Group items tagged

At Chartwell, a chain of 27 homes, chief operating officer Karen Sullivan said the pharmacy that services the chain, MediSystem, pays for "many additional valued-added services" such as employee education, nurse leadership sessions and conferences for leaders of homes. MediSystem also pays for Wi-Fi systems and therapeutic care equipment at the homes, Sullivan said in an email. The Star asked pharmacies what they are told the money is used for. Among the responses from pharmacies were "staff education," "resident programs" and payments toward Wi-Fi systems. Classic Care, a pharmacy, said the money it pays covers monthly rent of an area in the nursing home, staff education, technology and "donations and sponsorships" for conferences and other training. Other pharmacies, such as Rexall, say their fees have paid for diabetes education, for example. The largest pharmacies serving long-term-care homes in Ontario include Medical Pharmacies Group, MediSystem (owned by Loblaw), Classic Care (Centric Health) and Rexall. The fees are not new. Pharmacies have willingly offered money or agreed to demands for years. But there's a growing outrage among some who say homes are more interested in "inducements" than "clinical excellence" that pharmacies can provide seniors. Last year, after the Ontario government cut each dispensing fee by $1.26 (it is now $5.57 per prescription in nursing homes), sources said some pharmacies wanted to stop paying the fees. The problem was, the sources said, that the homes refused to give up the extra cash flow and other drug companies were willing to pay, so nothing changed.

It's usually the larger companies that can afford to pay. One insider said smaller pharmacies now ask the homes, "Do you want the money or do you want good service? Because we can't afford to give both." Sources said the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care knows the money changes hands but does nothing to stop it. Instead, pharmacies are "held hostage" by the homes, the source said. One home that no longer charges the fees is John Noble Home in Brantford, a municipally operated 156-bed facility. The Star obtained a 2010 request for proposals (RFP) that noted "only proposals with a minimum rebate of $20,000 annually will be considered for the project." A spokesperson for the city said the RFP "references a previously approved practice employed by several long-term care homes." A recent RFP did not ask for a rebate, though some offered to pay. The city spokesperson, Maria Visocchi, said it chose a pharmacy that "demonstrated qualifications and experience, project understanding, approach and methodology, medication system processes and quality control." This pharmacy did not offer a rebate. Not all pharmacists pay. Teresa Pitre runs Hogan Pharmacy Partners in Cambridge and serves long-term-care homes that don't ask for money. Instead, she signed contracts with several homes in the People Care chain to provide a "highly personalized approach." Pitre sends a registered pharmaceutical technician into each home daily to relieve nurses of much of their work regarding medication, confusion over communications and extensive paperwork. Her company also puts a bookshelf-sized dispensing machine in each home, which holds medication (pain relievers, antibiotics or insulin) that residents need on short notice but, in the traditional system, often can't get for hours. "I really wanted our pharmacy to be a partner with homes instead of servicing them and just meeting the requirements," she said. Meadus says the added cost of bed fees means pharmacies have no reason to reduce their rates, either by lowering dispensing fees or not charging the $2 co-payment.

A recent Star story revealed that pharmacies serving nursing homes typically charge dispensing fees for drugs once a week, rather than once a month as they typically do in a community pharmacy. Long-term-care pharmacies told the Star they charge the weekly fee because the medication for frail residents can change weekly. That was a claim hotly disputed by some family members the Star spoke to, including Margaret Calver, who has spent years documenting the costs of dispensing fees at Markhaven Nursing Home, where her husband is a resident. "This needs oversight and that's the problem," she said. "Nobody is doing the checks and balances." Moira Welsh can be reached at mwelsh@thestar.ca.

Doctors have argued in the past that they need the extra money to pay their operating costs, but the report recommended the health department take time to really “assess the operating costs of clinics, determine the funding to be granted and consider the funding already paid.”

Lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard insisted last week Quebec is the worst offender when it comes to over-billing patients, and that the fees are creating a two-tier health-care system that may violate the Canada Health Act. With Ménard’s help, various patients’-rights groups have come together to launch legal action against the federal government to make sure the Canada Health Act is applied in Quebec and other provinces. Reacting to the report Tuesday, Health Minister Gaétan Barrette reiterated his recent promise to abolish add-on fees by possibly rolling them into doctors’ salaries. “For care that is medically required, there won’t be any fees,” he told reporters.

Parti Québécois MNA Diane Lamarre said Barrette’s “about-face” is the result of relentless criticisms by her and the PQ. “When we started studying Bill 20, we were fighting the fact that the minister introduced an amendment that authorized accessory fees,” Lamarre said. “It was a new opportunity to charge, legally, new medical fees. … We asked the minister many times to (scrap) his amendment and he refused. “(It) was a way to introduce accessory fees and make some patients with no money unable to have access to medical services, which is completely against the law. Now we’re proud that he changed his mind,” she said. Both Lamarre and Coalition Avenir Québec MNA François Paradis said they are concerned Barrette will not be able to convince doctors’ associations to include the fees in their remuneration. If doctors’ salaries are boosted by an additional $50 million in the next contract agreement, for example, it will mean that collectively we will all be paying the fees indirectly, Paradis said.

The Quebec government has negotiated with the medical federations a list of fees that are permitted, such as the use of liquid nitrogen to remove moles ($10) or the use of a topical anesthetic for a minor eye wound (also $10). Over the years, many physicians in private practice have started billing for many more items and services, occasionally prompting investigations by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ).

In a statement made public Tuesday, College president Charles Bernard countered that the researchers based their conclusions on "impressions and partial data ... without taking the time to analyze in depth an issue so complex." Bernard noted that the College produced a report on accessory fees in 2011, and in January, it modified its code of ethics warning doctors that they cannot bill patients "disproportionately high" fees and that they must produce detailed invoices.

In April, the College called on the provincial government to modernize its system of accessory fees. In November, the National Assembly adopted Law 20, which gave the health minister the power to expand the range of fees now charged in private practice and to limit certain amounts. "We need to calibrate the expectations of pressure groups that would wish that the College - through its code of ethics - defend the public coverage of fees for medical services," Bernard added.

The number of Quebecers filing complaints about excessive fees soared by 374 per cent during the past five years, according to a report by the College in April. The complaints jumped from 31 in 2010-11 to 147 in 2014-15. To date, two cases over abusive fees have gone before the College's disciplinary board. In one of those cases, a Westmount physician was fined $10,000 in 2013 for charging patients "excessive and unjustified fees."

An Oct. 1 report by Quebec's Ombudsman found that some private clinics have billed patients $300 for eye drops; $100 to freeze offa wart; $40 to apply a four-centimetre bandage; and $200 to insert an intrauterine device. aderfel@montrealgazette.com Twitter.com/Aaron_Derfel

Dr. Charles Bernard, left, president of the Quebec College of Physicians, seen at a February news conference with college secretary Dr. Yves Robert, says researchers based their conclusions about accessory fees on "impressions and partial data."

According to the registry, 527 patients were billed a total of $40,775 between Feb. 15 and Aug. 2015. Respondents noted feeling indignant about the injustice of having to pay amounts they considered exorbitant for medical care. Some said they couldn't afford to pay - they needed the money for groceries or rent. User fees for insured medical services covered by the provincial health insurance board are illegal. But there's a grey zone, and for years many physicians and clinics have quietly been applying extra, arbitrary or excessive fees for exams and medications covered in hospitals. Led by the clinic's Comité de lutte en santé, the registry also showed that rates for medical services levied on patients varied among professionals, the clinic's co-ordinator Luc Leblanc said Sunday.

"It's a two-tiered system. One for those who can pay and one for those who can't," he said. Data analysis shows the average amount demanded by family doctors was $63, and the average for specialists was $91. The biggest category is medications or anaesthetics, followed by administrative charges like photocopies or filling forms. Adopted last week, Quebec Health Minister Gaétan Barrette's Bill 20 included a set of amendments to legalize fees charged to patients in clinics for insured services, commonly called "accessory fees." The list of regulated ancillary fees will come later, after the government hires an independent accounting firm to determine real costs.

But Leblanc noted the public wasn't consulted because "initially Bill 20 made no mention of the possibility of accessory fees," Leblanc said. And there are no prior government studies or surveys to determine the scope or impact of current fees on patients, he added. The introduction of user fees is a serious threat to universal care, critics said, including the Canadian Medical Association, Quebec Medical Association, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, and Médecins québécois pour le régime publique (MQRP), who asked Barrette to hold offon regulating fees in October.

Charging patients at doctors offices and clinics for medically necessary care isn't acceptable, said Isabelle Leblanc, president of the pro-medicare group, Médécins québécois pour le régime publique. It strikes at the heart of the principle that access to health care should be based on need rather than ability to pay, she added. The clinic's health committee is calling on Barrette to suspend extra fees and on the new federal Health Minister Jane Philpott "to act immediately to force Quebec to respect the Canada Health Act," said Louis Blouin of the committee. The committee is continuing to document billing in its online registry. It can be found on the Pointe-Saint-Charles clinic website cfidelman@montrealgazette.com twitter.com/HealthIssues

When the Canada Health Act passed in the House of Commons in 1984 with unanimous support from all political parties, its primary purpose was to put an end to extra billing like this. Charging patients at the point of care for medically necessary services strikes at the heart of the principle that access to health care should be based on need rather than ability to pay. It undermines equity, increases system costs and reduces commitment to the public health care system. It's also illegal.

Why are we not hearing resounding denunciations of Barrette's plan from our federal politicians? Research has consistently demonstrated that forcing people with less money to pay a fee to access care means they might not seek out medical attention until later in the course of their illness. This means patient outcomes are likely to be worse and treatment more complicated and costly. Given higher levels of illness among people in poverty, these fees also shift costs to those who use the system most but can least afford to pay.

Doctors in Quebec and across the country have expressed alarm at Barrette's amendment to Bill 20, which regulates extra billing rather than prohibiting it. The Canadian Medical Association, Quebec Medical Association, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, Médecins Québécois pour le Régime Publique, and the Quebec College of Family Physicians have all come out against this decision, joining patient groups, all of Quebec's opposition parties, and Raymonde Saint-Germain, the independent Quebec Ombudsman. The measure was passed on Oct. 7, with no public debate. Bill 20 is currently before the National Assembly and is expected to become law this fall.

Barrette is effectively bringing user fees in through the back door. Rather than introducing user fees charged by government, he would let clinics do so. This further fragments care and makes access even more inequitable.

In this federal election campaign, the talk has been around reducing barriers to access by improving coverage of prescription medicines, home care and mental health care. Yet at the same time that our federal parties are committing to such muchneeded expansion, they are silent on protecting the core of medicare: publicly funded doctor and hospital services.

Any party that claims to be committed to the Canada Health Act should immediately state its position on the amendments to Bill 20 in Quebec. To do less is to skirt the core federal responsibility for medicare in Canada. Ryan Meili is a family physician in Saskatoon and an expert adviser with the Evidence Network. Danielle Martin is a family physician and vice-president Medical Affairs and Health System Solutions at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. Both are members of the board of Canadian Doctors for Medicare.

JACQUES BOISSINOT, THE CANADIAN PRESS / Health Minister Gaétan Barrette has put forward a measure that would regulate extra billing rather than prohibit it. It will become law when Bill 20 is adopted.

Imagine if a Canadian diagnosed with cancer were told she could receive chemotherapy paid for by the health-care system, but would have to cough up the cash herself if she needed radiation. Or that she could have a few weeks of treatment, and then be sent home even if she needed more. That would never fly. If doctors, say, find a tumour in a patient's colon, the government kicks in and offers the mainstream treatment that is most effective. But for many Canadians diagnosed with a mental illness, the prescription is very different. The treatment they receive, and how much of it they get, will largely be decided not on evidence-based best practices but on their employment benefits and income level: Those who can afford it pay for it privately. Those who cannot are stuck on long wait lists, or have to fall back on prescription medications. Or get no help at all. But according to a large and growing body of research, psychotherapy is not simply a nice-to-have option; it should be a front-line treatment, particularly for the two most costly mental illnesses in Canada: anxiety and depression - which also constitute more than 80 per cent of all psychiatric diagnoses.

Why aren't we providing evidence-based care?" .. The case for psychotherapy Research has found that psychotherapy is as effective as medication - and in some cases works better. It also often does a better job of preventing or forestalling relapse, reducing doctor's appointments and emergency-room visits, and making it more cost-effective in the long run.

Therapy works, researchers say, because it engages the mind of the patient, requires active participation in treatment, and specifically targets the social and stress-related factors that contribute to poor mental health. There are a variety of therapies, but the evidence is strongest for cognitive behavioural therapy - an approach that focuses on changing negative thinking - in large part because CBT, which is timelimited and very structured, lends itself to clinical trials. (Similar support exists for interpersonal therapy, and it is emerging for mindfulness, with researchers trying to find out what works best for which disorders.) Research into the efficacy of therapy is increasing, but there is less of it overall than for drugs - as therapy doesn't have the advantage of well-heeled Big Pharma benefactors. In 2013, a team of European researchers collated the results of 67 studies comparing drugs to therapy; after adjusting for dropouts, there was no significant difference between the most often-used drugs - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - and psychotherapy.

The issue is not one against the other," says Montreal psychiatrist Alain Lesage, director of research at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute. "I am a physician; whatever works, I am good. We know that when patients prefer one to another, they do better if they have choice." Several studies have backed up that notion. Many patients are reluctant to take medication for fear of side effects and the possibility of difficult withdrawal; research shows that more than half of patients receiving medication stop taking it after six months. A small collection of recent studies has found that therapy can cause changes in the brain similar to those brought about by medication. In people with depression, for instance, the amygdala (located deep within the brain, it processes basic memories and controls our instinctive fight-or-flight reaction) works in overdrive, while the prefrontal cortex (which regulates rational thought) is sluggish. Research shows that antidepressants calm the amygdala; therapy does the same, though to a lesser extent.

But psychotherapy also appears to tune up the prefrontal cortex more than does medication. This is why, researchers believe, therapy works especially well in preventing relapse - an important benefit, since extending the time between acute episodes of illnesses prevents them from becoming chronic and more debilitating. The theory, then, is that psychotherapy does a better job of helping patients consciously cope with their unconscious responses to stress.

According to treatment guidelines by leading international professional and scientific organizations - including Canada's own expert panel, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments - psychotherapy should be considered as a first option in treatment, alone or in combination with medication. And it is "highly recommended" in maintaining recovery in the long term. Britain's independent, research-guided scientific body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, has concluded that therapy should be tried before drugs in mild to moderate cases of depression and anxiety - a finding that led to the creation of a $760million public system, which now handles therapy referrals for nearly one million people a year.

In 2012, Canada's Mental Health Commission estimated that only about one in three adults and one in four children are receiving support and treatment when they need it. Ironically, anti-stigma campaigns designed to help people understand mental illness may only make those statistics worse. In Toronto, for instance, putting up posters in subway stations in 2010 had the unexpected effect of spiking the volume of walk-ins at nearby emergency rooms by as much as 45 per cent in 12 months. Dr. Kurdyak treated many of them at CAMH. The system, he says, "has been conveniently ignoring this unmet need. It functions as if two-thirds of the people suffering won't get help." What would happen if the healthcare system outright "ignored" two-third of tumour diagnoses?

Essentially, argues Dr. Lesage, adding therapy into the health-care system is like putting a new, highly effective drug on the table for doctors. "Think about it," he says. "We have a new antidepressant. It works as well as many others, and it may even have some advantages - it works better for remission - with fewer side effects. The patients may prefer it. And [in the long run] it doesn't cost more than what we have. How can it not be covered?" ..

A heavy price This isn't just a medical issue; it's an economic one. Mental illness accounts for roughly 50 per cent of family doctors' time, and more hospital-bed days than cancer. Nearly four million Canadians have a mood disorder: more than all cases of diabetes (2.2 million) and heart disease (1.4 million) combined.

Mental illness - and depression, in particular - is the leading cause of disability, accounting for 30 per cent of workplace-insurance claims, and 70 per cent of total compensation costs. In 2012, an Ontario study calculated that the burden of mental illness and addiction was 1.5 times that of all cancers, and more than seven times the cost of all infectious diseases. Mental illness is so debilitating because, unlike physical ailments, it often takes root in adolescence and peaks among Canadians in their 20s and 30s, just as they are heading into higher education, or building careers and families. Untreated, symptoms reverberate through all aspects of life, routinely trapping people in poverty and homelessness. More than one-third of Ontario residents receiving social assistance have a mental illness. The cost to society is clearly immense.

Yet, when family doctors were asked why they didn't refer more patients to therapy in a 2008 Canadian survey, the main reason they gave was cost. For many Canadians, private therapy is a luxury, especially if families are already wrestling with the economic fallout from mental illness. Costs vary across provinces, but psychologists in private practice may charge more than $200 an hour in major centres. And it's not just the uninsured who are affected.

Although about 60 per cent of Canadians have some form of private insurance, the amount available for therapy may cover only a handful of sessions. Those with the best benefits are more likely to be higherincome workers with stable employment. Federal public servants, notably, have one of the best plans in the country - their benefits were doubled in 2014 to $2,000 annually for psychotherapy. Many of those who can pay for therapy are doing so: A 2013 consultant's study commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association found that $950-million is spent annually on private-practice psychologists by Canadians, insurance companies and workers compensation boards. The CPA estimates t

These are the patients that family doctors juggle, the ones who eat up appointment time, and never seem to get better, the ones caught on waiting lists. Sometimes, they have already been bounced in and out of the system, received little help, and have become wary of trying again. A 40-something mother recovering from breast cancer, suffering from chronic depression post-treatment, debilitated by fear her cancer will return. A university student, struggling with anxiety, who hasn't been to class for three weeks and may soon be kicked out of school. A teenager with bulimia removed from an eatingdisorder program because she couldn't follow the rules. They are the ones dangling on waiting lists in the public system for what often amounts to a handful of talk-therapy sessions, who don't have the money to pay for private therapy, or have too little coverage to get the full course of appointments they need.

Canada's investment does not match that burden. Only about 7 per cent of health-care spending goes to mental health. Even recent increases pale when compared to other countries: According to a study by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Canada increased per-capita funding by $5.22 in 2011. The British government, meanwhile, kicked in an extra 12 times that amount per citizen, and Australia added nearly 20 times as much as we did. Falling off a cliff, again and again

In Winnipeg, Dr. Stanley Szajkowski watched for months as his patient, a woman in her 80s, slowly declined. Her husband had died and she was spiralling into a severe depression. At every appointment, she looked thinner, more dishevelled. She wasn't sleeping, she admitted, often through tears. Sometimes she thought of suicide. She lived alone, with no family nearby, and no resources of her own to pay for therapy. "You do what you can," says Dr. Szajkowksi. "You provide some support and encouragement." He did his best, but he always had other patients waiting.

hat 30 per cent of private patients pay out-ofpocket themselves. When the afflicted don't seek help, the cost isn't restricted to their own pocketbook. People with mental-health problems are significantly more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become physically sick, further increasing health-care costs. A 2014 study by Oxford University researchers found that having a mental illness reduced life expectancy by 10 to 20 years, roughly the same as did smoking and obesity. A 2008 Statistics Canada study linked depression to new-onset heart disease in the general population. A 2014 U.S. study found that women under the age of 55 are twice as likely to suffer or die from a heart attack, or require heart surgery, if they have moderate to severe depression. The result: clogged-up doctors' offices, ERs, and operating rooms. And an inexorable burden for the patients' families forced to fill the gaps in caregiving - or carry on when they lose a loved one.

Patients refer to it as falling repeatedly off a cliff. And they can only manage the climb back up so many times. Family doctors interviewed for this story admitted that they are often "handholding" patients with nowhere else to go. "I am making them feel cared for, I am providing a supportive ear that they may not get anywhere else," says Dr. Batya Grundland, a physician who has been in family practice at Toronto's Women's College Hospital for almost a decade. "But do I think I am moving them forward with regard to their illness, and helping them cope better? I am going to say rarely." More senior doctors have told her that once in a while "a light bulb goes off" for the patients, but often only after many years. That's not an efficient use of health dollars, she points out - not when there are trained therapists who could do the job better. However, she says, "in some cases, I may be the only person they have."

Family doctors aren't the only ones struggling to find therapy for their patients. "I do a hundred consultations a year," says clinical psychiatrist Joel Paris, a professor at McGill University and research associate at the Montreal Jewish General, "and one of the most common situations is that the patient has tried a few anti-depressants, they have not responded very well, and from their story it is obvious they would benefit from psychotherapy. But where do they go? We have community clinics here in Montreal with six-to-12-month waiting lists even for brief therapy." A fractured, inefficient system

"You fall into the role that is handed to you," says Antoine Gagnon, a family doctor in Osgoode, on the outskirts of Ottawa. He tries to set aside 20-minute appointments before lunch or at the end of the day to provide "active listening" to his patients with anxiety and depression. Many of them are farmers or self-employed, without any private coverage for therapy. "Five of those minutes are spent talking about the weather," he says, "and then maybe you get into the meat of the problem, but the reality is we don't have the appropriate amount of time to give to therapy, even to listen, really." Often, he watches his patients' symptoms worsen over several months, until they meet the threshold of a clinical diagnosis. "The whole system could save on productivity and money if people were actually able to get the treatment they needed."

But these issues aren't insurmountable, as other countries have demonstrated. Britain, for instance, has trained thousands of university graduates to become therapists in its new public program, following research showing that, as long they have the proper skills, people don't need PhDs to be effective therapists. Australia, which has created a pay-for-service system, also makes wide use of online support to cost-effectively reach remote communities.

Except for a small fraction of GPs who specialize in psychotherapy, few family doctors have the training - or the time - to provide structured therapy. Saadia Hameed, a GP in a family-health team in London, Ont., has been researching access to psychotherapy for an advanced degree. Many of the doctors she has interviewed had trouble even producing a clear definition of therapy. One told her, "If a patient cries, than it's psychotherapy." Another described it as "listening to their woes." A 2007 survey of 163 family doctors in Ontario found that almost four out of five had not received training in cognitive behavioural therapy, and knew little about it. "Do family doctors really need to do that much psychotherapy," Dr. Hameed asks, "when there are other people trained - and better trained - to do it?"

What further frustrates treatment for physicians and patients is lack of access to specialists within the system. Across the country, family doctors describe the difficulty of reaching a psychiatrist to consult on a diagnosis or followup with their patients. In a telling 2011 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, researchers conducted a real-world experiment to see how easily a GP could locate a psychiatrist willing to see a patient with depression. Researchers called 297 psychiatrists in Vancouver, and reached 230. Of the 70 who said they would consider taking referrals, 64 required extensive written documentation, and could not give a wait-time estimate. Only six were willing to take the patient "immediately," but even then, their wait times ranged from four to 55 days. Psychiatrists are in increasingly short supply in Canada, and there's strong evidence that we're not making the best use of these highly trained specialists. They can - and often do - provide fee-for-service psychotherapy in a private setting, which limits their ability to meet the huge demand to consult with family doctors and treat the most severe cases.

A recent Ontario study by a team at CAMH found that while waiting lists exist in both urban and rural centres, the practices of psychiatrists in those locations tend to look very different. Among full-time psychiatrists in Toronto, 10 per cent saw fewer than 40 patients, and 40 per cent saw fewer than 100 - on average, their practices were half the size of psychiatrists in smaller centres. The patients for those urban psychiatrists with the smallest practices were also more likely to fall in the highest income bracket, and less likely to have been previously hospitalized for a mental illness than those in the smaller centres.

And those therapy sessions are being billed with no monitoring from a health-care system already scrimping on dollars, yet spending a lot on this care: On average, psychiatrists earn $216,000 a year. There is nothing to stop psychiatrists from seeing the same patients for years, and no system to ensure the patients with the greatest need get priority. In Australia, Britain and the United States, by contrast, billing for psychiatrists has been adjusted to encourage them to reduce psychotherapy sessions and serve more as consultants, particularly for the most severe cases, as other specialists do.

As the Canadian system exists now, says Benoit Mulsant, the physician-in-chief at CAMH and also a psychiatrist, the doctors in his specialty "can do whatever they please. If I wanted, I could have a roster of actor patients who tell me entertaining stories, and I would be paid the same as someone who is treating homeless people. ... By treating the rich and famous, there is zero risk of being punched in the face by a patient." Left out in all this, by and large, are other professionals who can provide therapy. It doesn't help that the rules are often murky around who can call themselves psychotherapists. While psychologists and social workers are licensed under their professional associations, in some provinces a person can call himself a marriage counsellor or music therapist with no one demanding they be certified. In 2007, Ontario passed a law to regulate psychotherapists, requiring them to register with a provincial college that would set standards and handle complaints. Currently, however, the law is in limbo, although the government has said it will finally bring it into force by December. The brain keeps many secrets

Science, however, has yet to find depression's equivalent of insulin. Despite being scanned, poked and stimulated over and over and over again, the brain keeps its secrets. The "chemical imbalance" theory is now viewed as simplistic at best. It may not do much for patients, either: A 2014 study published in the journal Behaviour Research and Therapy suggested that, rather than reassuring them, focusing on the biological explanation for depression actually made patients feel more pessimistic and lacking in control. SSRIs work by increasing the amount of serotonin, a chemical that helps deliver messages within the brain and is known to influence mood. But researchers aren't sure why the drugs help some patients and fail with others. "Basically, it's like we have a bucket of water and we pour it over the patient's head," says Dr. Georg Northoff, the University of Ottawa's Michael Smith chair of Neurosciences and Mental Health. "But you want a drug that injects the water in a very specific brain regions or brain system, which we don't have."

Critics of therapy have argued that it's basically "good listening" - comparable to having a sympathetic friend across the kitchen table - and that in the real world of mercurial patients and practitioners of varying abilities, a pill just works better. That's true in many cases, especially when the symptoms are severe and the patients is suicidal: a fast-acting medication is safer, and may even be necessary before starting talk therapy. The staunchest advocates of therapy do not suggest it should be the first course of treatment for psychosis, or debilitating chronic depression, or mania - although, in those cases, there is evidence that psychotherapy and medication work well in tandem. (A 2011 meta-analysis found that patients with severe depression who received a combination approach had higher recovery rates and were less likely to drop out of treatment.) But drugs also don't work as well as the manufacturers would like us to think. Roughly one-third of patients given a drug will see no benefit (although they often respond to a second or third medication). In randomly controlled trials, drugs often perform only marginally better than sugar pills.

Yet it's talk therapy that the public often views most skeptically. "Until you go to a therapist, or a member of your family has a serious psychological problem, people are unsympathetic [about therapy]," says Dr. Paris, the Montreal psychiatrist. "They are very skeptical, and they don't believe the research. It's amazing, because pharmaceutical trials will get approval for a drug on the basis of two clinical trials that they paid for. And we have 100 clinical trials and no one believes us."

Dr. Ajantha Jayabarathan, an assistant professor at Dalhousie University's medical school, spent her early years as a family doctor in Spryfield, N.S., trying to manage an overload of mental-health cases. Most of her patients had little insurance; there was one reduced-cost counselling service in town, but the waiting lists were long. In 2000, her group practice became a test site for a shared-care project, which gave the doctors access to a mental-health team, including weekly in-person consultations with a psychiatrist. "It was transformative," she says. "We looked after everything in-house.

Over time, Dr. Jayabarathan says, she learned how to properly assess mental illness in patients, and how to use medication more effectively. "I just made it my business to teach myself what to do." It's the kind of workaround GPs are increasingly experimenting with, waiting for the system to catch up. Who would pay - and how?

The case for expanding publicly funded access to therapy is gaining traction in Canada. In 2012, the health commissioner of Quebec recommended therapy be covered by the province; it is now being studied by Quebec's science-based health body (INESSS), which is expected to report back next year. A new Quebec-based organization of doctors, researchers and mental-health advocates called the Coalition for Access to Psychotherapy (CAP) is lobbying the government.

In Manitoba, the Liberal Party - albeit well behind in the polls - has made the public funding of psychologists one of its campaign platforms for the province's spring 2016 election. In Saskatchewan, the government commissioned, and has since endorsed, a mental-health action plan that includes providing online therapy - though politicians have given themselves 10 years to accomplish it. Michael Kirby, the former head of the Canadian Mental Health Commission, has been advocating for eight annual sessions of therapy to be covered for children and youth in need.

There are significant hurdles: Which practitioners would provide therapy, and how would they be paid? What therapies would be covered, and for how long? Complicating every aspect of major mentalhealth change in Canada is the question of who should shoulder the cost: the provinces or Ottawa. In a written statement in response to questions from The Globe and Mail, federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose lobbed the issue back at her provincial counterparts, pointing out that the Canada Health Act does not "preclude provinces and territories from extending public coverage to other services or providers such as psychologists."

One result can be overloaded family doctors minimizing mental-health problems. "If you have nothing to offer someone," asks Dr. Anderson, "how much are you going to dig around to find out what is going on?" Some doctors also admit that the lack of resources can lead to physicians cherry-picking patients who don't have mental illness. And yet family physicians alone bill about $361million a year for counselling or psychotherapy in Canada - 5.6 million visits of roughly 30 minutes each. This is a broad category, and not always specifically related to mental health (some of it includes drug counselling, and a certain amount of coaching is a necessary part of the patient-doctor relationship). When it is psychotherapy, however, doctors admit it's often more supportive listening than actual therapy.

So how would Canada pay for access to such therapy? It wouldn't be cheap, in the short term. The savings would come from what Canadians would not have to spend in the long term: in additional medical and drug costs, emergency-room visits and hospital stays, and in unnecessary disability payments, to say nothing of better long-term health outcomes for patients given good care earlier. Some of the figures being tossed around sound staggering. Rolling out a version of Britain's centre-based program across Canada would cost $950-million. Michael Kirby's plan would amount to $1,000 annually per patient. A 2013 report commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association calculated that, based on predicted need, and assuming no coverage from private health-care plans, providing an average of six sessions of therapy a year would cost an estimated $2.8-billion annually.

But any of those figures would still be a fraction of the roughly $210-billion that Canada spends annually on health care. Figuring out how to make the system most costeffective is, according to sources, currently delaying the INESSS report to the Quebec government. "You need to facilitate the government," says Helen- Maria Vasiliadis, a professor of community health at the University of Sherbrooke. "You can't be going to policymakers and showing them billions and billions of dollars. People start having heart attacks. With evidence in hand, we have to present possible solutions."

An insurance-based plan is the proposal that has emerged from the Quebec-based CAP group, which sent its proposal to Quebec's health minister last month. In its design, the system would work much like Quebec's public drug plan - Quebeckers not covered through work plans would contribute to a provincial insurance program for therapy. That would be similar to the system that Germany has used for decades. One step forward, one step back

Last year, the Sherbrooke clinic where Marie Hayes works received provincial funding for a part-time psychologist and a full-time social worker. With a roster of 25,000 patients, the clinic team laid out clear guidelines for the psychologist, who would consult on cases and screen patients, and be limited to a mere four sessions of actual counselling with any one patient. "We wanted to be careful she didn't become a waiting list - like everything in the system," says Dr. Hayes. The social worker helps guide patients into services such as housing and addiction counselling. They have also offered group sessions for depression management at the clinic. As stretched as those new professionals are in such a large practice, Dr. Hayes says the addition of that mental-health team is improving the care she can provide patients. Recently, for instance, the 32- year-old mother with anxiety attended sessions with the psychologist. "She is making progress," says Dr. Hayes, "slowly."

At Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Dr. Grundland is not so lucky. Asked to describe a difficult case, the family-practice physician mentions a patient suffering from depression after a lifechanging accident. Every month, doctor and patient would repeat the same conversation they'd already had more than a dozen times - and make little real headway. Her patient, says Dr. Grundland, needs a trained therapist: someone she can see regularly, to help her move past her frustration, counsel her about addiction, and ease the burden on her family.

But there's no extra money in the patient's budget for a psychologist. "I do my best," Dr. Grundland says, "but it's not my area of expertise." Meanwhile, the patient isn't getting better, and in the time that it takes to make it through one appointment with her, Dr. Grundland could see three other people with problems she was actually trained to treat. "But," says Dr. Grundland, "she has nowhere else to go." Erin Anderssen is a feature writer at The Globe and Mail. OPEN MINDS How to build a better mental health care system

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has purchased advertisements to accompany this series. While CAMH professionals are quoted in this story, the organization had no involvement in the creation or production of this, or any other story in the series. $20.7-billion The cost, according to a 2012 Conference Board of Canada report, of lost productivity each year due to mental illness. What else does $20-billion represent?

$20B: Canadian spending on national defence, 2012-13 $20B: Market valuation of Airbnb, 2015 $21B: Kitchener-CambridgeWaterloo region's GDP, 2009 $21B: Amount food manufacturing contributed to the economy, 2012

"It's now up to the government to act and decide whether it will cover the cost of certain services and the use of medical equipment in private practice, or if it wants to revise the agreement on the accessory fees with the medical federations." Under the Quebec Health and Social Services Act, doctors who work in hospitals cannot bill patients for medically necessary services. These same physicians must abide by certain conditions in their private practice, since they have not opted out of medicare. They can only charge for "medications and anesthesia agents" in private, and they are not allowed to bill patients for the use of medical equipment. However, there is one exception to the rule: private radiology clinics in Quebec can bill patients for MRI scans - a sore point with Health Canada, which has argued that the exception violates the accessibility provisions of the Canada Health Act. In addition, Quebec did negotiate with the medical federations a list of fees that are permitted, such as the use of liquid nitrogen to remove moles ($10) or the use of a topical anesthetic for a minor eye wound (also $10). Over the years, many physicians in private practice have started billing for many more items and services, sometimes prompting investigations by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ).

The penalties are assessed on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning they are equal to the amounts patients complained about paying for procedures. B.C. and Newfoundland were the only provinces assessed penalties for the last three years. When the 2013-14 annual report comes out soon, B.C. will once again be penalized, this time $224,000, said provincial Health Ministry spokesman Ryan Jabs.

Since 1994, the federal government has docked B.C. $3.2 million, slightly lower than the record-holder Alberta ($3.6 million). Since 1994, provinces have been assessed nearly $10 million in penalties for extra billing charges. A Health Canada spokesman could not explain why Quebec has never been penalized, even though it reportedly has a thriving private medicine sector. Ontario has also not faced any penalties.

The penalty to B.C. is paltry in relation to the province's $20-billion health budget announced Tuesday. It is also insignificant relative to the federal transfer payments B.C. will collect this year ($4.4 billion) and next ($4.7 billion). In 2006, the then-deputy health minister of B.C., Penny Ballem (now Vancouver city manager) questioned whether B.C. was really the only province where extra billing and private sector queue jumping was taking place. Jabs said Wednesday he can't comment on what happens elsewhere.

In 2005, the B.C. government did not submit a dollar value to the federal government for such extra billing, so Health Canada bureaucrats based the penalty sum on news releases from anti-privatization unions and newspaper clippings about patients who accessed the private system. The Sun learned about that through a Freedom of Information request. The story detailed how discretionary the penalties appear to be and that they are based on "guesstimates" of user fees. Provincial Health Ministry officials often base their reports submitted to the federal government on complaints from patients who go to private clinics for expedited care and then try to collect the fees paid from government. One such patient is Mariel Schoof, who had sinus surgery at a private clinic in 2003. She paid $6,150 for the "facility fee" and then tried to recover the fee from the provincial government or the clinic. She is now one of the interveners in a private versus public medicine trial starting March 2 between Dr. Brian Day and the provincial government. Timeline of Canada Health transfer compliance in B.C.

Early 1990s: As a result of a dispute between the British Columbia Medical Association and the B.C. government over compensation, several doctors opt out of the provincial health insurance plan and began billing their patients directly, some at a rate greater than the amount the patients could recover from the provincial health insurance plan. May 1994: Canada Health deductions began and continue until extra-billing by physicians is banned when changes to B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act come into effect in September 1995. In total, $2,025,000 was deducted from B.C.'s cash contribution for extra billing that occurred in the province between 1992-1993 and 1995-1996. These deductions were non-refundable, as were all subsequent deductions. January 2003: B.C. provides a financial statement in accordance with the Canada Health Act Extra-billing and User Charges Information Regulations, indicating aggregate amounts charged with respect to extra billing and user charges during fiscal 2000-2001 totalling $4,610.

Accordingly, a deduction of $4,610 was made to the March 2003 federal transfer payment. 2004: A $126,775 deduction was taken from B.C.'s March 2004 Canada Health Act payment, based on the amount of extra billing estimated to have been charged during the 2001-2002 fiscal year. Since 2005: $786,940 in cash transfer deductions have been taken from B.C.'s federal health transfer payments on the basis of charges reported by the province to Health Canada. January 2011: Vancouver General Hospital begins charging patients a fee when they elect to have robot-assisted surgery versus the conventional surgical alternative for certain medically necessary procedures. 2013: Deductions in the amount of $280,019 are taken from the March 2013 federal transfer payments of B.C. in respect to extra billing and user charges for insured health services at private clinics. Source: Canada Health Act Annual Report 2012-2013

The branch investigates about 30 cases a year of extra billing, usually related to private surgical facilities or expedited visits to specialists. The government is not sure whether it will be penalized in the future for allowing Vancouver General Hospital to charge patients fees for robotic surgery. VGH spokesman Gavin Wilson says since 2012 patients choosing to have surgeons remove their prostates using the robot have been charged on a partialcost-recovery basis. The B.C. government allows the extra billing because robotic surgery is discretionary, not medically necessary, and there are higher costs associated with it. In 2012, however, Health Canada began examining the Canada Health Act implications of patient charges for robotassisted surgeries. The process convinced the health minister that VGH should stop charging for robot-assisted surgeries as of Jan. 1, 2015. Vancouver Coastal Health collected $345,000 a year for the procedures; most recently, the patient fee was $5,700. Sun health issues reporter pfayerman@vancouversun.com

In Ontario, the cost is typically much lower at $45 per trip, but increases to $240 if the receiving physician deems it unnecessary. The reality on the ground violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Canada Health Act: Equal access to physician and hospital services means little if safe passage to them is anything but. There are a variety of options to reduce this inequity in access. One option is to follow New Brunswick's lead and offer full coverage. An alternative would be to only charge users if the ambulance ride is deemed medically unnecessary. However, differentiating "appropriate" from "inappropriate" ambulance use isn't straightforward, and can vary between providers. What's more, evidence suggests that institutions - schools, long-term care facilities, hospitals and police services - more often initiate potentially unnecessary ambulance services than do individuals, as a result of compliance with internal policy or protocol.

As with other areas of health care, user fees are a blunt tool: they reduce both necessary and unnecessary use of services. The risk of footing the bill could deter people, especially those living in poverty, from calling for help. This would deny them not only safe transport to hospital, but also the initial emergency interventions by paramedics that can mean the difference between life and death. Public education and enhanced availability of primary care are more effective ways to decrease unnecessary ambulance use. Ideally, ambulance services should be fully covered for everyone. This would, however, require provincial governments to take on more of the costs. In Nova Scotia, that cost is an estimated $9.7 million, according to the Nova Scotia Citizen's Health Care Network. This is a drop in the bucket of the $6.2-billion Nova Scotia health-care budget; a small investment to ensure everyone, regardless of income, has access to vital emergency care. The variety and inequity of ambulance charges in Canada is a policy mess. Canada's health ministers should work together to establish a consistent and compassionate approach that balances cost with the need to remove barriers to care. Ryan Meili is an expert adviser

with EvidenceNetwork.ca, a family physician in Saskatoon and founder of Upstream: Institute for a Healthy Society. @ryanmeili Carolyn Nowry is a family physician in Calgary. They are both board members with Canadian Doctors for Medicare.

The current model for paying physicians is “expensive, outdated and doesn’t support the efforts of doctors to provide the best care possible,” said Health Minister Sarah Hoffman at a Feb. 8 policy forum in Edmonton on the health system’s fiscal sustainability.

In 2014, Alberta spent $1060 per capita on physician services — the third highest in the country. More than 80% of payments are through fee-for-service, where doctors bill the government for each medical service provided. Proponents of fee-for-service say it gives doctors the incentive to see as many patients and provide as many services as possible. Hoffman wants some of the doctors on fee-for-service to adopt Alternative Relationship Plans (ARP), which she said are not only less expensive, but also reward doctors for the quality of care they provide.

Under clinical ARPs, doctors are paid for providing a set of services at a facility to a target population. There are several types. The annualized ARP, the most common in Alberta, provides compensation based on a formula that determines the number of full-time equivalents (hours per year or days per year) required to deliver services.

In Ontario, the most common ARP is the capitation model, under which physicians are paid a fixed fee per month for each patient registered with their practices, regardless of services received.

The Alberta Medical Association (AMA), which represents the province’s 8921 licensed physicians, supports the change. President Dr. Carl Nohr told CMAJ that ARPs are part of the move toward modernizing the health care system, which now deals with more chronic illness. They give doctors more flexibility, he said.

“They’ll be able to vary the amount of time they spend with individual patients, define how frequently they see patients — all in the context of what’s good for the patients and not necessarily from the business perspective.”

Neither the AMA nor Hoffman could specify the number of doctors they want to adopt this model. Nohr said compensation under an ARP will remain optional, but “our goal is to make it as attractive as possible and make changes to the model as we go, and hopefully over time see a substantial uptake.”

Alberta’s total health budget is $19.7 billion for 2015–16 — the second highest per capita ($4800) among the provinces. But, Hoffman said, “Given how much money is spent on health care in Alberta, the health outcomes in our province can and should be better.”

Hoffman said health care accounts for 45% of the government’s overall budget, and continues to grow faster than both inflation and the population, which grew 2.17% in 2015. If health care spending continues to rise by an average of 6% annually, it will account for 60% of the province’s budget in 20 years. Hoffman wants to decrease growth in health care spending to 2% annually in the next few years, but stressed this does not mean cutting funding; it means curbing spending growth.

Hoffman doesn’t know how much will be saved by changing the physician compensation system, but said “changing the way we pay doctors will have a ripple effect on the entire health system.”

The government’s contract with t

e AMA expires in 2018, and both parties are discussing redirecting funds and developing alternative compensation models. Nohr said they’re looking into a blend of ARP and fee-for-service among primary-care physicians.

One of the very good things that gives me hope for the future is that the profession and the government have a very good relationship,” Nohr said. “So there’s a collaborative, positive relationship between the Alberta Medical Association and the Ministry of Health and that creates the possibility for productive, useful change.”

Just now in Ontario this arrangement would appear to have hit a wall. Having negotiated a four-year deal offering average annual fee increases of 2.5 per cent, the Ontario Medical Association executive was dismayed to find it rejected by nearly two-thirds of its members, who complain it does not make up for cuts in fees imposed last year. How things should have broken down to this extent need not detain us here. But it does perhaps point to the need to find another way.

Because doctors' fees, as such, are not the issue. To be sure, they are part of the puzzle: at $11.5 billion annually, they are roughly one-fifth of Ontario's health-care budget. But all the hard bargaining in the world isn't going to rescue Canada's health-care system from the fiscal cliff to which it is headed. Much more important than doctors' fees are doctors' decisions, as the gatekeepers dictating how resources are allocated within the system: how many tests are ordered, what procedures are done, and so on.

The problem is that decisions about treatment are too often divorced from decisions about budgets. Governments set a budget constraint at the macro level, which filters down through the various regional health authorities and local health networks the provinces have seen fit to establish. But doctors typically do not: they make whatever they can bill. And the incentives of feefor-service are to perform as many surgeries and other treatments as they can. Absent changes in those incentives, simply capping fees isn't going to change much.

You can see why doctors felt the need to organize. Governments had set themselves up as sole purchasers of medical services. The idea was supposed to be that they could exploit that monopoly power to drive down costs. But it didn't quite work out that way: politicians in need of re-election, it seems, do not make terribly tough negotiators (who knew?). It was always easier to pass the problem on to the next government, or the next generation - or, as federal governments got in on the act, Ottawa. In consequence, health-care spending skyrocketed through much of the 1970s and 1980s.

Traditionally, doctors have been paid per service, while hospitals have been funded on a block grant basis. The key to reform is to turn this around: giving groups of doctors a fixed amount per patient, with which to purchase services from hospitals, clinics and other providers, that is on a per-treatment basis. Paying doctors a lump sum localizes the budget constraint, forcing doctors to take account of costs in decisions on treatment; paying hospitals per service makes it possible for lower-cost competitors to undercut them.

Even in the more recent wave of cuts following the last recession, these have been largely untouched. As documented in a new study by the C. D. Howe Institute

("Hold the Applause: Why Provincial Restraint on Healthcare Spending Might Not Last"), governments have largely resorted to the familiar public-sector strategy of starving the capital account to feed the operating account: while capital spending has been sharply curtailed, physicians' fees have not.

This is not sustainable in the long run - as new doctors enter the profession, and most of all, as the population ages. As it is, provinces are now spending more than 40 per cent of their budgets on health care; by 2030, a recent Fraser Institute paper projects the number will have risen to nearly 50 per cent. Yet wait times continue to mount: at more than 18 weeks, on average, from GP referral to treatment, they are nearly twice what they were 20 years ago.

Clearly the answer does not lie in more money, least of all more federal money: for every additional dollar in federal transfers the Howe study's authors find that provincial health spending increases by 36 cents. But neither is the answer ever stricter doses of austerity - any more than one would improve a car's mileage by putting less gas in the tank. Rather, what's needed is systemic reform, altering the way that public funds flow through the system, and how the different players within it are remunerated.

Only with the onset of the early 1990s recession, and particularly the sharp cut in federal transfers as Ottawa tried to stabilize its finances, was there the first serious effort at retrenchment. But as the fiscal crisis eased, and particularly after the 2004 health-care accord, with its massive 10-year increase in federal transfers, whatever impetus for reform there might have been dissipated. Rather than "buying change," most of the new money went to increases in provider compensation.

In sum, rather than doctors and governments negotiating with each other at one gigantic bargaining table, what we need are lots of little bargaining tables, at which providers can haggle with each other.

However, Barrette issued a statement Thursday saying that the goal of his proposed amendment to the medicare law is to end the "abuse" of incidental fees that some private clinics have been billing patients. In some cases, patients have been charged almost $200 for eye drops. But Barrette will also make it possible for some private clinics to charge fees that would now be considered illegal. "We believe that the amendment that will be debated ... constitutes a balance between the protection of the public against excessive fees and the preservation of services that are provided in private clinics," Barrette said in the statement. "The clinics that offer these services have always been part of the health and social services (network), and it would be irresponsible on our part to act in such a way that could lead to their closing."

But Roy countered that accessory fees are a form of two-tier medicine, allowing some patients with private insurance to bypass lengthy waits in the public system by going to private clinics. He noted that the government already subsidizes many private clinics, and there is no reason for patients to be charged extra. François Loubert, co-president of the Association des cliniques médicales du Québec, acknowledged that doctors who bill the medicare board for certain procedures in a private clinic do get paid more than if they carried out the same medical act in a hospital. He cited as an example a $40 fee for a type of consultation that a doctor in private practice can bill the Régie de l'assurancemaladie du Québec. For the same consultation in a hospital, the doctor could bill RAMQ only $25.

To read the full report, please click here

He also cited Scotland, which got rid of most hospital parking fees in 2008. The government saw it as a matter of principle, arguing that hospital parking fees went against the idea of free health care, as well as being a source of stress for patients.

"In order to protect patients, the B.C. government must hold private clinic owners and operators accountable when they break the laws prohibiting extra-billing and user fees," said lawyer Steven Shrybman, a partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell who is acting for the B.C. Health Coalition and Canadian Doctors for Medicare, intervenors in the court challenge. Shrybman is well-known for his successful Supreme Court challenge against Ontario's attempted sale of Hydro One and the recent election fraud cases in Federal Court. "Though the challenge was launched in British Columbia, it has the potential to bring two-tier care to Canadians across the country," he warned. "Advocates of public health care from Ontario and across the country are calling on the B.C. government to take a tough stand in these negotiations. These are the laws that uphold Medicare and defend patients," said Dr. Ryan Meili, Vice-Chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare. "A simple slap on the wrist encourages more violations in provinces from coast to coast."

The problem is already creeping into Ontario, according to Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition, where the government is proposing to expand private clinics. "Patients are being confused by private clinic operators who are manipulating them into paying thousands of dollars for health care services that they have already paid for in their taxes," she warned. "The public should know that you cannot be charged by a doctor or private clinic operator for surgery, diagnostic tests or any other medically necessary hospital or physician service. Extra user fees charged to sick and elderly patients are unlawful and immoral and governments should be delivering that message." Advocates warned that this court case should also raise alarm bells in Ontario's government about the dangers of private clinics. At risk is our public health system in which access to health care is based on need, not wealth. SOURCE Ontario Health Coalition

owned by Revera, which operates retirement homes and nursing homes throughout Canada and the United States

Daniels’ relationship with the home soured about a month ago, when she found out her mother was going to be hit with new fees for services such as continence toileting or being escorted to the dining room.

Those services have been costing $478 a month on top of the $2,774 she pays for accommodation and food. The same care services will rise to $2,271 in September for a total monthly charge of $5,045.

Revera says it is introducing an “à la carte” service for all residents in its Ontario retirement homes to cover its costs.

Daniels says her mother is receiving all those services now for about one-fifth of the price. “It just boggles the mind,” she says.

The new fees don’t apply to Revera’s Ontario nursing homes because monthly rates for such facilities are determined by the provincial health ministry. But the ministry does not regulate fees for retirement homes or their long-term care components, so Provost and others living on Westwood’s two long-term floors are sitting ducks.

Bernard Bouchard, executive director of the Council on Aging of Ottawa, says he believes Revera is trying to make up some of its extra costs from new licensing regulations brought in by the Ontario government in April 2011. As well, he says, operators are trying to find new revenues as retirement homes are operating at about 80-per-cent capacity.

Daniels says her mother will have to move to a nursing home. And there lies another problem. She will have to go on a waiting list because nursing homes are full.

having a staff member escort her mother, who uses a walker, to the dining area and back to her room three times a day will cost $606 a month. Helping feed her when she needs assistance is another $252. Checking her room twice nightly, to see if she has fallen out of bed or needs to go to the washroom is $168. Continence toileting is $673.70. She will also be charged an additional $505 monthly for general staff assistance.

they said: ‘We can look after her, we have palliative care. She can stay here until she dies.’ ”

However, until now no federal government has had the nerve to take on serial offender Quebec. Quebec has been allowing its doctors and clinics to charge extra user fees since 1979. The province's current health minister, Gaetan Barrette, freely acknowledges this. In some cases, these fees were truly exorbitant. The Montreal Gazette reported last year that some colonoscopy clinics were charging patients an extra $600 for medications - on top of the publicly paid medicare fee. Many Quebecers were outraged. The provincial Liberal government's somewhat peculiar response was to pass a bill codifying the practice of extra-billing but giving itself the authority to regulate it. In March 2015, the then-Conservative government in Ottawa formally notified Quebec that it would be looking into the issue. This March, Liberal Philpott sat down with Barrette to discuss the practice. On Sept. 6, she sent her provincial counterpart a letter threatening cutbacks to Quebec's health transfer. A few days later, Barrette announced that extra billing will end as of next January.

It is hard to gauge the importance of Philpott's threat. User fees have become widely unpopular in Quebec. That alone may have been enough to drive the provincial government to disavow them. Still, it was bracing to see a federal health minister publicly standing up for the principles of medicare. It is not an everyday occurrence. It is particularly interesting that she targeted a province that is notoriously touchy about what it sees as federal interference. Perhaps she will do more. Certainly, more needs to be done. The latest annual report on the Canada Health Act filed with Parliament notes that private MRI clinics in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are charging user fees to patients. It says some hospitals are avoiding the ban on charging for drugs by routing the sick through outpatient clinics - which do charge. It also notes that the portability requirement of medicare, which allows Canadians to receive care outside their home provinces, is routinely ignored.

Quebec routinely refuses to fully reimburse other provinces that provide health services to Quebec residents. Yet it has never been penalized by Ottawa for this. Nor have an unspecified number of other provinces that, at one time or another, did the same. Except for Prince Edward Island, the report says, no province appropriately reimburses residents who obtain medical care outside Canada. Such patients aren't necessarily entitled to the full cost of their out-of-country care. But they are entitled to be reimbursed for the amount it would have cost them to be treated in their home province. To work as a national program, Canadian medicare needs two things. First, the federal government must put up enough money to give it a real financial role in the system. The 2002 Romanow royal commission suggested that Ottawa provide at least 25 per cent of medicare funding. That figure still makes sense. Second, Ottawa has to use its financial clout to enforce those few national standards that do exist. A former Liberal health minister, Diane Marleau, tried to do this back in the 1990s. She was sandbagged by Jean Chrétien, the prime minister of the day. Let's hope Philpott has better luck.

It was bracing to see a federal health minister stand up for medicare principles, writes Thomas Walkom.

Canada has catching up to do compared to other OECD countries. Canadians have difficulty accessing primary care, particularly after hours and on weekends, and are more likely to use emergency rooms.

only 32 per cent of Canadians had access to more than one primary health care provider

In Peterborough, Ontario, for example, a region-wide shift to team-based care dropped emergency department visits by 15,000 patients annually and gave 17,000 more access to primary health care.

We believe that jurisdictions are now turning the corner on primary health care

Sustained federal funding and strong jurisdictional direction will be critical to ensuring that we can accelerate the update of electronic health records across the country.

The creation of a national pharmaceutical strategy was a critical part of the 10-year plan. In 2011, today, unfortunately, progress is slow.

Your committee has produced landmark reports on the importance of determinants of health and whole-of- government approaches. Likewise, the Health Council of Canada recently issued a report on taking a whole-of- government approach to health promotion.

there have also been improvements on our capacity to collect, interpret and use health information

Leading up to the next review, governments need to focus on health human resources planning, expanding and integrating home care, improved public reporting, and a continued focus on quality across the entire system.

John Wright, President and CEO, Canadian Institute for Health Information

the Canada Health Act

Since 2008, rather than repeat annual reporting on the whole, the Health Council has delved into specific topic areas under the 2003 accord and the 10-year plan to provide a more thorough analysis and reporting.

We have looked at issues around pharmaceuticals, primary health care and wait times. Currently, we are looking at the issues around home care.

John Abbott, Chief Executive Officer, Health Council of Canada

I have been a practicing physician for 23 years and a CEO for 10 years, and I would say, probably since 2005, people have been starting to get their heads around the fact that this is not sustainable and it is not good quality.

Much of the data you hear today is probably 18 months to two years old. It is aggregate data and it is looking at high levels. We need to get down to the health service provider level.

The strength of our ability to report is on the data that CIHI and Stats Canada has available, what the research community has completed and what the provinces, territories and Health Canada can provide to us.

We have a very good working relationship with the jurisdictions, and that has improved over time.

One of the strengths in the country is that at the provincial level we are seeing these quality councils taking on significant roles in their jurisdictions.

As I indicated in my remarks, dispute avoidance activity occurs all the time. That is the daily activity of the Canada Health Act division. We are constantly in communication with provinces and territories on issues that come to our attention. They may be raised by the province or territory, they may be raised in the form of a letter to the minister and they may be raised through the media. There are all kinds of occasions where issues come to our attention. As per our normal practice, that leads to a quite extensive interaction with the province or territory concerned. The dispute avoidance part is basically our daily work. There has never actually been a formal panel convened that has led to a report.

each year in the Canada Health Act annual report, is a report on deductions that have been made from the Canada Health Transfer payments to provinces in respect of the conditions, particularly those conditions related to extra billing and user fees set out in the act. That is an ongoing activity.

Senator Eaton

How many government programs have been created as a result of the accord?

The other data set is on bypass surgery that is collected differently in Quebec. We have made great strides collectively, including Quebec, in developing the databases, but it takes longer because of the nature and the way in which they administer their systems.

I am a director of the foundation of St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto

Not everyone needs to have a family doctor; they need access to a family health team.

The family doctors in our hospital feel like second-class citizens, and they should not. Unfortunately, although 25 years ago the family doctor was everything to everybody, today family doctors are being pushed into more of a triage role, and they are losing their ability.

The problem is that the family doctor is doing everything for everybody, and probably most of their work is on the social end as opposed to diagnostics.

At a time when all our emergency departments are facing 15,000 increases annually, Peterborough has gone down 15,000, so people can learn from that experience.

I have to be able to reach my doctor by phone.

They are busy doing all of the other things that, in my mind, can be done well by a team.

That is right.

if we are to move the yardsticks on improvement, sustainability and quality, we need that alignment right from the federal government to the provincial government to the front line providers and to the health service providers to say, "We will do this."

We want to share best practices.

it is not likely to happen without strong direction from above

Excellent Care for All Act

quality plans

with actual strategies, investments, tactics, targets and outcomes around a number of things

Canadian Hospital Reporting Project

by March of next year we hope to make it public

performance, outcomes, quality and financials

With respect to physicians, it is a different story

We do not collect data on outcomes associated with treatments.

which may not always be the most cost effective and have the better outcome.

We are looking at developing quality indicators that are not old data so that we can turn the results around within a month.

there has been progress. In some cases, there has been much more than in others.

There are different types of benchmarks. For example, there is an evidence-based benchmark, which is a research of the academic literature where evidence prevails and a benchmark is established.

The provinces and territories reported on that in December 2005. They could not find one for MRIs or CT scans. Another type of benchmark coming from the medical community might be a consensus-based benchmark.

universal screening

A year and a half later, we did an evaluation based on the data. Increased costs were $400 per patient — $1 million in my hospital. There was no reduction in outbreaks and no measurable effect.

A thorough research of the literature simply found that there are no evidence-based benchmarks for CT scans, MRIs or PET scans.

The evidence is pretty clear for the high acuity; however, for the lower acuity, I do not think we know what a reasonable wait time is

If you are told by an orthopaedic surgeon that there is a 99.5 per cent chance that that lump is not cancer, and the only way you will know for sure is through an MRI, how long will you wait for that?

colorectal screening

the next time they do the statistics, there will be a tremendous improvement, because there is a federal-provincial cancer care and front-line provider

adverse drug effects

over-prescribing

There are no drugs without a risk, but the benefits far outweigh the risks in most cases.

catastrophic drug coverage

a patchwork across the country

with respect to wait times

The interesting thing about Saskatchewan is that, on a three-year trending basis, it is showing positive improvement in each of the areas. It would be fair to say that Saskatchewan was a bit behind some of the other jurisdictions around 2004, but the trending data — and this will come out later this month — shows Saskatchewan making strides in all the areas.

In terms of the accord itself, the additional funds that were part of the accord for wait-times reduction were welcomed by all jurisdictions and resulted in improvements in wait times, certainly within the five areas that were identified as well as in other surgical areas.

We are working with the First Nations, Statistics Canada, and others to see what we can do in the future about identifiers.

Have we made progress?

I do not think we have the data to accurately answer the question. We can talk about proxies for data and proxies for outcome: Is it high on the government's agenda? Is it a directive? Is there alignment between the provincial government and the local health service providers? Is it a priority? Is it an act of legislation? The best way to answer, in my opinion, is that because of the accord, a lot of attention and focus has been put on trying to achieve it, or at least understanding that we need to achieve it. A lot of building blocks are being put in place. I cannot tell you exactly, but I can give you snippets of where it is happening. The Excellent Care For All Act in Ontario is the ultimate building block. The notion is that everyone, from the federal, to the provincial government, to the health service providers and to the CMA has rallied around a better health system. We are not far from giving you hard data which will show that we have moved yardsticks and that the quality is improving. For the most part, hundreds of thousands more Canadians have had at least one of the big five procedures since the accord. I cannot tell you if the outcomes were all good. However, volumes are up. Over the last six years, everybody has rallied around a focal point.

The transfer money is a huge sum. The provinces and territories are using the funds to roll out their programs and as they best see fit. To what extent are the provinces and territories accountable to not just the federal government but also Canadians in terms of how effectively they are using that money? In the accord, is there an opportunity to strengthen the accountability piece so that we can ensure that the progress is clear?

In health care, the good news is that you do not have to incent people to do anything. I do not know of any professionals more competitive than doctors or executives more competitive than executives of hospitals. Give us the data on how we are performing; make sure it is accurate, reliable, and reflective, and we will move mountains to jump over the next guy.

There have been tremendous developments in data collection. The accord played a key role in that, around wait times and other forms of data such as historic, home care, long term care and drug data that are comparable across the country. Without question, there are gaps. It is CIHI's job to fill in those gaps as resources permit.

The Health Council of Canada will give you the data as we get it from the service providers. There are many building blocks right now and not a lot of substance.

send him or her to the States

Are you including in the data the percentage of people who are getting their work done elsewhere and paying for it?

When we started to collect wait time data years back, we looked at the possibility of getting that number. It is difficult to do that in a survey sampling the population. It is, in fact, quite rare that that happens.

Do we have a leader in charge of this health accord? Do we have a business plan that is reviewed quarterly and weekly so that we are sure that the things we want worked on are being worked on? Is somebody in charge of the coordination of it in a proper fashion?

Dr. Kitts: We are without a leader.

Mr. Abbott: Governments came together and laid out a plan. That was good. Then they identified having a pharmaceutical strategy or a series of commitments to move forward. The system was working together. When the ministers and governments are joined, progress is made. When that starts to dissipate for whatever reason, then we are 14 individual organization systems, moving at our own pace.

You need a business plan to get there. I do not know how you do it any other way. You can have ideas, visions and things in place but how do you get there? You need somebody to manage it. Dr. Kitts: I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The Chair: If we had one company, we would not have needed an accord. However, we have 14 companies.

There was an objective of ensuring that 50 per cent of Canadians have 24/7 access to multidisciplinary teams by 2010. Dr. Kitts, in your submission in 2009, you talked about it being at 32 per cent.

there has been a tremendous focus for Ontario on creating family health teams, which are multidisciplinary primary health care teams. I believe that is the case in the other jurisdictions.

The primary health care teams, family health care teams, and inter-professional practice are all essentially talking about the same thing. We are seeing a lot of progress. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation is doing a lot of work in this area to help the various systems to embrace it and move forward.

The question then came up about whether 50 per cent of the population is the appropriate target

If you see, for instance, what the Ontario government promotes in terms of needing access, they give quite a comprehensive list of points of entry for service. Therefore, in terms of actual service, we are seeing that points of service have increased.

The key thing is how to get alignment from this accord in the jurisdictions, the agencies, the frontline health service providers and the docs. If you get that alignment, amazing things will happen. Right now, every one of those key stakeholders can opt out. They should not be allowed to opt out.

the national pharmaceutical strategy

in your presentation to us today, Dr. Kitts, you said it has stalled. I have read that costing was done and a few minor things have been achieved, but really nothing is coming forward.

The pharmacists' role in health care was good. Procurement and tendering are all good. However, I am not sure if it will positively impact the person on the front line who is paying for their drugs.

The national pharmaceutical strategy had identified costing around drugs and generics as an issue they wanted to tackle. Subsequently, Ontario tackled it and then other provinces followed suit. The question to ask is: Knowing that was an issue up front, why would not they, could not they, should not they have acted together sooner? That was the promise of the national pharmaceutical strategy, or NPS. I would say it was an opportunity lost, but I do not think it is lost forever.