Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


9 records – page 1 of 1.

Bill C-422 An Act respecting a National Lyme Disease Strategy

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11140
Date
2014-06-02
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-06-02
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The Canadian Medical Association is pleased to present this submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health regarding Bill C-422, National Lyme disease strategy. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is the national organization representing over 80,000 physicians in Canada; its mission is to serve and unite the physicians of Canada and to be the national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest standards of health and health care. Lyme disease is a growing problem in Canada. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) there were 315 cases of Lyme disease reported in Canada in 2012 -two and one-half times more cases than the 128 reported in 2009, the year that it became a reportable disease. In the Ottawa area, cases have increased almost 8 fold from 6 in 2009 to 47 in 2013. The PHAC surveillance indicates that established populations of blacklegged ticks are spreading their geographic scope, and are increasing in number, in much of southern Canada. In 2013 the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention released new estimates of Lyme disease that was 10 times higher than the previous yearly reported number of 30,000 reported cases.1 This highlights the difficulty in establishing the true burden of illness from Lyme disease. Why this matters to Canada's physicians The Canadian Medical Association supports the implementation of a national strategy that can address the breath of public health and medical issues surrounding the spread of Lyme disease in Canada. As with any new infectious disease threat, Canada needs to ensure that we are prepared to address the impact of Lyme disease on Canadians. CMA's policy on climate change and human health notes that changes in the range of some infectious disease vectors such as blacklegged ticks, are a possible consequence of climate change in Canada. Research has suggested that the tick vector of Lyme disease has been expanding into southeastern Canada which can lead to increased disease risk for those living in areas with tick populations.2 In this policy, CMA recommends that the federal government report diseases that emerge in relation to global climate change, and participate in field investigations, as with outbreaks of infectious diseases like Lyme disease, and develop and expand surveillance systems to include diseases caused by global climate change. The World Medical Association Declaration of Delhi on Health and Climate Change urges colleges and universities to develop locally appropriate continuing medical and public health education on the clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment of new diseases that are introduced into communities as a result of climate change. Diagnosis of Lyme disease can be difficult, as signs and symptoms can be non-specific and found in other conditions. 3 If Lyme disease is not recognized during the early stages, patients may suffer seriously debilitating disease, which may be more difficult to treat.4 Given the increasing incidence of Lyme disease in Canada, continuing education for health care and public health professionals and a national standard of care would improve identification, treatment and management of Lyme disease. Greater awareness of where blacklegged ticks are endemic in Canada, as well as information on the disease and prevention measures, can help Canadians protect themselves from infection. Recommendation The CMA supports a national Lyme disease strategy which includes the federal, provincial and territorial governments and the medical and patient communities. This strategy must address concerns around research, surveillance, diagnosis, treatment and management of the disease and public health prevention measures will advance our current knowledge base, and improve the care and treatment of those suffering from Lyme disease. Conclusion Once again, CMA is pleased to provide this brief to the Standing Committee on Health as part of its study on this important issue. Canada's physicians recognize the importance of monitoring all emerging infectious diseases in Canada. In addition, Canada's physicians recognize the importance of developing strategies to treat, manage, and prevent Lyme disease in Canada. 1 CDC provides estimate of Americans diagnosed with Lyme disease each year, media release August 19, 2013 Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0819-lyme-disease.html on Feb 21, 2014. 2 Ogden, N., L. Lindsay, and P. Leighton. 2013. Predicting the rate of invasion of the agent of Lyme disease Borrelia burgdorferi. Journal of Applied Ecology. April, 2013. 50(2):510-518. 3 Mayo Clinic, accessed at http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lyme-disease/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20019701 on Feb 21, 2014. 4 Wormser GP, Dattwyler RJ, Shapiro ED, et al. The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43: 1089-134.
Documents
Less detail

Canadian Medical Association Submission to Health Canada's Notice of proposed order to amend the schedule to the Tobacco Act

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11434
Date
2014-11-10
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-11-10
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada's Notice of proposed order to amend the schedule to the Tobacco Act1, from October 14, 2014, on the restriction of the use of additives. Canada's physicians have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. Background Flavoured tobacco products include candy or fruit flavoured products including cigarillos, water pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco and blunt wraps. They come in flavours that are appealing to youth such as chocolate, mint, cherry, peach, or strawberry. Flavouring makes the tobacco products more palatable to youth and young adult smokers because they have a lower tolerance for irritation and an underdeveloped taste for tobacco smoke.2 Menthol is a long standing and common flavour used in cigarettes and is used to reduce the harshness of cigarette smoke. It is the most popular flavour among youth. Almost three out of 10 Canadian youth who smoked cigarettes in the last 30 days (29 per cent) reported smoking menthol cigarettes.3 Tobacco Use and Youth While tobacco use has declined in Canada we must remain vigilant in our efforts to reduce smoking rates. Today 16 per cent of Canadians continue to smoke on a regular basis and physicians are particularly concerned about the smoking prevalence among young adults and youth with 20 per cent of those aged 20-24, and 11 per cent of youth aged 15-19 currently smoking on a regular basis. 4 Flavoured tobacco products, with their appeal to young Canadians are a major threat to the health and well-being of our youth. A recent report, Flavoured Tobacco Use: Evidence from Canadian Youth based on the 2012/13 Youth Smoking Survey, shows that young people are using flavoured tobacco products at high levels. Results show that 50 per cent of high school students in Canada who used tobacco products in the previous 30 days used flavoured tobacco products.5 Previous Amendments Regarding Flavouring Agents The CMA supported efforts of the federal government in 2009 to limit the addition of flavouring agents to tobacco products through the 2010 Act to Amend the Tobacco Act. But the Act did not cover all tobacco products and it excluded menthol as a flavouring agent. Manufacturers have been able to modify the weight and packaging of their products to technically comply with the Act while they continue to market flavoured products. CMA Recommendations It is the CMA's position that the federal government has an important role in smoking cessation and prevention among youth. The CMA supports the proposed extension of the prohibitions on the use of certain flavouring additives in relation to the manufacture and sale of little cigars to cigars weighing more than 1.4 g but less than 6 g. The CMA remains very concerned that these amendments do not ban menthol flavouring in tobacco products. To that end, the CMA recommends that Health Canada extend its prohibition on flavouring additives to include a ban on the addition of menthol in all tobacco products. 1 Health Canada. Notice of proposed order to amend the schedule to the Tobacco Act. October 14, 2014. Accessed at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/consult/_2014/tobacco-act-loi-tabac/index-eng.php 2 Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Pauly JL, Koh HK, Connolly GN. New cigarette brands with flavors that appeal to youth: Tobacco marketing strategies: Tobacco industry documents reveal a deliberate strategy to add flavors known to appeal to younger people. Health Affairs 2005;24(6):1601-1610. 3 Manske SR, Rynard VL, Minaker LM. 2014 (September). Flavoured Tobacco Use among Canadian Youth: Evidence from Canada's 2012/2013 Youth Smoking Survey. Waterloo: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, 1-18. cstads.ca/reports. 4 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey 2012 , accessed at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/ctums-esutc_2012-eng.php. 5 Manske SR, Rynard VL, Minaker LM. 2014 (September). Flavoured Tobacco Use among Canadian Youth: Evidence from Canada's 2012/2013 Youth Smoking Survey. Waterloo: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, 1-18. cstads.ca/reports. Minaker L, Manske S, Rynard VL, Reid JL & Hammond D. Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends, 2014 Edition - Special Supplement: Flavoured Tobacco Use. Waterloo, ON: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Canadian Medical Association 2 November 10, 2014
Documents
Less detail

Canadian Medical Association Submission to the House of Commons Study on E-Cigarettes

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11437
Date
2014-11-27
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-11-27
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
On behalf of its more than 82,000 members and the Canadian public, CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada's physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and 51 national medical organizations. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission to the House of Commons Health Committee for its study on e-cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, which replicate the act and taste of smoking, but do not contain tobacco, are growing rapidly in popularity. The tube of an e-cigarette contains heat-producing batteries and a chamber holding liquid, mainly propylene glycol. When heated, the liquid is turned into vapour which is drawn into the lungs. Ingredients vary by brand but many contain nicotine. Flavourings are also added with the intention of boosting their appeal to young people. Issues have been identified with labelling of e-cigarettes, where upon inspection, there have been contaminants, and nicotine has been detected in products labeled without nicotine.1 Users are generally able to modify the contents of e-cigarettes, with the addition of other substances, including marijuana. Originally most e-cigarette manufacturers were small entrepreneurial companies; now, however, all major transnational tobacco companies are also producing e-cigarettes and competing for a share in the market. There are little data on Canadian use. In the U.S., one in five adult smokers has tried them, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2. Current Regulatory Status Health Canada issued a warning in 20093 about the potential dangers and the fact that e-cigarettes had not been fully evaluated for safety, quality and efficacy. The sale of e-cigarettes containing nicotine is currently illegal in Canada under the Food and Drugs Act regulations4 though they can still be purchased in the US or over the Internet. However, those that do not make any health claim and do not contain nicotine may legally be sold in Canada under the same regulation. Health Canada is considering additional regulatory measures but none have yet been introduced. Some municipal jurisdictions are also considering regulation changes. Internationally, regulation of e-cigarettes is just beginning, and approaches vary. A few countries - such as Brazil, Norway and Singapore - have banned them outright. France plans to regulate e-cigarettes in the same way as tobacco products, and the US Food and Drug Administration is considering a similar approach. On the other hand, Britain will regulate e-cigarettes as non-prescription drugs starting in 2016.5 Health Implications Current evidence is insufficient to estimate the health effects of e-cigarettes. There are both defenders and opponents, though their arguments are based largely on opinion since e-cigarettes are only beginning to undergo rigorous clinical testing.6 Proponents, including some health officials and groups, say they are safer than tobacco cigarettes since they do not contain the tar and other toxic ingredients that are the cause of tobacco related disease.7 Some believe they serve a useful purpose as a harm reduction tool or cessation aid, although marketing them as such is not permitted since that claim has never been approved by Health Canada. Opponents are concerned that the nicotine delivered via e-cigarettes is addictive and that the e-cigarettes may contain other toxic ingredients such as nitrosamines, a carcinogen. Also, they worry that acceptance of e-cigarettes will undermine efforts to de-normalize smoking, and that they may be a gateway to use of tobacco by people who might otherwise have remained smoke-free.8 The use of flavouring agents and attractive packaging could entice children and youth, and survey data in some countries has shown that teens are increasingly experimenting with e-cigarettes. There has also been a dramatic increase in cases of nicotine overdose by ingestion or through dermal contact, particularly in children.9 The number of these incidents seems to be rising in countries that monitor poisonings. The World Health Organization recently released a report on the health impacts of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use which incorporates the 2013 deliberations and scientific recommendations by the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation. It concludes that "ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses. In addition, it increases exposure of non-smokers and bystanders to nicotine and a number of toxicants." The report says that it is possibly less toxic for the smoker than conventional cigarettes but it is unknown by how much.10 This report suggests that governments should have the following regulatory objectives: * impede the promotion and uptake of e-cigarettes with nicotine by non-smokers, pregnant women and youth; * minimize potential health risks to e-cigarette users and non-users; * prohibit unproven health claims from being made about e-cigarettes; and * protect existing tobacco-control efforts from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.11 Given the absence of solid evidence of harms or benefits, CMA recommends that: 1. E-cigarettes containing nicotine should not be authorized for sale in Canada. 2. The sale of all e-cigarettes should be prohibited to Canadians younger than the minimum age for tobacco consumption in their province or territory. 3. Smoke-free policies should be expanded to include a ban on the use of e-cigarettes in areas where smoking is prohibited. 4. Research on the potential harms and benefits of electronic cigarette use should be supported. 1 Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ). (Mai 2013). La cigarette électronique: état de situation. Available : http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/1691_CigarElectro_EtatSituation.pdf 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About one in five U.S. adult cigarette smokers have tried an electronic cigarette. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Press Release. February 28, 2013 Available: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0228_electronic_cigarettes.html (accessed October 31, 2014) 3 Health Canada. Health Canada Advises Canadians Not to Use Electronic Cigarettes (archived). Available: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2009/13373a-eng.php (accessed October 31, 2014) 4 Health Canada. Notice - To All Persons Interested in Importing, Advertising or Selling Electronic Smoking Products in Canada. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/pol/notice_avis_e-cig-eng.php (accessed October 31, 2014) 5 Kelland, K. & Hirschler, B. Insight - No smoke, plenty of fire fuels e-cigarettes. Reuters. June 13, 2013. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/uk-ecigarettes-insight-idUKBRE95C0F720130613 (accessed October 31, 2014) 6 Non-Smokers Rights Association. Product Regulation: The Buzz on E-Cigarettes. Available: http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/page1385.cfm (accessed October 31, 2014) 7 Weeks, C. Could e-cigarettes save smokers' lives? Some health advocates think so. The Globe and Mail April 29, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/could-e-cigarettes-save-smokers-lives-some-health-advocates-think-so/article11583353/?cmpid=rss1 8 Toronto Public Health. E-cigarettes in Toronto. Staff report to the Toronto Board of Health. August 1, 2014. Available: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-72510.pdf (accessed October 31, 2014). 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes from the Field: Calls to Poison Centers for Exposures to Electronic Cigarettes - United States, September 2010-February 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(13): 292-293. April 4, 2014. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6313a4.htm?s_cid=mm6313a4_w (accessed October 31, 2014). 10 World Health Organization. Electronic nicotine delivery systems. Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Sixth session Moscow, Russian Federation, 13-18 October 2014. Provisional agenda item 4.4.2. Available: http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf?ua=1 11 Ibid.
Documents
Less detail

Early childhood development

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11476
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Adult health is pre-determined in many ways in early childhood and even by events occurring before birth. The years between conception and the start of school are the time when crucial developments in physical, social, cognitive, emotional and language domains take place. Disruptions during this period can lead to weakened physiological responses, influence brain architecture, and influence how the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular and other systems are developed.1,2 Experiences in early life can even 'get under the skin', changing the ways that certain genes are expressed.3,4 Negative experiences such as poverty or family or parental violence can have significant impacts on this important period of development. Even for those children who don't encounter these types of barriers, there can be problems in the early years. Evidence suggests that adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin in early life.5 Just as children are susceptible to negative influences in early life, the period of rapid development means that effective interventions can minimize or eliminate these outcomes. Intervening in the early years has been shown to have the potential to impact developmental trajectories and protect children from risk factors that are present in their daily environments.6 At the government and national level there are four main areas of action: Early childhood learning and care; Support for parents; Poverty reduction; and Data collection for early childhood development. The CMA Recommends that: 1. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, implement a national early learning and care program that ensures all children have equal access to high quality child care and early learning. 2. The federal government commit to increasing funding for early childhood development to 1% of GDP to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries. 3. Programs such as early childhood home visiting be made available to all vulnerable families in Canada. 4. Governments support the expansion of community resources for parents which provide parenting programs and family supports. 5. A national strategy to decrease family violence and the maltreatment of children, including appropriate community resources, be developed and implemented in all provinces and territories. 6. The federal government work with provinces and territories to adopt a national strategy to eradicate child poverty in Canada with clear accountability and measurable targets. 7. Provinces and territories implement comprehensive poverty reduction strategies with clear accountability and measurable targets. 8. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a robust and unified reporting system on early childhood to ensure that proper monitoring of trends and interventions can take place. 9. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to continue to implement the early development index in all jurisdictions. In addition, work should be supported on similar tools for 18 months and middle childhood. 10. The federal government support the development of a pan-Canadian platform that can share evidence and best practice, and focus research questions around the early years. While most of what is necessary for early childhood development will be done by governments and stakeholders outside of the health care system, there are opportunities for physicians to influence this important social determinant both through medical education, and clinical practice. The CMA Recommends that: 11. Curriculum on early brain, biological development and early learning be incorporated into all Canadian medical schools. 12. Continuing CME on early brain, biological development and early learning be available to all primary-care providers who are responsible for the health care of children. 13. All provinces and territories implement an enhanced 18 month well-baby visit with appropriate compensation and community supports. 14. Physicians and other primary care providers integrate the enhanced 18 month visit into their regular clinical practice. 15. Comprehensive resources be developed for primary-care providers to identify community supports and services to facilitate referral for parents and children. 16. Efforts be made to ensure timely access to resources and programs for children who have identified developmental needs. 17. Physicians serve as advocates on issues related to early childhood development. They should use their knowledge, expertise and influence to speak out on the need and importance of healthy development in the early years. 18. Physicians continue to include literacy promotion in routine clinical encounters with children of all ages. 19. National Medical Associations work with governments and the non-profit sector to explore the development of a clinically based child literacy program for Canada. Background Adult health is pre-determined in many ways in early childhood and even by events occurring before birth. The years between conception and the start of school are the time when crucial developments in physical, social, cognitive, emotional and language domains take place. The early childhood period is the most important development period in life.7 Disruptions during this period can lead to weakened physiological responses, influence brain architecture, and influence how the neuroendocrine, cardiovascular and other systems are developed.8,9 Experiences in early life can even 'get under the skin', changing the ways that certain genes are expressed.10,11 According to research done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the adverse childhood event (ACE)a study, child maltreatment, neglect, and exposure to violence can significantly impact childhood development. The study involved a retrospective look at the early childhood experiences of 17,000 US adults and the impact of these events on later life and behaviour issues. An increased number of ACEs was linked to increases in risky behaviour in childhood and adolescence12 and to a number of adult health conditions including alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, obesity, heart disease, and some forms of cancer.13,14 The greater the number of adverse experiences in childhood the greater the likelihood of health problems in adulthood.15 A high level of ACEs was linked to language, cognitive and emotional impairment; factors which impact on school success and adult functioning.16 Finally, the study found a correlation between experiencing ACEs, suicide, and being the victim of or perpetrating intimate partner violence.17 Poverty is a significant barrier to healthy child development. Children who grow up in poor families or disadvantaged communities are especially susceptible to the physiological and biological changes associated with disease risk.18 Poverty is associated with a number of risk factors for healthy development including: unsupportive parenting, inadequate nutrition and education, high levels of traumatic and stressful events19, including higher rates of traumatic injuries20, poorer housing, lack of services, and limited access to physical activity.21 Children from low-income families score lower than children from high-income families on various measures of school readiness, cognitive development and school achievement22,23, and this gap increases over time with children of low-income families being less likely to attend post-secondary education and gain meaningful employment.24 Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults25,26 and to pass this disadvantage on to their own children.27,28 Children living in poverty have more problem behaviours such as drug abuse, early pregnancy, and increased criminal behaviour.29 Finally, economic hardship in childhood has been linked to premature mortality and chronic disease in adulthood.30 Early adverse events and poverty are serious impediments to healthy development, however, it is not just disadvantaged children that need attention. The early years are critical for all children regardless of socio-economic status. Evidence suggests that adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin in early life.31 By 2030, 90% of morbidity in high income countries will be related to chronic diseases.32 These diseases are due in large part to risk factors such as smoking, poor nutrition, alcohol and drug abuse, and inadequate physical activity.33 These risk factors can be heavily influenced by the environment in which people live and can be increased by poor early childhood experiences.34,35 Health promotion and disease/injury prevention programs targeted at adults would be more effective if investments were made early in life on the origins of those diseases and conditions.36,37 Areas for Action While there is reason for concern regarding early childhood development, there is positive news as well. Just as children are susceptible to negative influences in early life, the period of rapid development also means that effective interventions can minimize or eliminate these outcomes. Intervening in the early years has been shown to have the potential to impact developmental trajectories and protect children from risk factors that are present in their daily environments.38 Government and National: Early Childhood Learning and Care Research suggests that 90% of a child's brain capacity is developed by age five, before many children have any access to formal education.39 More than one quarter of Canadian children start kindergarten vulnerable in at least one area of development.40 Approximately two thirds of these deficiencies can be considered preventable. Evidence suggests that each 1% of excess vulnerability in school readiness leads to a reduction in GDP of 1% over the course of that child's life.41 Children who aren't ready for kindergarten are half as likely to read by the third grade, a factor that increases the risk of high school drop-out significantly. 42 While it is possible to intervene later to address these learning deficiencies, these interventions are less effective and much more costly.43 High quality early childhood programs including programs to nurture and stimulate children and educate parents are highly correlated with the amelioration of the effects of disadvantage on cognitive, emotional and physical development among children.44,45 A recent analysis of 84 preschool programs in the United States concluded that children participating in effective pre-school programs can acquire about a third of a year of additional learning in math, language and reading skills.46 Since the implementation of the universal childcare program in Quebec, students in that province have moved from below the national average on standardized tests to above the average.47 In addition, effective early childhood learning programs offer a significant return on investment. Research done on US preschool programs found a return on investment of between four and seventeen dollars for every dollar spent on the program. Evidence from the Quebec universal child care program indicates that the program costs are more than covered by the increased tax revenues generated as a result of increased employment among Quebec mothers. For every dollar spent on the Quebec program, $1.05 is received by the provincial government with the federal government receiving $0.44.48 In terms of early childhood learning and care, Canada is lagging far behind - tied for last place among 25 countries in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) early childhood development indicators.b,49 Canada spends the least amount of money on early childhood learning and care of all countries in the OECD (0.25% of GDP)50, or one quarter of the recommended benchmark. Of this money, fully 65% is attributable to Quebec's universal daycare program.51 Canadian families face great pressures in finding affordable and accessible quality early childhood learning and care spots across the country. In Quebec 69% of children 2-4 regularly attend early childhood learning programs; outside of Quebec the number falls to 38.6%. The challenges for low-income families are even more pronounced with almost 65% of poor children 0-5 receiving no out-of home care.52 The federal government and the provinces and territories must work to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries on early childhood learning and care. The CMA Recommends that: 1. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, implement a national early learning and care program that ensures all children have equal access to high quality child care and early learning. 2. The federal government commit to increasing funding for early childhood development to 1% of GDP to bring Canada in line with other OECD countries. Support for Parents A supportive nurturing caregiver is associated with better physical and mental health, fewer behavioural problems, higher educational achievement, more productive employment, and less involvement with the justice system and social services.53 Studies have demonstrated that improved parental-child relationships can minimize the effects of strong, prolonged and frequent stress, referred to as toxic stress54,55, and that the effects of poverty can be minimized with appropriate nurturing and supportive parenting.56 Parental support programs can act as a buffer for children at the same time as strengthening the ability of parents to meet their children's developmental needs.57 Caregivers who struggle with problems such as depression or poverty may be unable to provide adequate attention to their children undermining the attachment relationships that develop in early life. The relatively limited attention that is focused on addressing the deficiencies in time and resources of parents across all socio-economic groups can undermine healthy childhood development.58 One approach that has been shown to improve parental functioning and decrease neglect and child abuse is early childhood home visiting programs, sometimes referred to as Nurse Family partnerships. These programs provide nursing visits to vulnerable young mothers from conception until the children are between two and six depending on the program. The home visits provide prenatal support, educate parents about early childhood development, promote positive parenting, connect parents with resources, and monitor for signs of child-abuse and neglect.59 Results from several randomized controlled trials of these programs in the United States have shown that the program reduces abuse and injury, and improves cognitive and social and emotional outcomes in children. A 15 year follow-up study found lower levels of crime and antisocial behaviour in both the mothers and the children that participated in these programs.60 In Canada Nurse Family Partnerships were first piloted in Hamilton, Ontario. They are now undergoing a broader implementation and review in the Province of British Columbia. These programs should continue to be supported and expanded to all families who would benefit from this proven early childhood intervention. Many Canadian provinces have established community resources for parents. Alberta has recently announced plans to establish parent link centres across the province. These will deliver parenting programs, and be home to community resources and programs.61 Similar programs exist in other provinces such as the early years centres in Ontario62, and family resource centres in Manitoba.63 Early Childhood Development Centres in Atlantic Canada are combining child care, kindergarten and family supports into early childhood centres that are aligned with schools.64 While these programs can go a long way in reducing abuse and neglect, there is still a need for an overarching strategy to reduce neglect and child abuse across the country. As the ACE study in the United States clearly demonstrated, exposure to early adverse events such as family violence or neglect have troubling implications for adult health and behaviours.65 Action must be taken to ensure that avoidable adverse events are eliminated. The CMA Recommends that: 3. Programs such as early childhood home visiting be made available to all vulnerable families in Canada. 4. Governments support the expansion of community resources for parents which provide parenting programs and family supports. 5. A national strategy to decrease family violence and the maltreatment of children, including appropriate community resources, be developed and implemented in all provinces and territories. Poverty reduction In 1989 the Canadian government made a commitment to end child poverty by 2000. As of 2011, more Canadian children and their families lived in poverty than when the original declaration was made.66 Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries with more than one in seven children living in poverty (15.1%).67 Canada is one of the only wealthy nations with a child poverty rate that is actually higher than the overall poverty rate.68 Child poverty is a provincial and territorial responsibility as well. As of 2012, only four provinces had child poverty strategies that met the guidelines put forward by the Canadian Paediatric Society.c,69 Poor children grow up in the context of poor families which means that solutions for child poverty must necessarily minimize the poverty of their parents.70 Efforts to increase the income as well as employment opportunities for parents, in particular single parents, must be part of any poverty reduction strategy.71 Programs, such as affordable child care, that allows parents to be active participants in the work force represent one approach72,73 Quebec's program of early childhood care has increased female workforce participation by 70,000 and reduced the child poverty rate by 50%.74 Addressing poverty could minimize problem areas in child development. According to a 2009 report by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, of 27 factors seen as having an impact on child development, 80% of these showed improvement as family income increased.75 Increasing income has the greatest impact on cognitive outcomes for children the earlier in life the reduction in poverty takes place.76 The federal government and the provinces and territories must work to ensure that poverty does not continue to be a barrier to the healthy development of Canadian children. The CMA Recommends that: 6. The federal government work with provinces and territories to adopt a national strategy to eradicate child poverty in Canada with clear accountability and measurable targets. 7. Provinces and territories implement comprehensive poverty reduction strategies with clear accountability and measurable targets. Data Collection for Early Childhood Development The evidence shows the importance of early childhood development for later success and health. In order to properly design effective interventions to mitigate developmental concerns, there is a need for appropriate data on early childhood health indicators and interventions. Given the variation in outcomes of children among different communities and demographic groups, there is a need for individual level data which is linked to the community level. This will allow providers and governments to develop appropriate interventions. Such an approach is being used by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, the Human Early Learning Partnership in British Columbia, and Health Data Nova Scotia. Researchers at these centres are creating a longitudinal data set by linking administrative data from a range of sources.77 Such data sets should be supported in all provinces and territories. Another tool being used to measure the progress of Canadian children is the Early Development Instrument (EDI). This tool is a 104 item checklist completed by teachers for every child around the middle of the first year of schooling. The checklist measures five core areas of early child development that are known to be good predictors of adult health, education and social outcomes. These include: physical health and well-being; language and cognitive development; social competence; emotional maturity; and communication skills and general knowledge.78,79 This tool has been used at least once in most of the provinces and territories with a commitment from most jurisdictions to continue this monitoring.80 While this is a good start, it gives only a snapshot of development. Ideally a monitoring system plots several points of time in development to identify trajectories of children. Ontario has introduced an enhanced well baby visit at 18 months. This clinical intervention could allow for the capture of development data at an earlier time. There is a need for more comprehensive information at the 18-month and middle childhood phases.81 The CMA Recommends that: 8. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a robust and unified reporting system on early childhood to ensure that proper monitoring of trends and interventions can take place. 9. The federal government work with the provinces and territories to continue to implement the early development index in all jurisdictions. In addition, work should be supported on similar tools for 18 months and middle childhood. 10. The federal government support the development of a pan-Canadian platform that can share evidence and best practice, and focus research questions around the early years. Medical Education: Given the importance of early childhood experiences on adult health there is a need for a greater understanding of the biological basis of adult diseases. The medical community needs to focus more attention on the roots of adult diseases and disabilities and focus prevention efforts on disrupting or minimizing these early links to later poor health outcomes.82 The science of early brain development and biology is rapidly evolving. There is a need to ensure that future and current physicians are up to date on this information and its implications for clinical practice.83 The Association of Faculties of Medicine and the Norlien foundation have partnered to provide funding and support for a series of e-learning tools on early brain and biological development.84 Continuing medical education does exist for some components of early childhood development and more work is underway. The Ontario College of Family Physicians has developed a CME that explores early childhood development for practitioners.85 These initiatives must be supported and expanded to all physicians who provide primary care to children and their families. The CMA Recommends that: 11. Curriculum on early brain, biological development and early learning be incorporated into all Canadian medical schools. 12. Continuing CME on early brain, biological development and early learning be available to all primary-care providers who are responsible for the health care of children. Clinical Practice: While many of the threats to early childhood development lie outside of the hospital or medical clinic, there are a number of ways that physicians can help to address this important determinant of health within their practices. Primary care practitioners are uniquely qualified to address this fundamental population health issue,86 and can provide one important component in a multi-sectoral approach to healthy early childhood development.87 Screening and support for parents The health care system is the primary contact for many child-bearing mothers, and for many families, health-care providers are the only professionals with whom they have regular contact during the early years.88,89 According to data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 97% of Ontario children aged zero to two are seen by a family physician.90 Within a patient-centred medical home, health-care providers can give support and information to parents about issues such as parenting, safety, and nutrition, and can link them to early childhood resourcesd, and other supports such as housing and food security programs. 91,92 Primary-care providers can help patients connect with public health departments who have many healthy baby and healthy child programs.93 Primary-care providers can ensure that screening takes place to identify risk factors to appropriate development.94 This screening should take place as early as the prenatal stage and continue throughout childhood. Screening should include regular assessments of physical milestones such as height, weight and vision and hearing etc. In addition, providers can identify risk factors such as maternal depression, substance abuse, and potential neglect or abuse.95 Given the negative consequences of early violence and neglect on childhood development96, this is a key role for primary-care providers. Screening for social issues such as poverty, poor housing and food insecurity should also be completed.97 A significant time for screening occurs at 18 months. This is the time for the last set of immunizations and in many cases the last time a child will have a regularly scheduled physician visit before the start of school.98 The 18 month well baby visit provides an opportunity to screen for not only medical concerns but child development as well. The enhanced 18 month well baby visite developed in Ontario combines parental observations and clinical judgment to screen for any risks a child might have.99 In Ontario, parental observation is captured through the Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS). The parents complete this standardized tool and report the results to their physicians or other primary-care providers. The NDDS checklist is not meant to be a diagnostic tool but instead helps to highlight any potential areas of concern while also providing information to parents about childhood development. The 'activities for your child' section which accompanies the tool can also help reinforce the importance of development.100 As part of the visit primary-care providers fill out a standardized tool known as the Rourke Baby Record. This tool is an evidence based guide which helps professionals deliver the enhanced visit. This combined with the parental report through the NDDS, allows for a complete picture of the physical as well as the development health of the child at 18 months. Primary-care providers can use the results to discuss parenting and development and link children to specialized services, as necessary, and other community supports and resources. In Ontario early child development and parenting resource system pathways have been developed in many communities to help ensure that primary care providers can be aware of the resources and supports available for their patients.101 As was already noted, almost two thirds of vulnerabilities in readiness for school can be prevented.102 Appropriate identification through screening is a first step in correcting these issues. While the expansion of this approach is currently being reviewed in Nova Scotia, it should be implemented in all provinces and territories with appropriate compensation mechanisms and community based supports. Additionally, consideration should be made to developing screening tools for physicians outside of primary care, ie. emergency departments, who see children who might not have regular primary care physicians. The CMA Recommends that: 13. All provinces and territories implement an enhanced 18 month well-baby visit with appropriate compensation and community supports. 14. Physicians and other primary care providers integrate the enhanced 18 month visit into their regular clinical practice. 15. Comprehensive resources be developed for primary-care providers to identify community supports and services to facilitate referral for parents and children. 16. Efforts be made to ensure timely access to resources and programs for children who have identified developmental needs. 17. Physicians serve as advocates on issues related to early childhood development. They should use their knowledge, expertise and influence to speak out on the need and importance of healthy development in the early years. Literacy By 18 months disparities in language acquisition begin to develop.103 According to US research, by age four, children of families on welfare will hear 30 million less words than children from families with professional parents.104 This can lead to ongoing disparities in childhood learning as evidence suggests that exposure to reading and language from parents is fundamental for success in reading by children.105 Physicians and other primary-care providers can play a role in helping to reduce these disparities. They can encourage reading, speaking, singing and telling stories as part of a daily routine.f Studies have demonstrated that when physicians discuss literacy with parents and provide them with appropriate resources, such as developmentally appropriate children's books, increases in reading frequency and preschool language scores have been found.106 One program which has integrated reading and literacy into clinical practice is the 'Reach out and Read' program in the United States. This program partners with physicians, paediatricians, and nurse practitioners to provide new developmentally appropriate books to children ages 6 months through 5 years, as well as guidance for parents about the importance of reading.107,108 The success of this program has been significant with parents in the program being four to ten times more likely to read frequently with their children, and children scoring much higher on receptive and expressive language scores on standardized tests.109 Given the success of this program for American children, a similar program should be explored in the Canadian context. The CMA Recommends that: 18. Physicians continue to include literacy promotion in routine clinical encounters with children of all ages. 19. National Medical Associations work with governments and the non-profit sector to explore the development of a clinically based child literacy program for Canada. Conclusion The early years represent the most important time of development. The first five years can 'get under the skin' and influence outcomes throughout the life course. Negative experiences such as poverty, violence, poor nutrition, and inadequate parenting can determine behaviours as well as adult health outcomes. Effective early interventions can help to minimize or capitalize on these experiences. Government actions and supports to reduce poverty, child abuse, violence and to enable parents to care for their children are necessary. In addition, appropriate high quality early childhood learning and care programs are required for all Canadians regardless of socio-economic status. Finally, health care providers can play a role in identifying children at risk, supporting their parents to encourage healthy childhood development, and advocating for communities that ensure all Canadian children have the opportunity to grow up happy and healthy. References a The adverse childhood events are: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, mother treated violently, household substance abuse, household mental illness, parental separation or divorce, incarcerated household member. http://www.cdc.gov/ace/prevalence.htm#ACED b The indicators used for the comparison include: Parental leave of one year with 50% of salary; a national plan with priority for disadvantaged children; subsidized and regulated child care services for 25% of children under 3; subsidized and accredited early education services for 80% of 4 year-olds; 80% of all child care staff trained; 50% of staff in accredited early education services tertiary educated with relevant qualification (this is the only indicator that Canada met); minimum staff-to-children ratio of 1:15 in pre-school education; 1.0% of GDP spent on early childhood services; child poverty rate less than 10%; near-universal outreach of essential child health services. UNICEF (2008) The child care transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries. Available at: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc8_eng.pdf c To meet the CPS guidelines a province/territory requires anti-poverty legislation promoting long-term action and government accountability for at least three years, and has a poverty reduction strategy with specific targets. d For a list of some of the resources available for early childhood development across the country please see the Canadian Paediatric Society Resource Page: http://www.cps.ca/en/first-debut/map/community-resources e For more detailed information on the enhanced 18 month well baby visit please see the Canadian Paediatric Society Position statement- Williams R & J Clinton. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa, ON; 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (Accessed 2014 Jan 24). For resources available to Ontario primary-care providers please visit: http://machealth.ca/programs/18-month/default.aspx f For information and resources on early literacy please see the Canadian Paediatric Society at: http://www.cps.ca/issues-questions/literacy 1 Williams R et.al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21) 2 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 3 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 4 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 5 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 6 Hutchison P Chair. Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age. New Zealand House of Representatives. Wellington (NZ); 2013. Available: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 3). 7 World Health Organization. Closing the Health Equity Gap: Policy options and opportunities for action. Geneva, Switzerland; 2013. Available: http://www.paho.org/equity/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=103&Itemid (accessed 2013 Dec 20) 8 Williams R et al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21) 9 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 10 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 11 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 12 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 13 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 14 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 15 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 16 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 17 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 18 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 19 Luby J et al. The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. JAMA Pediatr. Published online October 28, 2013. 20 Oliver LN, Kohen DE. Neighbourhood variation in hospitalization for un intentional injury among children and teenagers. Health Rep 2010;21(4):9-17 21 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 22 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 23 Cooper K & Stewart K. Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London(UK); 2013. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 20). 24 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 25 APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. A Strategic Road-Map: Committed to Bringing the Voice of Pediatricians to the Most Important Problem Facing Children in the US Today. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village (IL); 2013. Available: http://www.academicpeds.org/public_policy/pdf/APA_Task_Force_Strategic_Road_Mapver3.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 9). 26 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 27 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 28 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 29 Dreyer BP. To Create a Better World for Children and Families: The Case for Ending Childhood Poverty. Acad. Pediat. Vol 13 No 2. Mar-Apr 2013. Available: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1876-2859/PIIS1876285913000065.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 10). 30 Braveman P, Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America: Overcoming Obstacles to Health in 2013 and Beyond. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ);2013. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406474 (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 31 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 32 Bygbjerg IC. Double Burden of Noncommunicable and Infectious Diseases in Developing Countries. Science Vol.337 21 September 2012 pp.1499-1501. Available: http://health-equity.pitt.edu/3994/1/Double_Burden_of_Noncommunicable_and_Infectious_Diseases.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 11). 33 World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Non-Communicable diseases 2010. Chapter 1: Burden: mortality, morbidity and risk factors. Geneva, Switzerland; 2010. Available: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_chapter1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 11). 34 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 35 Dreyer BP. To Create a Better World for Children and Families: The Case for Ending Childhood Poverty. Acad. Pediat. Vol 13 No 2. Mar-Apr 2013. Available: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1876-2859/PIIS1876285913000065.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 10). 36 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 37 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 38 Hutchison P Chair. Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age. New Zealand House of Representatives. Wellington (NZ); 2013. Available: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 3). 39 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 40 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 41 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 42 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 43 Heckman JJ. The Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children. Available: http://heckmanequation.org/content/resource/case-investing-disadvantaged-young-children (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 44 Braveman P, Egerter D & Williams DR. The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annu Rev Publ Health. 32:3.1-3.18. 2011. 45 European Union. Commission Recommendation of 20.2.2013: Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Brussels (Belgium); 2013. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf (accessed 2013 Jan 24). 46 Yoshikawa H et al. Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Society for Research in Child Development & Foundation for Child Development. New York (NY); 2013. Available: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 47 Piano M. Canada 2020 Analytical Commentary No. 6: Are we ready for universal childcare in Canada? Recommendations for equality of opportunity through childcare in Canada. Canada 2020, Ottawa (ON); 2014. Available: http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Canada-2020-Analytical-Commentary-No.-6-Universal-childcare-Jan-29-2014.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 13). 48 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 49 Mikkonen J, Raphael D. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Toronto (ON); 2010. Available: http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf (accessed 2012 Jan 24). 50 Denburg A, Daneman D. The Link between Social Inequality and Child Health Outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly Vol. 14 Oct 2010. 51 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 52 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 53 Shonkoff JP et.al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 54 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 55 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 56 Luby J et al. The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. JAMA Pediatr. Published online October 28, 2013. 57 Arkin E, Braveman P, Egerter S & Williams D. Time to Act: Investing in the Health of Our Children and Communities: Recommendations From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Princeton (NJ); 2014. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/rwjf409002 (accessed 2014 Feb 6). 58 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 59 Knoke D. Early childhood home visiting programs. Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being. Toronto(ON); 2009. Available: http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/HomeVisiting73E.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 7). 60 Mercy JA, Saul J. Creating a Healthier Future Through Early Interventions for Children. JAMA June 3, 2009 Vol 301, No.21. 61 Government of Alberta. Alberta improves supports for families. Edmonton(AB); 2014. Available: http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=356434F454042-9B0A-23FD-4AD0402F87D70805 (accessed 2014 Jan 7). 62 Ontario Ministry of Education. Ontario Early Years Centres: Frequently asked questions. Toronto (ON):N.D. Available: http://www.oeyc.edu.gov.on.ca/questions/index.aspx (accessed 2015 Jan 30). 63 Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet. Starting Early, Starting Strong: Manitoba's Early Childhood Development Framework. Government of Manitoba, Winnipeg (MB); 2013. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/cyo/pdfs/sess_ECD_framework.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 64 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 65 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 66 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 67 Conference Board of Canada. Child Poverty. Ottawa (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx (accessed 2013 Jun 20). 68 Canadian Paediatric Society. Are We Doing Enough? A status report on Canadian public policy and child and youth health. 2012 edition. Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/advocacy/StatusReport2012.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 14). 69 Ibid. 70 APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. A Strategic Road-Map: Committed to Bringing the Voice of Pediatricians to the Most Important Problem Facing Children in the US Today. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village (IL); 2013. Available: http://www.academicpeds.org/public_policy/pdf/APA_Task_Force_Strategic_Road_Mapver3.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 9). 71 Campaign 2000. Canada's Real Economic Action Plan Begins with Poverty Eradication: 2013 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Toronto (ON); 2013. Available: http://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/2013C2000NATIONALREPORTCARDNOV26.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 72 HM Treasury. Ending child poverty: mapping the route to 2020. London(UK); 2010. Available: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/images/ecp/budget2010_childpoverty.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 17). 73 Fauth B, Renton Z & Solomon E. Tackling child poverty and promoting children's well-being: lessons from abroad. National Children's Bureau. London (UK); 2013. Available: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/892335/tackling_child_poverty_1302013_final.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 74 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/i_115_eys3_en_2nd_072412.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 75 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 76 Cooper K & Stewart K. Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London(UK); 2013. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 20). 77 Hertzman C, Clinton J, Lynk A. Measuring in support of early childhood development. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/early-childhood-development (accessed 2014 Feb 25). 78 Human Early Learning Partnership. Early Development Instrument. N.D. Available: http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/edi/ (accessed 2014 Oct 8). 79 Adamson P. Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview: Innocenti Report Card 11. UNICEF, Florrence, Italy; 2013. Available: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf (accessed 2014 Jan 10). 80 Norrie McCain H.M, Mustard JF, McCuaig, K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions Taking Action. Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation. Toronto(ON); 2011. Available: http://firstwords.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Early-Years-Study-3.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 81 Hertzman C, Clinton J, Lynk A. Measuring in support of early childhood development. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/early-childhood-development (accessed 2014 Feb 25). 82 Shonkoff JP & Garner AS. The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics. December 26, 2011. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2663.full.pdf+html (accessed 2013 Oct 28). 83 Garner AS et al. Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health. Pediatrics 2012;129;e224. Available: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/21/peds.2011-2662.full.pdf+html (accessed 2014 Feb 11). 84 Little L. Early Childhood Education and Care: Issues and Initiatives. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Ottawa(ON); 2012. 85 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 86 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 87 Shonkoff JP et al. The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Cambridge (MA); 2010. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/ (accessed 2013 Dec 13). 88 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 89 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 90 The Minister of Children and Youth announces that every child will receive and enhanced 18-month visit: Family Physicians Play Key Roles in Healthy Child Development. Toronto(ON). Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/cme/enhanced-18-month-well-baby-visit-key-messages-for-family-physicians.pdf?sfvrsn=1 (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 91 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 92 Garg A, Jack B, Zuckerman B. Addressing the Social Determinants of Health Within the Patient-Centred Medical Home. JAMA. May 15, 2013 Vol. 309 No.19. 93 Comley L, Mousmanis P. Improving the Odds: Healthy Child Development: Toolkit: Interdisciplinary MAINPRO CME for Family Physicians and other Primary Healthcare Providers, 6th Edition. Toronto (ON);2010. Available: http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/research-projects/improving-the-odds-healthy-child-development-manual-2010-6th-edition.pdf (accessed 2013 Dec 2). 94 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 95 Williams R et al. The promise of the early years: How long should children wait? Paediatr Child Health Vol 17 No 10 December 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/issues/2012-early-years-commentary.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 21). 96 Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The Effects of Childhood Stress on Health Across the Lifespan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta (GA); 2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/childhood_stress.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 24). 97 Garg A, Jack B, Zuckerman B. Addressing the Social Determinants of Health Within the Patient-Centred Medical Home. JAMA. May 15, 2013 Vol. 309 No.19. 98 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 99 Canadian Paediatric Society. Are We Doing Enough? A status report on Canadian public policy and child and youth health. 2012 edition. Ottawa (ON); 2012. Available: http://www.cps.ca/advocacy/StatusReport2012.pdf (accessed 2014 Feb 14). 100 Williams RC, Clinton J, Price DJ, Novak NE. Ontario's Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit: program overview, implications for physicians. OMR February 2010. Available: http://omr.dgtlpub.com/2010/2010-02-28/home.php (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 101 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 102 Williams R & Clinton J. Getting it right at 18 months: In support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ottawa(ON); 2011. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/enhanced-well-baby-visit (accessed 2012 Feb 20). 103 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development. Cambridge(MA); N.D. Available: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/interactive_features/five-numbers/ (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 104 Denburg A, Daneman D. The Link between Social Inequality and Child Health Outcomes. Healthcare Quarterly Vol. 14 Oct 2010. 105 Shaw A. Read, speak, sing: Promoting literacy in the physician's office. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2006. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/read-speak-sing-promoting-literacy (accessed 2014 Feb 10). 106 Ibid. 107 Reach out and Read. Reach Out And Read: The Evidence. Boston (MA); 2013. Available: https://www.reachoutandread.org/FileRepository/Research_Summary.pdf (accessed 2014 Mar 5). 108 Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health: Executive Summary. Geneva (CH) World Health Organization; 2008. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf (accessed 2011 Jan 7). 109 Shaw A. Read, speak, sing: Promoting literacy in the physician's office. Canadian Paediatric Society, Ottawa (ON); 2006. Available: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/read-speak-sing-promoting-literacy (accessed 2014 Feb 10).
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

Improving Seniors Care in an Era of Surplus. 2014-2015 Pre-budget Brief

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11211
Date
2014-08-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-08-06
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
"The 2014-15 budget signals the end to a tough but necessary period of fiscal consolidation. Current expectations are for a surplus of $6.4-billion in 2015-16, plus a contingency reserve of $3-billion; there is finally some room to manoeuvre in the years ahead." Glen Hodgson, Senior VP and Chief Economist Conference Board of Canada - February 2014 Having emerged from the global economic downturn, now is the time for the federal government to make strategic investments that will ensure Canada's long-term economic sustainability. The ageing of Canada's population is the most pressing policy imperative of our time. As highlighted in Finance Canada's 2012 report, Economic and Fiscal Implications of Canada's Ageing Population, action to prepare for an ageing population will support the sustainability of Canada's public finances and social programs. The CMA's recommendations for the 2014-15 federal budget focus on strategic investments in three key areas: 1. Supporting Canadian families and seniors A) Pan-Canadian Seniors Strategy The CMA is concerned that Canada is ill-prepared for the demographic shift already underway. By 2036, it is expected that a quarter of Canada's population will be over age 65; almost double the proportion of today. Already, patients aged 65 and older account for nearly half of Canada's health care spending. Seniors also face challenges accessing health services across the continuum of care. These challenges are getting worse, despite growing efforts to provide sustainable, high-quality health care for seniors, and despite most provinces having seniors care strategies in place. Canadians share our concern. According to an Ipsos Reid poll commissioned by the CMA, a majority of respondents (83%) said they were concerned about their health care in their retirement years. This poll found that nine out of ten Canadians (93%) believe Canada needs a national strategy for seniors health care that integrates home care, hospitals, hospices, and long-term care facilities into the continuum. Recommendation: The CMA recommends that the federal government provide targeted funding to support the development of a pan-Canadian strategy to address the needs of the aging population. B) Incenting savings for future continuing care needs According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), long-term care spending in Canada averaged 1.2% of GDP over the 2006-10 period and could more than double to 2.5% by 2060. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association estimates there will be an unfunded long-term care liability of $590 billion over and above existing government programs as the boomer generation passes through their old age1. Of the approaches available to address this unfunded liability, encouraging and incentivizing individuals to save for their future continuing care needs is the least demanding of public finances as compared with increased personal or business income taxes or mandatory contributions. There has been increasing interest among Canadians with focused savings vehicles established by the federal government. There continues to be increased uptake with Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs) to support post-secondary education. The growth in RESP assets was significant in 2011 and 2012, representing an average annual rate of 12.6%.2 There has also been increased uptake in the use of tax sheltered individual savings vehicles, such as the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA). According to a Finance Canada report, as of 2011 there were 8.2 million individuals with a TFSA, representing 31% of tax filers, and they contributed $30.7 billion in that year. The report noted that the greatest proportionate growth in TFSA uptake was observed among those with incomes of less than $20,000, with their participation rate almost doubling from 11% in 2009 to 20% in 20113. Recommendation: The CMA recommends that the federal government use its economic levers to encourage Canadians to save over their lifetime for future continuing and long-term care needs not covered under the Canada Health Act. C) Promoting Healthy Ageing The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) defines healthy ageing as "the process of optimizing opportunities for physical, social and mental health to enable seniors to take an active part in society without discrimination and to enjoy independence and quality of life." Such initiatives could focus on: * Physical activity - 57% of seniors in 2008 reported being physically inactive4; * Injury prevention - 40% of admissions to nursing homes, 62% of injury-related hospitalizations, and almost 90% of hip fractures are due to falls by seniors5; * Nutrition - 28% of men and 31% of women over 65 were obese (BMI = 30); this is higher than the population average. Underweight is also a problem among seniors, 17% of whom report a BMI of 20 or less6. The federal government has already undertaken steps to address healthy ageing among Canada's seniors, such as 'Seniors: Active. Engaged. Informed'. In funding over 13,000 projects across Canada, the New Horizons for Seniors Program has demonstrated success in enabling new programs to achieve specific goals; this program can be harnessed to deliver projects focused on promoting healthy ageing. Recommendation: The CMA recommends that the New Horizons for Seniors program be expanded by $5 million per year to include funding for programs promoting healthy ageing activities for Canadian seniors. 2. Ensuring the availability and access to continuing care "When we poll CARP members, they call for leadership in helping Canadians save for retirement, get home care when they need it and get access to affordable drug." Susan Eng, VP, Advocacy for CARP - February 2014 A) Addressing the Continuing Care Infrastructure Crisis A major issue facing health care systems across the country is the high number of alternate level of care patients (ALC) in acute care hospitals. ALC patients-many of whom are seniors-are those who have completed the acute care phase of their treatment but remain in an acute care bed or who are admitted into a hospital bed due to the lack of more appropriate assisted living settings. The CMA supports efforts to allow Canadian seniors to remain in the community as long as possible. However, there are increasing pressures on the continuing care sector given the rise in the number of seniors with complex health and social needs. These pressures not only relate to the construction of new facilities, including assisted living units and other innovative residential models for seniors, but apply as well to the need to upgrade and retrofit existing facilities7. Despite increasing the availability of home care, Canada will face a significant infrastructure shortage in the continuing care sector. The CMA estimates this infrastructure shortage costs the health care system about $2.3 billion a year; this cost is estimated to skyrocket as our population ages. Recommendation: The CMA recommends the federal government deliver $2.3 billion in funding to leverage provincial/territorial strategic investment in the construction, renovation and retrofitting of assisted living units, other innovative residential models, and long-term care facilities. B) Supporting Caregivers The 2011 Budget introduced a new non-refundable Family Caregiver Tax Credit to provide tax relief to those who provide informal care for a dependent relative within their home. However, the credit is limited to 15% of a maximum $2,040 in expenses for 2013 or a maximum sum of $306. While this credit can be added to other tax credits, the total amount is small in relation to the burden experienced by caregivers and it remains non-refundable. The CMA is concerned that the scarcity of financial support and programs supporting caregivers represents significant risks in relation to economic costs, lower productivity, impacts on the labour market, inefficiencies within the health care system and, most importantly, patient care. Informal caregivers are the backbone of any health care and social care system. The work of the 1.5 to 2 million caregivers in Canada is estimated at $25-26 billion annually, while incurring $80 million dollars annually in out-of-pocket costs8. The role of informal caregivers will only increase with the move to providing more care at home. Recommendation: The CMA recommends the federal government make the Family Caregiver Tax Credit a refundable tax credit as part of an effort to better support informal caregivers. 3. Accelerating innovation in health care through enhanced use of electronic medical records (EMRs) "The need for innovation ..., both in terms of medical technologies and healthcare delivery systems, is one of the most pressing public policy challenges of our times." Hon. Rona Ambrose, Health Minister - January 2014 The CMA supports prioritizing continuing the development and meaningful use of electronic medical records (EMRs). A recent report estimates the costs of a pan-Canadian electronic health record (EHR) between $7.9 billion and $16.0 billion9 while total gross savings over a 20-year range were projected at over $82 billion. To date, approximately $2.1 billion in federal funding has been invested. Five national benefit evaluation studies have been commissioned since 2008 and these analyses estimated $7.7 billion in benefits to date as a result of this investment10. This initial investment has resulted in digitized health care information and paper processes, and created a robust marketplace for innovation by EMR vendors. As such, the value of investments in EMRs is emerging. The 2013 National Physicians Survey11 indicated that: * Almost 70% of medical general practitioners (GPs) and specialists now use an EMR, up from 56% in 2012 and 37% in 2009. * 45% of GPs and 40% of specialists report increased or greatly increased efficiency due to the use of EMRs. * 63% of GPs and 50% of specialists report the quality of patient care they provide is better or much better since they started using an EMR. The next step in the evolution of EMRs is enhanced use. In Canada, federal investment does not extend beyond the equivalent of the first stage of the U.S. framework for Meaningful Use. There remain significant gaps in funding to achieve enhanced use of EMRs by clinicians, regional interoperability, and to structure EMR data to leverage big data analytics. Recommendation: The CMA recommends the federal government continue to fund Canada Health Infoway (CHI) to administer remaining project funds from the $500 million allocated in 2009, and allocate an additional $500 million, to be administered by CHI, for projects to achieve enhanced use of EMRs. 1 Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Helping Canadians prepare for long-term care costs. CLHIA report on long-term care policy. 2014. 2 Employment and Social Development Canada. 2012 CESP Annual Statistical Review. http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/student/reports/statistics/cesp_2012.shtml#h2.4-h3.1 3 There is a detailed analysis of the TFSA in the 2012 Tax Expenditures and Evaluations report by Finance Canada (Pages 31-42 in http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2012/taxexp-depfisc12-eng.pdf). 4 PHAC 2010 5 PHAC 2010 6 PHAC 2010 7 Canadian Medical Association, The Need for Health Infrastructure in Canada. Submitted to Hon. Denis Lebel, PC, MP Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. March 18, 2013. 8 Hollander, M.J, Liu, G., Chappeell, N.L. (2009). Who cares and how much? The imputed economic contribution to the Canadian health care system of middle aged and older unpaid caregivers providing care to the elderly. Healthcare Quarterly, 12(2), 42-59. 9 https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/index.php/resources/video-gallery/doc_download/86-canada-health-infoway-s-10-year-investment-strategy-vol-3 10 Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Evaluation; EMR Evaluation; Telehealth evaluation; Drug Information Systems (DIS) evaluation; Diagnostic Imaging (DI) systems evaluation 11 http://nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-National-ENr.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

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

Submission to Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11439
Date
2014-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-12-08
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Since 2010, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been calling for health care transformation in Canada to better meet the needs of Canadians. A high performing health care system must be able to respond to the changing nature of its population's health needs. The CMA believes that seniors care is the paramount health care issue of our time. Our older population will double over the next 20 years, while the 85 and older group is set to quadruple. Currently, we spend almost half of all our health care dollars on seniors. Improving seniors' care will go a long way to fixing our health care system; this is because strategies to address the needs of this population can be leveraged to address the needs of other population groups. That is why CMA has called for the development of a Pan-Canadian Seniors Strategy as a necessary first step. The CMA welcomes the creation of the Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation to better prepare health systems across the country for the above challenges and to contribute toward the sustainability of Canada's public finances and social programs. This brief identifies five important innovations that will not only benefit Canada's growing seniors population but the broader Canadian population as well. Five Innovations to Improve our Health Care System 1. Supportive living models and palliative care Canada suffers from a lack of integrated community/residential supports and palliative care models, contributing to poor patient outcomes, significant inappropriate use of health care resources, and higher health care costs. An obvious sign of this gap is the significant number of alternate-level-of care (ALC) patients-most of whom are seniors-languishing in hospitals across Canada. ALC patients are those inpatients that no longer require acute care and are waiting for placement in a more appropriate setting. According to a 2009 Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) report, dementia accounted for almost one-quarter of ALC hospitalizations and more than one-third of ALC days.i Dementia is the leading cause of dependency and disability among older persons. The Wait Time Alliance (WTA) has stated that the most important action to improve timely access to specialty care for all Canadians is by addressing the issue of alternate-level-of-care (ALC) patients.ii The creation of supportive and integrated living models particularly for the frail elderly and those with dementia would lead to improved health outcomes for these patients as well as savings to the health care system. * Supportive living models can involve providing technology and human resources to support seniors to stay in their home. It has been estimated that tele-homecare could yield an annual reduction in approximately $540 million in inpatient costs and $23 million in emergency department visit costs.iii * For others, particularly those with dementia, residential care models are required that can properly support their needs and provide the highest quality of life possible. A few such models are already in existence but more are required. Models include the Bruyère Village in Ottawa (http://www.bruyere.org/bruyere-village) and Saskatoon's Sherbrooke Community Centre (http://www.sherbrookecommunitycentre.ca/). CMA recommends that federal and provincial infrastructure programs allow for innovative residential care options to be eligible for funding. * Despite the vast majority (96%) of Canadians supporting the use of palliative and hospice care in end-of-life care, only 16-30% of Canadians who are dying have access to or receive hospice, palliative and end-of-life servicesiv. This issue must be addressed immediately across the country. Currently, there is no standard palliative and hospice care model in Canada. However, there are some innovative programs around the country that are leading the way to higher quality palliative care (e.g., West Island Palliative Care Residence in Quebec). The CMA is currently preparing a report to inform health care decision makers including physicians on tools to integrate palliative and hospice care services in their respective communities. But assistance is required to implement innovative practice models across the country. 2. Integrated strategies for high-users of health care and at-risk populations It is now recognized that a targeted approach is necessary to make substantive change to improve the health status of populations; including reducing health inequities and ensuring more appropriate access to health care resources by those citizens who have a range of socio-economic needs. Approximately five percent of patients account for two-thirds (66 percent) of provincial health expenditures-many of whom are elderly. This picture is consistent across the country.v This high use is often due to systemic issues, such as poor integration or lack of access, rather than the choices of these patients. There is general agreement that multi-sectoral approaches are necessary that involve the integration of clinical and social care as well as other sectors to best address this population group that often has polymorbidities. Programs are being implemented in a few provinces at the regional or provider level to try and accommodate the needs of the high-users population by coordinating and integrating care for the benefit of the patient and the family. Examples include Health Links in Ontario and the Regional Integrated Complex Patient Care Planning (RICP2) program at Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. However, funding models-particularly for inter-sectoral approaches-to support the wide-spread adoption of these approaches are rare. In addition to the high-users are those populations that feature a high burden of illness. Hundreds of research papers have confirmed that people in the lowest socio-economic groups carry the greatest burden of illness.vi 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.vii As with the high-user group, a multi-sectoral approach is required to address the social determinants of health. While it is important for society to strive to eliminate poverty and provide adequate housing and food security, the health care sector can also contribute. Some innovative programs have been put in place such as the Well North program in the United Kingdom that is targeted at improving the health of the poorest fastest, reducing premature mortality and reducing worklessness.viii In Canada, the St. Michael's family health team has an income security specialist on their multi-disciplinary team. This individual helps patients to navigate the government's social services system, will help patients reduce expenses, complete their taxes, set up bank accounts, access free programs, budget and save for emergencies. These patients are identified through screening conducted by family physicians on the team. There are innovative approaches being developed to address the needs of high-volume users as well as at-risk populations. As many of these innovations involve greater integration between health and the community sector and attention to issues not traditionally funded through health care payment systems, there is a need to provide access to funds to enable these innovations to continue and be spread across the country. A targeted, integrated approach to identify communities in need is required and this must be based on reliable community data (i.e., meaningful use of patient data) which can be used to integrate resources to improve health status. The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) is Canada's first multi-disease electronic medical records (EMR) surveillance and research system that allows family physicians, epidemiologists and researchers from across the country to better understand and manage chronic care conditions for their patients. Health information is collected from EMRs in the offices of participating primary care providers (e.g. family physicians) for the purposes of improving the quality of care for Canadians suffering from chronic and mental health conditions and three neurologic conditions including Alzheimer's and related dementias. CPCSSN makes it possible to securely collect and report on vital information from Canadians' health records to improve the way these chronic diseases and neurologic conditions are managed (http://cpcssn.ca/). Despite this innovative approach to sharing information to better manage chronic care conditions, its five-year federal funding terminates in 2015. The estimated cost of continuing the project is approximately $3 million per year. 3. Optimal prescribing Poor prescribing can lead to poor patient outcomes and unnecessary costs to the health care system (e.g., fractured hips from falls). The evidence is clear that many seniors in Canada are exposed to inappropriate drug therapy. Data from European countries such as Denmark, , show that inappropriate prescribing can be controlled with only 5.8% of elderly patients using an inappropriate medication in a four month period in 2001. In Canada, CIHI studied senior's drug claims from public programs in four provinces from 2000 to 2006 and found that the rate of inappropriate drug use in 2005-06 varied from 25.2% in Manitoba to 31.3% in New Brunswick. The rate of regular use of such medications ranged from 12.9% in Alberta to 18.8 % in New Brunswick. E-prescribing decreases the likelihood of adverse drug events or interactions, and provides tools to monitor both patient adherence and practitioner prescribing patterns. One component of an optimal prescribing strategy would be to provide support to provincial/territorial ministries of health to complete the implementation of drug information systems and regional e-prescribing solutions, and/or to develop an agenda to accomplish the enhanced use of electronic medical records. A second component of an optimal prescribing initiative would be the development of a collaboration of content experts and professional associations to raise awareness of inappropriate prescribing among physicians and other health professionals and then to develop online educational courses and practice tools to assist at the point of care. Initially the focus might be on prescribing for seniors, but subsequently could expand to cover other priority topics such as inappropriate antibiotic use or the use of narcotics for non-cancer pain. 4. Choosing Wisely Canada - Reducing the provision of low value care A disconcerting proportion of health care, estimated in the United States to be as much as 30%, confers little of no benefit on patients and may, through exposure to excess radiation, drug reactions, adverse events during procedures, or the worry associated with false positive tests, actually cause harm. This represents both sub-optimal quality of care and poor stewardship of scarce health care resources. The provision of unnecessary care is driven by many elements including physician habit, lack of up-to-date clinician knowledge, patient demand, and structural or financial incentives in the health system. To counter these diverse influences the CMA partnered with the University of Toronto to launch Choosing Wisely Canada, a campaign to facilitate evidence-informed conversations between physicians and patients about the necessity of tests and treatment about low-value tests and treatment. As of October 2014, 102 recommendations have been developed by national specialty societies about clinical activities that generally should be avoided. For example, the Canadian Geriatrics Society advises physicians and patients against the use of antipsychotics as a first choice to treat behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia as well as against the use of benzodiazepines or other sedative-hypnotics in older adults as a first choice for insomnia, agitation or delirium. Within its first year of operation the campaign enlisted over 30 national specialty societies, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, all provincial and territorial medical associations, and six large citizen groups. To date the campaign has been resourced by seed funding from the Ontario government, direct contribution from the CMA, and a modest contribution agreement from Health Canada. If the early success of Choosing Wisely Canada is to be sustained, secure long-term funding is essential. Such resources are necessary to support the development and dissemination of materials to raise physician awareness, provide educational opportunities, make available point-of-care tools, assist with implementation at the practice level, and contribute to data collection for evaluation. The medical professional has clearly stepped forward to take ownership of the low value care challenge; they deserve federal support to ensure a successful long-term outcome. 5. National Health Care Guidance Institute Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have a unique ability to enhance quality of care. The peer-reviewed literature provides robust evidence that guideline use is associated with a positive impact on both processes of care and patient outcomes. Additionally, a number of studies have reported that the application of specific CPGs result in cost-effective care, including, for example, those used in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, stroke prevention in primary care, traumatic brain injury, and the use of lipid-lowering drugs. Conditions such as these gain particular significance in the face of an aging population: what is the out-patient antibiotic of choice in an elderly patient with pneumonia?; in an older patient with a cardiac arrhythmia what are the comparative risks of treatment with anticoagulants versus possible cerebrovascular accident?; at what age is it no longer helpful to treat hyperlipidemia? CPGs available at the point of care provide evidence-based answers to such questions. Internationally, national governments have recognized the value of CPGs and taken a leadership role in ensuring their quality and making them available to practitioners. Three among many examples are: United States (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Guideline Clearinghouse); United Kingdom (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence); and Australia (National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute of Clinical Studies). The challenge is that CPGs are not uniformly utilized across Canada nor do we possess a national body or systematic approach to CPG development and dissemination. There are various models that can be implemented to execute this function (e.g., full function agency, collaborative virtual agency) to perform such key functions as prioritizing areas for guideline development, maintaining a national repository and driving active dissemination. The key is having a dedicated agency that can oversee the development and dissemination of CPGs at a pan-Canadian level to improve the quality of care that Canadians receive. Federal mechanisms to support health innovation All health systems in Canada and elsewhere are facing the challenge to better meet the needs of their seniors' population. National governments can provide necessary direction and support. The federal government must play a leadership role on seniors care and supporting health care innovation in concert with the provinces and territories and as a system manager itself for those patients falling under federal jurisdiction (e.g., armed forces). This can begin with a First Ministers' Conference as part of the development of a Pan-Canadian Seniors Strategy. CMA recognizes there are elements of transformation already taking place in the country across the continuum of care that are being supported by technological innovation or clinical innovation (e.g., Choosing Wisely Canada). However, in many cases, there is little funding available to fund projects beyond pilot project status or bring them up to scale, and there is very little cross-country awareness of these "pockets of excellence" due to the absence of mechanisms to share best practices. Accordingly, CMA recommends the establishment of a National Health System Innovation Fund targeted to provinces and territories to support the adoption of health system innovations including those identified in this brief. Funding criteria should be designed to not only support the development of these innovations but to incent their adoption on a scaled-up basis. Finally, recognizing the relationship of the social determinants of health on the demands of the health care system, the federal government should implement a requirement for all cabinet decision-making to include a health-in-all policies approach whereby all polices from tax, to transportation, to trade would undergo a health lens to ensure that negative health impacts were minimized/eliminated and positive health outcomes were supported or expanded. This would help to minimize the often unintended health consequences that arise from policies outside of the health sector. Conclusion This brief identifies five opportunities for innovating Canada's health care system by improving seniors care-the paramount health care issue of our time. Our proposed innovations would not only improve the efficient delivery of health care but more importantly the quality of care provided to all Canadians. These innovation initiatives require medical leadership at the point of care level in tandem with change at the broader system level with federal support. Together, these innovations can further contribute to the transformation of Canada's health care system-one that better meets the needs of Canadians today and into the future. i Canadian Institute for Health Information. Alternate level of care in Canada. Ottawa (ON): The Institute; 2009. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/ALC_AIB_FINAL.pdf ii Wait Time Alliance, Shedding light on Canadians' total wait for care. Report card on wait times in Canada. June 2012. iii Telehealth Benefits and Adoption: Connecting People and Providers Across Canada. Praxia and Gartner. May, 30, 2011. iv Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association. 2014. Fact sheet: hospice palliative care in Canada. [Accessed 11 November 2014]. Available from http://www.chpca.net/media/330558/Fact_Sheet_HPC_in_Canada%20Spring%202014%20Final.pdf v Canadian Institute for Health Information. Pan-Canadian forum on high users of health care-Summary report. The Institute: 2014. vi 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 vii 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 viii http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/12107-WhatIsWellNorth.pdf
Documents
Less detail

9 records – page 1 of 1.