capacity to report and even prevent medication incidents. Under the September 2000 federal/provincial Health Accord, the Government of Canada announced $500 million to expand the use of health information and communications technologies, including the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). One of the advantages cited for a pan-Canadian EHR is that it could reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events – for example, handwritten prescription and interpretation errors. Progress has been slow, but CMA will follow with interest the pilot EHR program just announced in Alberta. While we expect improvement in prescribing practices and outcomes under such programs, we expect them to respect the principles of patient confidentiality and the right of prescribers to the privacy of their prescribing information. Technology can also make real-time communication within the health care system much easier. and CMA strongly recommends an investment in systems that can link physicians to one another and to the rest of the health care system. In its 2003 brief to the Finance Committee’s pre budget hearings, CMA recommended that the federal government immediately fund dedicated Internet connectivity for all physicians in Canada. CMA has also repeatedly called for sustained and substantial investment in a “REAL” (rapid, effective, accessible and linked) Health Communications and Coordination Initiative to improve technical capacity to communicate with front-line health providers in real time. Real-time information is essential for effective day-to-day health care and will form the cornerstone of an adverse drug reaction communication program for the 21st century. Conclusion It is vital to Canada’s physicians that our patients receive the right medications for their condition, at the right times, at the right prices. CMA calls on the federal government and all other stakeholders to work together to develop a comprehensive “made in Canada” prescription drug policy to realize this vision – one that promotes optimal prescribing, puts the health of patients first, respects the relationships of patient and physician and of patient and pharmacist, and honours the principle of patient confidentiality and the privacy of patient and prescriber information. The reports of the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada and the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Social Affairs and Technology review discussed issues surrounding prescription drug policy in Canada. We hope that the review by this parliamentary committee will lead to prompt and decisive action. APPENDIX I CMA POLICY APPROACHES TO ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF DRUG THERAPY A JOINT STATEMENT BY THE CMA ANDTHE CANADIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION This joint statement was developed by the CMA and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, a national association of pharmacists, and includes the goal of drug therapy, strategies for collaboration to optimize drug therapy and physicians' and pharmacists' responsibilities in drug therapy. The statement recognizes the importance of patients, physicians and pharmacists working in close collaboration and partnership to achieve optimal outcomes from drug therapy. Goal of This Joint Statement The goal of this joint statement is to promote optimal drug therapy by enhancing communication and working relationships among patients, physicians and pharmacists. It is also meant to serve as an educational resource for pharmacists and physicians so that they will have a clearer understanding of each other's responsibilities in drug therapy. In the context of this statement, a "patient" may include a designated patient representative, such as a parent, spouse, other family member, patient advocate or health care provider. Physicians and pharmacists have a responsibility to work with their patients to achieve optimal outcomes by providing high-quality drug therapy. The important contribution of all members of the health care team and the need for cooperative working relationships are recognized; however, this statement focuses on the specific relationships among pharmacists, physicians and patients with respect to drug therapy. This statement is a general guide and is not intended to describe all aspects of physicians' or pharmacists' activities. It is not intended to be restrictive, nor should it inhibit positive developments in pharmacist-physician relationships or in their respective practices that contribute to optimal drug therapy. Furthermore, this statement should be used and interpreted in accordance with applicable legislation and other legal requirements. This statement will be reviewed and assessed regularly to ensure its continuing applicability to medical and pharmacy practices. Goal of Drug Therapy The goal of drug therapy is to improve patients' health and quality of life by preventing, eliminating or controlling diseases or symptoms. Optimal drug therapy is safe, effective, appropriate, affordable, cost-effective and tailored to meet the needs of patients, who participate, to the best of their ability, in making informed decisions about their therapy. Patients require access to necessary drug therapy and specific, unbiased drug information to meet their individual needs. Providing optimal drug therapy also requires a valid and accessible information base generated by basic, clinical, pharmaceutical and other scientific research. Working Together for Optimal Drug Therapy Physicians and pharmacists have complementary and supportive responsibilities in providing optimal drug therapy. To achieve this goal, and to ensure that patients receive consistent information, patients, pharmacists and physicians must work cooperatively and in partnership. This requires effective communication, respect, trust, and mutual recognition and understanding of each other's complementary responsibilities. The role of each profession in drug therapy depends on numerous factors, including the specific patient and his or her drug therapy, the prescription status of the drug concerned, the setting and the patient physician pharmacist relationship. However, it is recognized that, in general, each profession may focus on certain areas more than others. For example, when counselling patients on their drug therapy, a physician may focus on disease-specific counselling, goals of therapy, risks and benefits and rare side effects, whereas a pharmacist may focus on correct usage, treatment adherence, dosage, precautions, dietary restrictions and storage. Areas of overlap may include purpose, common side effects and their management and warnings regarding drug interactions and lifestyle concerns. Similarly, when monitoring drug therapy, a physician would focus on clinical progress toward treatment goals, whereas a pharmacist may focus on drug effects, interactions and treatment adherence; both would monitor adverse effects. Both professions should tailor drug therapy, including education, to meet the needs of individual patients. To provide continuity of care and to promote consistency in the information being provided, it is important that both pharmacists and physicians assess the patients' knowledge and identify and reinforce the educational component provided by the other. Strategies for Collaborating to Optimize Drug Therapy Patients, physicians and pharmacists need to work in close collaboration and partnership to achieve optimal drug therapy. Strategies to facilitate such teamwork include the following. Respecting and supporting patients' rights to make informed decisions regarding their drug therapy. Promoting knowledge, understanding and acceptance by physicians and pharmacists of their responsibilities in drug therapy and fostering widespread communication of these responsibilities so they are clearly understood by all. Supporting both professions' relationship with patients, and promoting a collaborative approach to drug therapy within the health care team. Care must be taken to maintain patients' trust and their relationship with other caregivers. Sharing relevant patient information for the enhancement of patient care, in accordance and compliance with all of the following: ethical standards to protect patient privacy, accepted medical and pharmacy practice, and the law. Patients should inform their physician and pharmacist of any information that may assist in providing optimal drug therapy. Increasing physicians' and pharmacists' awareness that it is important to make themselves readily available to each other to communicate about a patient for whom they are both providing care. Enhancing documentation (e.g., clearly written prescriptions and communication forms) and optimizing the use of technology (e.g., e-mail, voice mail and fax) in individual practices to enhance communication, improve efficiency and support consistency in information provided to patients. Developing effective communication and administrative procedures between health care institutions and community-based pharmacists and physicians to support continuity of care. Developing local communication channels and encouraging dialogue between the professions (e.g., through joint continuing education programs and local meetings) to promote a peer-review-based approach to local prescribing and drug-use issues. Teaching a collaborative approach to patient care as early as possible in the training of pharmacists and physicians. Developing effective communication channels and encouraging dialogue among patients, physicians and pharmacists at the regional, provincial, territorial and national levels to address issues such as drug-use policy, prescribing guidelines and continuing professional education. Collaborating in the development of technology to enhance communication in practices (e.g., shared patient databases relevant to drug therapy). Working jointly on committees and projects concerned with issues in drug therapy such as patient education, treatment adherence, formularies and practice guidelines, hospital-to-community care, cost-control strategies, sampling and other relevant policy issues concerning drug therapy. Fostering the development and utilization of a high-quality clinical and scientific information base to support evidence-based decision making. The Physician's Responsibilities Physicians and pharmacists recognize the following responsibilities in drug therapy as being within the scope of physicians' practice, on the basis of such factors as physicians' education and specialized skills, relationship with patients and practice environment. Some responsibilities may overlap with those of pharmacists (see The Pharmacist's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that practice environments within medicine may differ and may affect the physician's role. Assessing health status, diagnosing diseases, assessing the need for drug therapy and providing curative, preventive, palliative and rehabilitative drug therapy in consultation with patients and in collaboration with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care professionals, when appropriate. Working with patients to set therapeutic goals and monitor progress toward such goals in consultation with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care providers, when appropriate. Monitoring and assessing response to drug therapy, progress toward therapeutic goals and patient adherence to the therapeutic plan; when necessary, revising the plan on the basis of outcomes of current therapy and progress toward goals of therapy, in consultation with patients and in collaboration with caregivers, pharmacists and other health care providers, when appropriate. Carrying out surveillance of and assessing patients for adverse reactions to drugs and other unanticipated problems related to drug therapy, revising therapy and, when appropriate, reporting adverse reactions and other complications to health authorities. Providing specific information to patients and caregivers about diagnosis, indications and treatment goals, and the action, benefits, risks and potential side effects of drug therapy. Providing and sharing general and specific information and advice about disease and drugs with patients, caregivers, health care providers and the public. Maintaining adequate records of drug therapy for each patient, including, when applicable, goals of therapy, therapy prescribed, progress toward goals, revisions of therapy, a list of drugs (both prescription and over-the-counter drugs) currently taken, adverse reactions to therapy, history of known drug allergies, smoking history, occupational exposure or risk, known patterns of alcohol or substance use that may influence response to drugs, history of treatment adherence and attitudes toward drugs. Records should also document patient counselling and advice given, when appropriate. Ensuring safe procurement, storage, handling, preparation, distribution, dispensing and record keeping of drugs (in keeping with federal and provincial regulations and the CMA policy summary "Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Update 1994)" (Can Med Assoc J 1994;150:256A-C.) when the patient cannot reasonably receive such services from a pharmacist. Maintaining a high level of knowledge about drug therapy through critical appraisal of the literature and continuing professional development. Care must be provided in accordance with legislation and in an atmosphere of privacy, and patient confidentiality must be maintained. Care also should be provided in accordance with accepted scientific and ethical standards and procedures. The Pharmacist's Responsibilities Pharmacists and physicians recognize the following responsibilities as being within the scope of pharmacists' practice, on the basis of such factors as pharmacists' education and specialized skills, relationship with patients and practice environment. Some responsibilities may overlap with those of physicians (see The Physician's Responsibilities). In addition, it is recognized that, in selected practice environments, the pharmacists' role may differ considerably. Evaluating the patients' drug-therapy record ("drug profile") and reviewing prescription orders to ensure that a prescribed therapy is safe and to identify, solve or prevent actual or potential drug-related problems or concerns. Examples include possible contraindications, drug interactions or therapeutic duplication, allergic reactions and patient nonadherence to treatment. Significant concerns should be discussed with the prescriber. Ensuring safe procurement, storage, preparation, distribution and dispensing of pharmaceutical products (in keeping with federal, provincial and other applicable regulations). Discussing actual or potential drug-related problems or concerns and the purpose of drug therapy with patients, in consultation with caregivers, physicians and health care providers, when appropriate. Monitoring drug therapy to identify drug-related problems or concerns, such as lack of symptomatic response, lack of adherence to treatment plans and suspected adverse effects. Significant concerns should be discussed with the physician. Advising patients and caregivers on the selection and use of nonprescription drugs and the management of minor symptoms or ailments. Directing patients to consult their physician for diagnosis and treatment when required. Pharmacists may be the first contact for health advice. Through basic patient assessment (i.e., observation and interview) they should identify the need for referral to a physician or an emergency department. Notifying physicians of actual or suspected adverse reactions to drugs and, when appropriate, reporting such reactions to health authorities. Providing specific information to patients and caregivers about drug therapy, taking into account patients' existing knowledge about their drug therapy. This information may include the name of the drug, its purpose, potential interactions or side effects, precautions, correct usage, methods to promote adherence to the treatment plan and any other health information appropriate to the needs of the patient. Providing and sharing general and specific drug-related information and advice with patients, caregivers, physicians, health care providers and the public. Maintaining adequate records of drug therapy to facilitate the prevention, identification and management of drug-related problems or concerns. These records should contain, but are not limited to, each patient's current and past drug therapy (including both prescribed and selected over-the-counter drugs), drug-allergy history, appropriate demographic data and, if known, the purpose of therapy and progress toward treatment goals, adverse reactions to therapy, the patient's history of adherence to treatment, attitudes toward drugs, smoking history, occupational exposure or risk, and known patterns of alcohol or substance use that may influence his or her response to drugs. Records should also document patient counselling and advice given, when appropriate. Maintaining a high level of knowledge about drug therapy through critical appraisal of the literature and continuing professional development. Care must be provided in accordance with legislation and in an atmosphere of privacy, and patient confidentiality must be maintained. Products and services should be provided in accordance with accepted scientific and ethical standards and procedures. APPENDIX II CMA POLICY Statement on Internet Prescribing The act of prescribing medication is a medical act carried out in the context of a patient-physician relationship. As such, it is subject to the clinical standards of practice, as well as the ethical guidelines of the medical profession and applicable law. Physicians should be aware of and comply with the legal requirements in their province or territory. If a physician wishes to sign a prescription for an individual who has not previously been his/her patient or a patient of his/her group practice or shared call group, basic principles of assessment and diagnosis must be applied. It is incumbent upon the physician to obtain an adequate history and perform an appropriate physical examination to reach a diagnosis which will ensure that the prescribed medications are appropriate. The physician should be expected to provide advice about any prescribed medication, and, where appropriate, would be expected to provide advice about appropriate monitoring requirements. The physician is advised to fully document the encounter. It is not acceptable for a physician to sign a prescription without properly assessing the patient. APPENDIX III CMA POLICY Principles for Providing Information about Prescription Drugs to Consumers Approved by the CMA Board of Directors, March 2003 Since the late 1990’s expenditures on direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs in the United States have increased many-fold. Though U.S.-style DTCA is not legal in Canada23, it reaches Canadians through cross-border transmission of print and broadcast media, and through the Internet. It is believed to have affected drug sales and patient behaviour in Canada. Other therapeutic products, such as vaccines and diagnostic tests, are also being marketed directly to the public. Proponents of DTCA argue that they are providing consumers with much-needed information on drugs and the conditions they treat. Others argue that the underlying intent of such advertising is to increase revenue or market share, and that it therefore cannot be interpreted as unbiased information. The CMA believes that consumers have a right to accurate information on prescription medications and other therapeutic interventions, to enable them to make informed decisions about their own health. This information is especially necessary as more and more Canadians live with chronic conditions, and as we anticipate the availability of new products that may accompany the “biological revolution”, e.g. gene therapies. The CMA recommends a review of current mechanisms, including mass media communications, for providing this information to the public. CMA believes that consumer information on prescription drugs should be provided according to the following principles. 24 Principle #1: The Goal is Good Health The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of consumer drug information should be its impact on the health and well-being of Canadians and the quality of health care. Principle #2: Ready Access Canadians should have ready access to credible, high-quality information about prescription drugs. The primary purpose of this information should be education; sales of drugs must not be a concern to the originator. Principle #3: Patient Involvement Consumer drug information should help Canadians make informed decisions regarding management of their health, and facilitate informed discussion with their physicians and other health professionals. CMA encourages Canadians to become educated about their own health and health care, and to appraise health information critically. Principle #4: Evidence-Based Content Consumer drug information should be evidence based, using generally accepted prescribing guidelines as a source where available. Principle #5: Appropriate Information Consumer drug information should be based as much as possible on drug classes and use of generic names; if discussing brand-name drugs the discussion should not be limited to a single specific brand, and brand names should always be preceded by generic names. It should provide information on the following: * indications for use of the drug * contraindications * side effects * relative cost. In addition, consumer drug information should discuss the drug in the context of overall management of the condition for which it is indicated (for example, information about other therapies, lifestyle management and coping strategies). Principle #6: Objectivity of Information Sources Consumer drug information should be provided in such a way as to minimize the impact of vested commercial interests on the information content. Possible sources include health care providers, or independent research agencies. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and patient or consumer groups can be valuable partners in this process but must not be the sole providers of information. Federal and provincial/territorial governments should provide appropriate sustaining support for the development and maintenance of up-to-date consumer drug information. Principle #7: Endorsement/ Accreditation Consumer drug information should be endorsed or accredited by a reputable and unbiased body. Information that is provided to the public through mass media channels should be pre-cleared by an independent board. Principle #8: Monitoring and Revision Consumer drug information should be continually monitored to ensure that it correctly reflects current evidence, and updated when research findings dictate. Principle #9: Physicians as Partners Consumer drug information should support and encourage open patient-physician communication, so that the resulting plan of care, including drug therapy, is mutually satisfactory. Physicians play a vital role in working with patients and other health-care providers to achieve optimal drug therapy, not only through writing prescriptions but through discussing proposed drugs and their use in the context of the overall management of the patient’s condition. In addition, physicians and other health care providers, and their associations, can play a valuable part in disseminating drug and other health information to the public. Principle #10: Research and Evaluation Ongoing research should be conducted into the impact of drug information and DTCA on the health care system, with particular emphasis on its effect on appropriateness of prescribing, and on health outcomes. APPENDIX IV CMA POLICY PRINCIPLES CONCERNING PHYSICIAN INFORMATION In an environment in which the capacity to capture, link and transmit information is growing and the need for fuller accountability is being created, the demand for physician information, and the number of people and organizations seeking to collect it, is increasing. Physician information, that is, information that includes personal health information about and information that relates or may relate to the professional activity of an identifiable physician or group of physicians, is valuable for a variety of purposes. The legitimacy and importance of these purposes varies a great deal, and therefore the rationale and rules related to the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information also varies. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) developed this policy to provide guiding principles to those who collect, use, have access to or disclose physician information. Such people are termed “custodians,” and they should be held publicly accountable. These principles complement and act in concert with the CMA Health Information Privacy Code,25 which holds patient health information sacrosanct. Physicians have legitimate interests in what information about them is collected, on what authority, by whom and for what purposes it is collected, and what safeguards and controls are in place. These interests include privacy and the right to exercise some control over the information; protection from the possibility that information will cause unwarranted harm, either at the individual or the group level; and assurance that interpretation of the information is accurate and unbiased. These legitimate interests extend to information about physicians that has been rendered in non-identifiable or aggregate format (e.g., to protect against the possibility of individual physicians being identified or of physician groups being unjustly stigmatized). Information in these formats, however, may be less sensitive than information from which an individual physician can be readily identified and, therefore, may warrant less protection. The purposes for the use of physician information may be more or less compelling. One compelling use is related to the fact that physicians, as members of a self-regulating profession, are professionally accountable to their patients, their profession and society. Physicians support this professional accountability purpose through the legislated mandate of their regulatory colleges. Physicians also recognize the importance of peer review in the context of professional development and maintenance of competence. The CMA supports the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. Purpose(s): The purpose(s) for the collection of physician information, and any other purpose(s) for which physician information may be subsequently used, accessed or disclosed, should be precisely specified at or before the collection. There should be a reasonable expectation that the information will achieve the stated purpose(s). The policy does not prevent the use of information for purposes that were not intended and not reasonably anticipated if principles 3 and 4 of this policy are met. 2. Consent: As a rule, information should be collected directly from the physician. Subject to principle 4, consent should be sought from the physician for the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information. The physician should be informed about all intended and anticipated uses, accesses or disclosures of the information. 3. Conditions for collection, use, access and disclosure: The information should: * be limited to the minimum necessary to carry out the stated purpose(s), * be in the least intrusive format required for the stated purpose(s), and its collection, use, access and disclosure should not infringe on the physician’s duty of confidentiality with respect to that information. 4. Use of information without consent: There may be justification for the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information without the physician’s consent if, in addition to the conditions in principle 3 being met, the custodian publicly demonstrates with respect to the purpose(s), generically construed, that: * the stated purpose(s) could not be met or would be seriously compromised if consent were required, * the stated purpose(s) is(are) of sufficient importance that the public interest outweighs to a substantial degree the physician’s right to privacy and right of consent in a free and democratic society, and * that the collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information with respect to the stated purpose(s) always ensures justice and fairness to the physician by being consistent with principle 6 of this policy. 5. Physician’s access to his or her own information: Physicians have a right to view and ensure, in a timely manner, the accuracy of the information collected about them. This principle does not apply if there is reason to believe that the disclosure to the physician will cause substantial adverse effect to others. The onus is on the custodian to justify a denial of access. 6. Information quality and interpretation: Custodians must take reasonable steps to ensure that the information they collect, use, gain access to or disclose is accurate, complete and correct. Custodians must use valid and reliable collection methods and, as appropriate, involve physicians to interpret the information; these physicians must have practice characteristics and credentials similar to those of the physician whose information is being interpreted. 7. Security: Physical and human safeguards must exist to ensure the integrity and reliability of physician information and to protect against unauthorized collection, use, access or disclosure of physician information. 8. Retention and destruction: Physician information should be retained only for the length of time necessary to fulfill the specified purpose(s), after which time it should be destroyed. 9. Inquiries and complaints: Custodians must have in place a process whereby inquiries and complaints can be received, processed and adjudicated in a fair and timely way. The complaint process, including how to initiate a complaint, must be made known to physicians. 10. Openness and transparency: Custodians must have transparent and explicit record-keeping or database management policies, practices and systems that are open to public scrutiny, including the purpose(s) for the collection, use, access and disclosure of physician information. The existence of any physician information record-keeping systems or database systems must be made known and available upon request to physicians. 11. Accountability: Custodians of physician information must ensure that they have proper authority and mandate to collect, use, gain access to or disclose physician information. Custodians must have policies and procedures in place that give effect to the principles in this document. Custodians must have a designated person who is responsible for monitoring practices and ensuring compliance with the policies and procedures. 1 Romanow R. Building on Values: the Future of Health Care in Canada. Report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; November 2002. 2 Chobanian et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 2003; 289. 3 Butler C, Rollnick S, Stott N. The practitioner, the patient and resistance to change. Recent Ideas on Compliance 1996;14(9):1357-62. 4 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health spending to top $112 billion in 2002, reports CIHI. Media release. December 18, 2002. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_18dec2002_e 5 Patent Medicine Prices Review Board. Pharmaceutical Trends, 1995/96 – 1999/00. Prepared for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Drug Prices; September 2001. 6 Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, A study of the Prices of the Top Selling Multiple Source Medicines in Canada. November 2002. 7 Approaches to Enhancing the Quality of Drug Therapy.” Joint policy of the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Pharmacists Association. 8 It should be noted that the CMA does not have the authority to enforce directives on physicians with regard to prescribing. The provincial and Territorial Colleges of Physicians handle licensing and regulatory matters. 9 Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan provide some coverage to all residents after the co-payments and deductibles are paid. Quebec provides universal coverage to those not in a private plan. 10 Fraser Group/Tristat Resources. Drug Expense Coverage in the Canadian Population – Protection from Severe Drug Expenses. CLHIA. August 2002. 11 Palmer D’Angelo Consulting Inc. National Pharmacare Cost Impact Update Study. Executive Summary. September 4, 2002. 12 Ibid 13 Tynan T. Cash-strapped Springfield, Mass., begins buying Canadian prescription drugs. Edmonton Journal July 29, 2003. http://www.canada.com/edmonton/story.asp?id=21FB8445-1143-4C13-B282-76F380CB4FE1 14 CBSNews.com. Illinois looks to Canada for drugs. CBS News September 15, 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/health/main565611.shtml 15Kedrosky P. Dangerous popularity of online pharmacies. National Post August 13, 2003. 16 Harris G. Pfizer moves to stem Canadian drug imports. New York Times August 7, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/07DRUG.html 17 Cusack B., Stinson S. US drug firms set to boycott Canada. National Post August 7, 2003. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=363CC2EA-1832-42F2-954C-0F52D1828E23 18 “Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising.” National Institute for Health Care Management Research. Washington, DC, 2001. 19 Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL at al. How does direct to consumer advertising affect prescribing? a survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. CMAJ 169 (2003): 405 –412. 20 Food and Drug Administration. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: physician survey preliminary results. Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac. 21Survey shows strong opposition to direct to consumer advertising. Accessed at http://www.cma.ca/cma/ 22 Canadian Coalition on Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention. A medication incident reporting and prevention system for Canada: business Plan. March 2002. 23 DTCA is not legal in Canada, except for notification of price, quantity and the name of the drug. However, “information-seeking” advertisements for prescription drugs, which may provide the name of the drug without mentioning its indications, or announce that treatments are available for specific indications without mentioning drugs by name, have appeared in Canadian mass media. 24 Though the paper applies primarily to prescription drug information, its principles are also applicable to health information in general. 25 Canadian Medical Association. Health Information Privacy Code. CMAJ 1998;159(8):997-1016.
Documents
Less detail

7 records – page 1 of 1.