Results

8 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

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

Position statement on bodychecking in youth ice hockey

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10758

Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-05-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2013-05-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Hockey is one of the most popular sports for Canadian children and youth. While the health benefits of physical activity and sport participation are well recognized, there is increasing concern around the frequency and severity of hockey-related injuries, particularly concussion. Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism associated with youth hockey injuries, including concussion. Policy to delay bodychecking until bantam league play (when participants are 13 to 14 years of age) will reduce the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from non-elite youth ice hockey. The age at which bodychecking is introduced in competitive hockey leagues must be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories, and must be re-evaluated prospectively in light of emerging research. More than 4.5 million Canadians are involved in ice hockey, as coaches, officials, administrators or direct volunteers, and hockey is the most popular winter sport among Canadian children and youth.[1] Hockey Canada reported over 550,000 registered players under the age of 19 in 2008, and participation rates are increasing, especially among girls and young women.[1] While the health benefits of physical activity and sport participation are well recognized, there is increasing concern around the frequency and severity of hockey-related injuries in youth, particularly concussion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) classifies hockey as a collision sport because of unintentional and intentional body contact, including bodychecking.[2] The AAP published a policy statement on youth ice hockey in 2000, recommending that bodychecking not be allowed for children younger than 15 years of age.[3] There is passionate debate about the risk factors for injury in youth hockey and the relative merits of early or later introduction of bodychecking. Because bodychecking is not allowed in girls' or women's hockey in Canada, the present statement pertains to play in boys' and men's hockey leagues. It reviews the scientific literature on bodychecking injuries, outlines positions in the current debate and makes recommendations on when bodychecking should be introduced into the game. DEFINING BODY CONTACT AND BODYCHECKING Body contact is an individual defensive tactic designed to legally block or impede the progress of an offensive puck carrier. The defensive player moves to restrict action by the puck carrier anywhere on the ice, by skating, angling and positioning. The defensive player cannot hit the offensive player by travelling in an opposite direction to him or by physically extending toward him in an effort to initiate contact. There must be no action where the puck carrier is pushed, hit or shoved into the boards. In contrast, bodychecking is an individual defensive tactic designed to legally separate the puck carrier from the puck. The defensive player physically extends his body toward the puck carrier while moving in an opposite or parallel direction, a deliberate and forceful move not solely determined by the movement of the puck carrier.[1] Bodychecking is taught based on a four-step skill development program outlined by Hockey Canada, with progression through positioning and angling, stick checking, body contact and bodychecking skills.[4] Instruction in bodychecking includes techniques for receiving bodychecks, adhering to rules, and safe play. BODYCHECKING LEGISLATION Hockey Canada groups children and adolescents by age into six play levels: initiation (5 to 6 years of age), novice (7 to 8 years), atom (9 to 10 years), peewee (11 to 12 years), bantam (13 to 14 years), and midget (15 to 17 years). Historically, from the early 1980s until the 2002/2003 season, bodychecking was introduced at age 12 years in Canadian boys' ice hockey. In 2003, four of 13 provincial/territorial branches allowed checking for players as young as nine years old. Hockey Canada mandated the introduction of bodychecking in peewee leagues (ages 11 to 12) in 2009. Quebec has delayed bodychecking until bantam (age 14 from 1978 to 2002, then age 13 following an age change mandated nationally). THE DEBATE Despite lack of evidence, proponents of bodychecking argue that it is a fundamental skill which, learned early, may prevent future injuries. However, the evidence supports that bodychecking is the most common mechanism of injury. The Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine recommends that bodychecking be introduced only in boys' competitive hockey, and no earlier than the bantam (ages 13 to14) or midget (ages 15 to 17) level.[5] The AAP recommends a ban on bodychecking for male players younger than 15 years of age.[3] The present statement marks the first CPS position on this issue. BODYCHECKING AND INJURY Hockey is recognized as a high-risk sport. The speed of play, body contact and bodychecking all contribute to injury risk.[6][7] The injury rate is also high, with Canadian data suggesting that hockey injuries account for 8% to 11% of all adolescent sport-related injuries.[8][10] Unfortunately, serious injuries such as concussion, other brain injuries and spinal cord trauma are not uncommon in hockey.[6][11] The incidence of traumatic brain injury appears to be rising.[12][13] Ice hockey-related fatality rates are double those reported in American football, and catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury rates are almost four times higher for high school hockey players than for high school and college football players.[14][15] Bodychecking is the predominant mechanism of injury among youth hockey players at all levels of competition where it is permitted, accounting for 45% to 86% of injuries.[8][16]-[18] Several published studies, including two recent systematic reviews, reported on risk factors for injury (including bodychecking) in youth hockey.[19][20] Emery and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 24 studies and a meta-analysis including only studies which examined policy allowing bodychecking as a risk factor for injury. Policy allowing bodychecking was found to be a risk factor for all hockey injuries, with a summary incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.7 to 3.6). Furthermore, policy allowing bodychecking was found to be a risk factor for concussion, with a summary OR of 1.71 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.44). These data confirm that bodychecking increases the risk of all injuries and the risk of concussion specifically.[20] Nine of ten studies examining policy allowing bodychecking provided evidence to support a greater risk in bodychecking leagues.[20] The second systematic review found the RR of injury associated with policy allowing bodychecking ranged from 0.6 to 39.8; all but one of these studies found an increased risk of injuries associated with bodychecking.[19] Since the publication of these systematic reviews there have been five additional studies. A Canadian prospective cohort study compared injury rates between peewee ice hockey players in a league where bodychecking is permitted at age 11 years (Alberta) versus players in a league where bodychecking is not permitted until age 13 (Quebec).[21] During the 2007/2008 season, a validated injury surveillance system was used to capture all injuries requiring medical attention and/or time loss from hockey (ie, time between injury and return to play) in 2154 players. There was a threefold increased risk of all game-related injuries (IRR =3.26 [95% CI; 2.31 to 4.60]) and of injury resulting in >7 days time lost from sport (IRR=3.30 [95% CI; 1.77 to 6.17]) in 11- to 12- year-old peewee players from Alberta when compared with Quebec. There was also an almost fourfold increased risk of game-related concussion (IRR=3.88 [95% CI; 1.91 to 7.89]) in Alberta peewee players.[21] Further evidence was reported in a five-year cohort study (2002 to 2007) including all age groups, which demonstrated that injury risk increases 3.75 times (IRR=3.75 [95% CI; 1.51 to 9.74]) in leagues that allow bodychecking compared with those that do not.[22] A second prospective cohort study by Emery et al examined whether the introduction of bodychecking at 11 years of age (Alberta) or 13 years of age (Quebec) affected injury rates in later years (at 13 to 14 years of age).[23] During the 2008/09 season, the same injury surveillance system cited above was used to study 1971 bantam players (13- to 14-year-olds). There was no reduction in game-related injury risk (all injuries) for this age group (IRR=0.85 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.16]), of concussion specifically (IRR=0.84 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.48]), or of concussions resulting in >10 days time lost from sport (IRR=0.6 [95% CI 0.26 to 1.41]) in the Alberta league, compared with Quebec. In fact, the concussion rate found in Alberta peewee players was higher than in bantam players in either province.[22][23] Injuries to bantam players resulting in >7 days time lost from sport were reduced by 33% (IRR=0.67 [95% CI 0.46 to 0.99]) in the Alberta league, where players had had two years of bodychecking experience. However, these findings must be interpreted in light of the three- to fourfold greater injury and concussion risk among peewee players in Alberta, along with a possibly higher 'survival effect' among peewee players moving on to bantam in Quebec when compared with Alberta, where bodychecking is allowed in peewee league play. Recent retrospective studies have examined the influence of policy change based on the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) surveillance data. Injury rates among boys presenting to emergency departments in the Kingston, Ontario area both before and after the 2002 rule change to allow bodychecking in younger players, were reported. There was no change between bodychecking injury rates in 1997 to 2002 (with bodychecking introduced at 11 years of age) and 2003 to 2007 (when bodychecking was introduced at nine years of age).[24] Overall rates of injury actually declined over the later period.[24] However, this retrospective study may also be biased by stronger rule enforcement, better coaching certification and temporal declines in emergency department use for this type of injury over that period. In contrast, retrospective research of CHIRPP data from 1994 to 2004 in five Ontario hospitals examined injury risk following a rule change in 1998 that allowed bodychecking in nine- and 10-year-old hockey players. A 2.2 times greater risk of injury in atom players (9 and 10 years of age) after the rule change was reported (OR=2.2 [95% CI 1.7 to 2.84]).[25] Another retrospective study using CHIRPP data (from 1995 to 2002) compared hockey injuries in children 10 to 13 years of age playing in Ontario, where bodychecking was allowed, with data from Quebec, where bodychecking was not allowed. There was a 2.6 times greater risk of bodycheck-related injuries reported for this age group when bodychecking was allowed (OR=2.65 [95% CI 2.21 to 3.18]).[26] OTHER RISK FACTORS After policy that permits bodychecking, the most commonly investigated risk factors for injury in the scientific literature are: age, session-type (ie, a practice versus a game), level of play, player position, physical size, and a previous history of injury and/or concussion. Most studies examining age found that injury risk increased with age;[8][20][27][29] others suggest no elevated injury risk in older age groups.[30]-[33] Relative age has been examined to "describe the potential advantages (or disadvantages) that result from age differences between peers within one age group".[31] One study examining relative age among hockey players found no evidence that younger (or older) players within a grouping were at elevated injury risk.[31] Additional research supports this finding at the peewee level, where no increased risk was found in first-year players. In bantam leagues, however, there was a 40% greater risk of injury in first-year players when compared with players in their second year.[21][23] Based on session-type, injury risk is reported to be consistently higher in games than in practices, with RR estimates ranging from 2.45 to 6.32.[16][18][27][34] One study also indicated that injury rates were higher in regular season play than during preseason, postseason or tournament games.[30] In general, studies examining level of play have found that injury risks rise with increasing skill levels across all age groups.[31][35][36] However, one study reported that only peewee players in the highest skill division were at the greatest risk of injury, with no significant increase by skill level in other age groups.[8] Larger cohort studies confirmed a consistently greater risk of injury among peewee players who were more highly skilled, but this trend was not observed in the bantam age group.[21][23] When examining player position, some researchers found that forwards were at higher risk of injury than defencemen or goalies, [30][32] while others reported the relative risk of injury was 2.18 times higher for defencemen than forwards.[27] In all three studies, goalies were shown to be at much lower risk than other players. Additional research shows a consistent protective effect for goalies at both the peewee and bantam levels.[21][23] Research on player size has shown conflicting results, with some studies citing increased risk for smaller players in some age groups. Prospective Canadian data show a significantly greater risk of injury in peewee players in the lowest 25th percentile by weight, [21] though this finding was not reflected in the bantam cohort.[23] However, additional research has found lighter bantam players to be at greater risk, while other studies report a significant weight difference, at all levels, between players who sustained a bodychecking-related injury and those who did not.[16][30] Other research examining body weight as a risk factor for shoulder injuries found that heavier players were at greater risk for these injuries.[37] One study looked at height as a possible risk factor for injury and found no evidence of effect among bantam players.[16] By contrast, a history of previous injury or concussion is consistently reported as a significant risk factor for reinjury and further concussion, respectively.[20] One recent Canadian peewee cohort study showed that the risk of injury doubled for players who reported being injured within the past year (IRR=2.07 [95% CI 1.49 to 2.86]), while the risk of concussion tripled for players reporting any previous concussion (2.76 [95% CI 1.1 to 6.91]).[21] The bantam cohort also showed greater risk of reinjury and concussion in players reporting previous injury within the past year (IRR=1.39 [95% CI 1.13 to 1.71]) or any previous concussion (IRR=1.87 [95% CI 1.19 to 2.94]), respectively.[21] INJURY PREVENTION AND RISK REDUCTION Injury prevention and risk reduction programs have been implemented but have not been evaluated rigorously. The STOP (Safety Towards Other Players) program (www.safetytowardsotherplayers.com) is supported by the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (www.omha.net), and includes an education component and the "STOP patch", which is sewn on the back of players' uniforms to remind opponents not to hit from behind. A study evaluating another injury prevention program, "Fair Play", which awards points for sportsmanlike play (based on penalty minutes), suggests an approximate 60% reduction in the risk of injury (OR=0.41 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.47]) where the program is in effect, but the results were not statistically significant.[38] EDUCATION Players, parents, coaches, officials and trainers must be mindful of the potential risks of playing hockey. Hockey Canada has player development, coaching, education and safety promotion programs and resources for coaches, officials, players and parents at www.hockeycanada.ca. Concussion awareness is vital. Athletes and all those involved in their care need to know about the risks, symptoms/signs and how to manage concussive injuries. The CPS statement on concussion evaluation and management is essential reading [39], with additional information available from the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine (www.casm-acms.org), ThinkFirst Canada (www.thinkfirst.ca) and the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Coaches_Tool_Kit.htm). CONCLUSION Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism of hockey-related injuries, including concussion. It is expected that delaying the introduction of bodychecking until the bantam level and restricting bodychecking to elite leagues for older age groups will reduce the risks of injury and concussion substantially. Delaying bodychecking until bantam will have a clear benefit in reducing the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from recreational youth ice hockey and the age at which it is introduced in competitive hockey leagues should be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories in Canada, and policy changes will need to be evaluated on a regular basis in light of emerging research. RECOMMENDATIONS The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends the following: * Eliminating bodychecking from all levels of organized recreational/non-elite competitive male ice hockey. (Grade II-2A evidence) * * Delaying the introduction of bodychecking in elite male competitive leagues until players are 13 to 14 years of age (bantam level) or older. (Grade III-C evidence)* * Implementing Hockey Canada's four-stage skill development program for bodychecking (body positioning, angling, stick checking and body contact) for all leagues. * Educating coaches and trainers, schools, and policy-makers in sport about the signs and symptoms of common hockey injuries, especially concussion. * Improving injury surveillance to better identify the risk factors for, and mechanisms of, hockey injuries. * Policies to reduce injury and promote fair play in hockey, for all age groups and league levels. Clinicians who see young hockey players in their practice should offer the following advice: * Girls and young women should continue participating in non-bodychecking leagues. * Boys should play in recreational/non-elite hockey leagues that do not allow bodychecking. * Elite male players should play in hockey leagues that introduce bodychecking later, when players are 13 to 14 years of age (bantam level) or older. * All players should adhere to fair play and a non-violent sport culture. * Parents and caregivers should learn injury prevention and risk reduction strategies, including concussion prevention, recognition and management. *The levels of evidence and strength of recommendations are based on the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (See Table 1). [40][41] TABLE 1: [SEE PDF] Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations Level of evidence Description I Evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial. II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trial without randomization. II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-controlled analytical studies, preferably from more than one centre or research group. II-3 Evidence obtained from comparisons between times and places, with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments could also be included in this category. III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees. Grade Description A There is good evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action. B There is fair evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action. C The existing evidence is conflicting and does not allow a recommendation to be made for or against use of the clinical preventive action; however, other factors may influence decision-making. D There is fair evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action. E There is good evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action. F There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation; however, other factors may influence decision-making. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This statement was reviewed by the Community Paediatrics and Injury Prevention Committees of the Canadian Paediatric Society. Thanks to Drs. Claire MA LeBlanc, Stan Lipnowski, Peter Nieman, Christina G Templeton and Thomas J Warshawski for their input as past members of the CPS Healthy Active Living and Sports Medicine Committee. HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING AND SPORTS MEDICINE COMMITTEE Members: Catherine Birken MD; Tracey L Bridger MD (Chair); Mark E Feldman MD (Board Representative); Kristin M Houghton MD; Michelle Jackman MD; John F Philpott MD Liaison: Laura K Purcell MD, CPS Paediatric Sports and Exercise Medicine Section Principal authors: Kristin M Houghton MD; Carolyn A Emery PT PhD May 2013 REFERENCES 1. Hockey Canada, Annual report 2008: www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/55192/la_id/1.htm (Accessed July 4, 2012). 2. Rice SG; American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness. Medical conditions affecting sports participation. Pediatrics 2008;121(4):841-8. 3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness. Safety in youth ice hockey: The effects of body checking. Pediatrics 2000;105(3 Pt 1):657-8. 4. Hockey Canada. Teaching checking: A progressive approach. 2002: www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Teaching%20Checking.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2012). 5. Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine. Position Statement: Violence and injuries in ice hockey. 1988. www.casm-acms.org/forms/statements/HockeyViolEng.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2012). 6. Emery CA, Risk factors for injury in child and adolescent sport: A systematic review of the literature. Clin J Sport Med 2003;13(4):256-68. 7. Caine D, Caine C, Maffulli N. Incidence and distribution of pediatric sport-related injuries. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16(6):500-13. 8. Emery CA, Meeuwisse WH. Injury rates, risk factors, and mechanisms of injury in minor hockey [comment]. Am J Sports Med 2006;34(12):1960-9. 9. Emery CA, Meeuwisse WH, McAllister JR. Survey of sport participation and sport injury in Calgary and area high schools. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16(1):20-6. 10. Emery C, Tyreman H. Sport participation, sport injury, risk factors and sport safety practices in Calgary and area junior high schools. Paediatr Child Health 2009;14(7):439-44. 11. Tator CH, Carson JD, Cushman R. Hockey injuries of the spine in Canada, 1966-1996 [comment]. CMAJ 2000;162(6):787-8. 12. Proctor MR, Cantu RC. Head and neck injuries in young athletes. Clin Sports Med 2000;19(4): 693-715. 13. Kelly KD, Lissel HL, Rowe BH, Vincenten JA, Voaklander DC. Sport and recreation-related head injuries treated in the emergency department. Clin J Sport Med 2001;11(2):77-81. 14. Mueller FO, Cantu RC. Catastrophic injuries and fatalities in high school and college sports, fall 1982-spring 1988. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990;22(6):737-41. 15. Cantu RC, Mueller FO. Fatalities and catastrophic injuries in high school and college sports, 1982-1997: Lessons for improving safety. Phys Sportsmed 1999;27(8):35-48. 16. Brust JD, Leonard BJ, Pheley A, Roberts WO. Children's ice hockey injuries. Am J Dis Child 1992;146(6):741-7. 17. Bernard D, Trudel P. Marcotte G. The incidence, types, and circumstances of injuries to ice hockey players at the bantam level (14 to 15 years old). In: Hoerner E, ed. Safety in Ice Hockey. Philadephia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993:44-55. 18. Benson B, Meeuwisse WH. Ice hockey injuries. In: Maffulli N, Caine DJ, eds. Epidemiology of Pediatric Sports Injuries: Team Sports. Basel: S Karger AG, 2005:86-119. 19. Warsh JM, Constantin SA, Howard A, Macpherson A. A systematic review of the association between body checking and injury in youth ice hockey. Clin J Sport Med 2009;19(2):134-44. 20. Emery CA, Hagel B, Decloe M, Carly M. Risk factors for injury and severe injury in youth ice hockey: A systematic review of the literature. Inj Prev 2010;16(2):113-8. 21. Emery CA, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with body checking among youth ice hockey players. JAMA 2010;303(22):2265-72. 22. Darling, SR, Schaubel DE, Baker JG, Leddy JJ, Bisson LJ, Willer B. Intentional versus unintentional contact as a mechanism of injury in youth ice hockey. Br J Sports Med 2011;45(6):492-7. 23. Emery C, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with bodychecking experience among youth hockey players. CMAJ 2011;183(11):1249-56. 24. Kukaswadia A, Warsh J, Mihalik JP, Pickett W. Effects of changing body-checking rules on rates of injury in minor hockey. Pediatrics 2010;125(4):735-41. 25. Cusimano M, Taback N, McFaull S, Hodgins R, Tsegaye B; Canadian Research Team in Traumatic Brain Injury and Violence. Effect of bodychecking on rate of injuries among minor hockey players. Open Medicine 2011;5(1):e59: www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/246/389 (Accessed July 4, 2012). 26. Macpherson A, Rothman L, Howard A. Body-checking rules and childhood injuries in ice hockey. Pediatrics;117(2):e143-7 [Erratum in Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):2334-6]. 27. Stuart MJ, Smith AM, Nieva JJ, Rock MG. Injuries in youth ice hockey: A pilot surveillance strategy. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70(4): p. 350-6. 28. Mölsä, J, Kujala U, Myllynen P, Torstila I, Airaksinen O. Injuries to the upper extremity in ice hockey: Analysis of a series of 760 injuries. Am J Sports Med 2003;31(5):751-7. 29. Björkenheim JM, Syvähuoko I, Rosenberg PH. Injuries in competitive junior ice-hockey. 1437 players followed for one season. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64(4):459-61. 30. Wiggins W. Implication of introducing body checking in ice hockey at different ages. OpenThesis. Lakehead University, 1998: www.openthesis.org/documents/Implication-introducing-body-checking-in-182710.html (Accessed July 4, 2012). 31. Wattie N, Cobley S, Macpherson A, Howard A, Montelpare WJ, Baker J. Injuries in Canadian youth ice hockey: The influence of relative age. Pediatrics 2007;120(1):142-8. 32. Roberts WO, Brust JD, Leonard B. Youth ice hockey tournament injuries: Rates and patterns compared to season play. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31(1):46-51. 33. Williamson IJS. An epidemiological investigation of concussion in youth ice hockey. Simon Fraser University: MSc thesis, 2006. 34. Smith AM, Stuart MJ, Wiese-Bjornstal DM, Gunnon C. Predictors of injury in ice hockey players. A multivariate, multidisciplinary approach. Am J Sports Med 1997;25(4): 500-7. 35. McKay C, Emery CA, Campbell T, Meeuwisse W. The effect of premature return to play on re-injury risk in elite adolescent ice hockey and associated psychosocial predictors [Abstract]. Br J Sport Med 2008;42(6):532-3. 36. Willer B, Kroetsch B, Darling S, Hutson A, Leddy J. Injury rates in house league, select, and representative youth ice hockey. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37(10):1658-63. 37. Finke RC, Goodwin Gerberich S, Madden M, et al. Shoulder injuries in ice hockey. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1988;10(2):54-8. 38. Brunelle JP, Goulet C, Arguin H. Promoting respect for the rules and injury prevention in ice hockey: Evaluation of the fair-play program. J Sci Med Sport 2005;8(3):294-304. 39. Canadian Paediatric Society, Healthy Active Living and Sports Medicine Committee. Identification and management of children with sport related concussion (Principal author Laura K Purcell). Paediatr Child Health 2012;17(1):31 www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/concussion-evaluation-management. 40. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care for specific clinical preventive actions. CMAJ 2003;169(3):207-8. 41. Canadian Task Force. Quality of Published Evidence. www.canadiantaskforce.ca/_archive/index.html (Accessed July 19, 2012). Disclaimer: The recommendations in this position statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. Internet addresses are current at time of publication.

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

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

Toward a Dementia Strategy for Canada: CMA Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10674

Date
2013-01-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2013-01-21
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
As Canada's population ages, concern is growing about the capacity of our health care system to respond to the increased demands that will be placed on it. Of particular concern is the capacity to deal with an expected surge in the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, a major cause of disability in Canadians aged 65 and older. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) shares this concern. In August 2012, CMA's General Council passed a resolution supporting the development of a national dementia strategy. Background About three quarters of a million Canadians currently live with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia and cognitive impairment. People with dementia may live for years with the condition, and will eventually need round-the-clock care. Our knowledge of how to prevent dementia is limited, and we do not fully understand its causes. Though treatments are available that may delay progression of the patient's condition, there is no known cure. Dementia currently costs Canada roughly $33 billion per year, both in direct health care expenses and in indirect costs, such as lost earnings of the patient's caregivers. Since the number one risk factor for dementia is age, there is no question that with the aging of Canada's population, its prevalence will increase. The Alzheimer Society of Canada predicts that by 2031, 1.4 million Canadians will have dementia, and by 2040 the annual cost to the country will reach $293 billion. Other countries, including Australia, Norway, Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom, have developed national strategies to address the dementia epidemic. CMA recommends strongly that Canada join this list. A national strategy could address issues of pressing concern such as * The need for research on the prevention and treatment of dementia; * The occupation of acute-care hospital beds by patients with dementia while awaiting placement in more appropriate long-term care settings. This both increases health-care costs and exacerbates Canada's waiting-list problem, blocking hospital beds which could otherwise be used for other patients. * The emotional and financial burden faced by spouses, children or other informal caregivers of patients with dementia. A Dementia Strategy for Canadians Given the terrible toll that dementia currently takes on Canadians and their health care, and given the certainty that this toll will grow more severe in coming decades, the CMA believes that it is vital for Canada to develop a focused strategy to address it. The Alzheimer Society of Canada recommends that a national dementia strategy encompass the following elements: 1. Increased investment in research on key aspects of dementia, including prevention, treatment options, and improving quality of life. 2. Increased support for informal caregivers. This should take several forms. a. Financial support. The 2011 federal budget introduced a Family Caregiver Tax Credit of up to $300 a year. However, this does not adequately reimburse the cost of a caregiver's time, which studies have shown is often much higher. b. Programs to relieve the stress experienced by caregivers; this can include education and skill-building, and the provision of respite care and other support services. 3. An emphasis on brain health and risk reduction, early diagnosis and intervention. 4. An integrated system of care facilitated by effective co-ordination and case management. 5. A strengthened dementia workforce, which includes both developing an adequate supply of specialists and improving the diagnosis and treatment capabilities of all frontline health professionals. The Government of Canada has supported similar condition-specific strategies, most recently the Canadian Cancer Strategy, initially funded in 2006 and renewed for five years beyond 2012. This strategy focuses on prevention and screening, early detection, clinical care, supporting the patient's journey, targeted research, and work with the First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities. We believe that a national strategy for dementia, bringing together partners such as the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Institute of Aging), the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, and other patient and health professional groups, will enhance the ability of our health care system to respond to the coming dementia epidemic in a compassionate and cost-effective manner. In 2012, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Institute of Aging) and the Alzheimer Society of Canada have invested about $30 million in research. We propose that an initial investment in a National Dementia Strategy be $25 million per year for five years: $10 million for research, $10 million for caregiver support and respite care, and $5 million for knowledge transfer, partnership development and administrative support. Therefore the Canadian Medical Association recommends: That the Government of Canada fund the development and implementation of a National Dementia Strategy for an initial five-year period. The CMA is ready to work with governments, patients and their families, health professional associations and other stakeholders to make this recommendation a reality. Sources: Alzheimer Society of Canada. A New Way of Looking at Dementia in Canada. Based on a study conducted by RiskAnalytica. C. 2010 Canadian Medical Association. A More Robust Economy Through a Healthier Population. 2012-2013 pre-budget submission.

Documents

Less detail

8 records – page 1 of 1.