Group items tagged

Auditor Calls Quebec Extra Billing Out of Control Doctors Call on Health Minister Jane Philpott to Illegal Billing Practices in Quebec TORONTO (May 12, 2016) – Extra-billing in Quebec medical clinics are “excessive” says Auditor General Guylaine Leclerc, but Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott has yet to act on calls to enforce the Canada Health Act and bring them under control.

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.

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

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.

Senator Eaton

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.

The Canada Health Act Annual Report

does not indicate the extent to which each provincial and territorial health care insurance plan has satisfied the Canada Health Act criteria and conditions.

Weaknesses we identified in 1999

3.25 We noted several weaknesses in Health Canada's reporting, monitoring, and enforcement activities, such as the following: The federal contribution to health care was not being reported to either Parliament or the Canadian public. Health Canada did not have the information it needed for effective monitoring of provincial and territorial compliance with the Canada Health Act. The Department was not reporting the extent to which the provinces and territories were complying with the Act. It was not rigorously enforcing the Act.

And dozens of occupations, some that you've never even heard of, are exempt from basic rights entirely. "Keepers of fur-bearing mammals" have no right to minimum wage. Sod layers have no limits on their daily hours of work. Shrub growers don't get a lunch break. The system is so complicated that the Ministry of Labour has developed a special online tool to help decipher who's entitled to what. But as the province reviews its antiquated Employment Standards Act, critics argue that its confusing web of exemptions makes it harder for the so-called precariously employed to defend their rights - and easier for bosses to ignore them.

"When you distil it down to what these exemptions are seeking to achieve, really they are to give employers more control over work and more control over wages," says Mary Gellatly of Parkdale Community Legal Services. "It sends the message to employers that they can get away without complying." The Act was first introduced in Ontario in 1968 to set basic work standards, especially for non-unionized employees who don't have a collective agreement to provide extra protections. But there are at least 45 occupations in Ontario that are exempt from a variety of its fundamental entitlements, many of them low-wage jobs in industries where precarious work is rife.

The Ministry of Labour says many of the exemptions are "long standing" and related to "the nature of the work performed." But York University professor Leah Vosko, who leads research into employment standards protections for the precariously employed, says exemptions have come at least in part from industry pressure, leaving the Act a "complex patchwork that is difficult for workers and even officials to comprehend." Even when there are clear violations, speaking out can come at a cost. Reprisal is illegal under the Act, meaning bosses can't penalize employees for exercising their workplace rights. But the Act gives workers no protection against wrongful dismissal. Employers do not have to give cause for firing someone.

Unionized employees are generally protected by their collective agreements, and workers can sue employers if they think they have been unfairly terminated. But most precarious, low-income employees are not unionized, and most do not have the money to take legal action against an employer, says Parkdale's Gellatly. "It's the big reason why many people can't do anything if they're in a workplace with substandard conditions, because they can get fired without cause." Linda Wang, who worked at a Toronto cosmetics manufacturer for four years, was fired less than two weeks after asking her employer for the extra pay she was owed for working a public holiday. She says no reason was given for her termination. Wang, a mother of two, claims her employer repeatedly bullied her and her colleagues, and says she believes she was dismissed for asking for the wages.

She has filed a reprisal complaint with the Ministry of Labour, but Wang cannot afford to take her employer to court. "I feel the system is against workers," she says. "It's in favour of employers." "Whatever job you have, you put so much of yourself into it," adds Gellatly. "The fact that employers can just fire you without a reason is incredibly devastating for folks." The Act also contains significant gaps when it comes to sick leave and overtime. The legislation provides most workers with 10 unpaid days of job-protected emergency leave, which means they can't be fired for taking a day off due to illness or family crisis. Critics call this measure subpar by most standards, since it still causes many workers to lose a day's income for being ill. An estimated 145 countries give employees some form of paid sick leave.

"Unfortunately, we stand out for our inadequacy," says Brock University professor Kendra Coulter. But the 10-day protected leave doesn't apply to almost one in three of the province's most vulnerable workers. An exemption that excludes employees in workplaces of fewer than 50 people from that right means 1.6 million workers in Ontario are not even entitled to a single, unpaid, job-protected sick day. Fast-growing, low-wage sectors such as retail, food services and health care are most likely to be exempt according to a recent report by the Workers' Action Centre. While many small businesses voluntarily give their employees paid sick days, the loophole leaves many workers - especially the precariously employed - exposed.

Toronto resident Gordon Butler asked his employer, a small construction company in Markham, for one day off work after he sliced his thumb open on the job. He says his boss told him not to come back. "I didn't believe him," says Butler, 44, who has an 8-month-old child. "I tried to plead with him, and he said 'No, too bad.'" "The way it's stacked up right now is there are very few options for people who are in low-wage and precarious work to actually take sick leave when they're sick," says Steve Barnes, director of policy at Toronto's Wellesley Institute, a health-policy think-tank. "They not only have to worry about lost income, but the potential for losing their jobs," adds Brock's Coulter. "It's unkind and unnecessary." The stress caused by the province's meagre sick-leave provisions is compounded by exemptions to overtime pay, to which around 1.5 million don't have full access.

As a rule, employees should get paid time and a half after 44 hours a week on the job, according to the Employment Standards Act. But in 2014, more than one million people in the province worked overtime, and 59 per cent of them did not get any pay whatsoever for it, Statistics Canada data shows. This, experts say, is partly because enforcement is poor. But in Ontario, a variety of occupations don't even have the right to overtime pay, including farmworkers, flower growers, IT workers, fishers and accountants. Managers are also not entitled to overtime. Vladimir Sanchez Rivera, a 45-year-old seasonal farmworker in the Niagara region, says he has worked 96-hour weeks doing back-breaking labour picking cucumbers and other produce.

We don't have access to protections when we are working in agriculture," he says. "And our employers tell us that." Low-wage workers are even more likely to be excluded from full overtime pay coverage, according to the Workers' Action Centre's research. Less than one third of low-income employees are fully covered by the Act's overtime provisions, compared to around 70 per cent of higher earners, because they are more likely to work in jobs that aren't eligible. Workplaces can also sign so-called "averaging provisions" with their employees, which allow bosses to average a worker's overtime over a period of up to four weeks. That means an employee could work 60 hours one week and 50 the next, but not receive any overtime as long as they don't work more than a total of 176 hours a month.

Critics say the measure means more work for less pay, and paves the way to erratic, unpredictable schedules. "That's a huge impact on workers and their families in terms of lost income and having to work extra hours," says Parkdale's Gellatly. "It's certainly not good for workers, for their families, and it's not good for creating decent jobs in terms of rebooting our economy," she adds. For many of the precariously employed, falling through the gaps ruins lives. "Even now, when I think about the working environment, I feel very depressed," says Wang, who, 10 months later, is still waiting for the Ministry of Labour to issue a ruling on her complaint. "I feel panic."

Sara Mojtehedzadeh can be reached at 416-869-4195 or smojtehedzadeh@thestar.ca. By the numbers 1.6 million non-unionized Ontario employees with no right to an unpaid, job-protected sick day 59%

of Ontario workers who worked overtime in 2014 did not get any pay whatsoever for it 71% of low-wage, non-unionized Ontario employees don't have full access to overtime pay 29%

of high-income employees don't have full access to overtime pay Sources: Workers' Action Centre, Statistics Canada Proposed solutions A recent report by the Workers' Action Centre makes a number of recommendations to rebuild the basic floor of rights for workers. The proposed reforms include: Amending the ESA to include protection from wrongful dismissal

Eliminating all occupational exemptions to ESA rights Repealing overtime exemptions and special rules Repealing overtime averaging provisions Repealing the emergency leave exemption for workplaces with less than 50 people Requiring employers to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave

Much of the rhetoric thrown around today in scuffles between governments and physicians might ring a bell for students of medical history. More than 50 years ago, doctors were also accused of being too stubborn to accept changes to pay structure, and a provincial government was also charged with putting fiscal concerns before patient needs. Of course, if that old saying holds any merit — “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” — perhaps a refresher is in order. There seems, after all, to be a little bit of history repeating itself.

The origin of conflict between provincial governments and physicians can be summed up in one word: medicare. It therefore dates back to midnight of July 1, 1962, when the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act passed into law, introducing the first universal, government-run, single-payer health system to North America. All of one minute later, most of Saskatchewan’s doctors went on strike.

tually, to be precise, the fighting between the government and doctors in Saskatchewan began a couple of years earlier, during the 1960 provincial election. Premier Tommy Douglas had made universal health care the main peg of his re-election campaign. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan fiercely opposed the idea, contending that government interference in medicine would do far more harm than good.

A public battle ensued, pitting doctors against politicians. Debates were held, pamphlets were circulated, pledges were signed. Did the whole affair stay civil and free of propaganda? Well, you could say that. But only if you enjoy being wrong.

Let’s start with some of the literature circulated by opponents of medicare. One pamphlet, Political Medicine is Bad Medicine, was chockablock with scary warnings and seasoned with a liberal sprinkling of words in all-caps for emphasis. Red Tape! Skyrocketing costs! Inferior care! The premier’s plan “proposes a PERMANENT INFLEXIBLE GOVERNMENT SCHEME at a high cost” that would subject medicine “to POLITICAL considerations bearing no relation to your NEEDS.”

Then there was the infamous flyer — later used by Premier Douglas to shame his opponents, according to Saturday Night magazine — that suggested many doctors would flee the province if the medicare bill passed. “They’ll have to fill up the profession with the garbage of Europe,” read one excerpt, a quote from an anonymous doctor taken from the Toronto Telegram. “Some of the European doctors who come out here are so bad we wonder if they ever practised medicine.”

Later, some in the anti-medicare camp acknowledged that mistakes were made, passion had trumped reason, and the medical profession had suffered for engaging in political mudslinging. “Many doctors concede privately that they went too far, that the campaign lost them prestige in their communities,” reported Saturday Night magazine.

Of course, the premier was no stranger to rhetoric himself. In fact, according to some political commenters of the time, he was a master of the form. He accused the province’s physicians of using “abominable” and “despicable” tactics and pedalling “scurrilous trash.”

In the end, Douglas and his party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, won the election and pushed ahead with their health system plan. The doctors and government set aside their differences and all lived happily ever after. Yeah, right.

Medicare was coming to Saskatchewan — that battle was over — but physicians still weren’t cooperating with the government. They focused their efforts on changing sections of the proposed medicare act, specifically those that granted the government almost unlimited power to control the practice of medicine.

There was no provision for negotiation. The doctors would simply have to do what the government told them to do, and be paid what the government said they would be paid,” Dr. Marc Baltzan (1929–2005), a Saskatoon nephrologist and former president of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote in a 1984 article in Canadian Family Physician entitled, “Doctor/Government Fee Negotiations in Canada.”

After the act became law, unchanged, the province’s physicians closed their offices, though they still provided emergency services in hospitals. The standoff lasted 23 days, ending only after both sides compromised and signed the Saskatoon Agreement. The deal amended the act to ensure doctors would maintain their independence and could, if they wanted, opt out of medicare and bill patients directly.

The deal was brokered by Lord Stephen Taylor, a British doctor and politician who helped implement the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. Later, reflecting on his Saskatchewan adventure, Taylor wrote that much of the animosity between the two parties arose because they did not understand each other at all. The government did not anticipate how much their plan would threaten the autonomy of a proud profession. Physicians “could not believe that the government was composed of honest and responsible people.”

Taylor, a man of both medicine and government, chose to take a dispassionate view of the conflict. “I see honest men on both sides, well motivated but mystified by the actions of their opponents.”

Decades later, debate over another act — the Canada Health Act, federal legislation adopted in 1984 — again showed just how differently government and physicians can view a change to how doctors are paid. This time, the government was putting an end to extra billing by physicians. But according to Baltzan, as mentioned in his Canada Family Physician article cited above, this was merely a “political euphemism” for banning a patient’s right to be reimbursed by the government when billed directly by a doctor.

In his lament over the passing of the “deceitful bill,” Baltzan suggested that it was important to revisit the original fight over medicare in Saskatchewan because “it shows that there is nothing new under the sun: it contains all the elements of physician–government confrontation that have been replayed again and again during the Canada Health Act debate.”

Now, more than 30 years later, it might not be a stretch to say there is still nothing new under the sun regarding negotiations between doctors and government. When things go bad, as they have in Ontario, both sides sometimes resort to a little time-tested rhetoric. Then again, though some of the messages sound familiar, other elements of physician–government showdowns have changed since 1962. For one, doctors back then didn’t have Twitter accounts.

Polls show Canadians overwhelmingly support these conditions. Medicare's key limitation, however, is that it applies only to services offered by doctors and hospitals. It does not apply to home care. Increasingly, provincial governments are trying to save money by encouraging acute-care hospitals to discharge patients as quickly as possible. In most provinces, these patients find themselves reliant on badly underfunded home-care services. Unlike hospital care, such services are usually neither comprehensive nor universal. As an Alberta oil worker with incurable cancer found when he tried unsuccessfully to come home to Ontario to die near his family, they are not even portable. Ontario pays $3 billion on home care each year. But Queen's Park saves more than that in foregone hospital and nursing home costs. In that sense, home care is a revenue tool. It allows provincial governments to evade the spirit, if not the letter, of the Canada Health Act. In Ontario, as my Star colleague Bob Hepburn has pointed out, the results are sometimes absurd. When the provincial Liberal government boosted wages for badly paid home-care workers earlier this year, some cost-conscious agencies responded by cutting services. In the weird world of Canadian health care, it was the logical thing to do. But there is a way to fix the home-care anomaly. Roy Romanow's royal commission on health care pointed to it 14 years ago.

Romanow argued it made no sense to exclude home care from medicare. He recommended home care services for the mentally ill, for patients just released from acute care hospitals and for those needing palliative care be written into the Canada Health Act immediately. By 2020, he said, all home care services should be covered by medicare. Interestingly, federal Health Minister Jane Philpott is also focusing on home care, mental health and palliative care. How would she get the provinces onside? Many assume a final deal over medicare spending can be hammered out only by the first ministers meeting in a marathon bargaining session - as happened in 2004. In that session, the premiers ran roughshod over then Prime Minister Paul Martin. Quebec demanded and received the principle of asymmetric federalism - that it could do whatever it wished with the massive health transfers Martin was offering. Alberta then demanded and received the principle of provincial equality - which meant any province could mimic Quebec. As a result, no real conditions applied to any of the money Ottawa agreed to hand over.

This is one way of doing things. The other is for Ottawa to ignore provincial objections. That's what Lester Pearson's Liberal government did in 1966 when, in concert with the New Democrats and over the strident objections of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and the federal Conservatives, it passed Canada's first national medicare act. The Canada Health Act is the successor to that 1966 law. It is a federal statute that can be amended unilaterally by Parliament. In 2016, it makes sense that it be amended to include home care as a core medicare service. Some provinces may disagree. If so, they won't have to take any extra money that Ottawa puts on offer. Thomas Walkom's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

the Health Council told us, there remain “clear disparities in the availability of publicly-funded homecare across the country”

The Health Minister, ignoring the 80% of Canadians who want more home and community care added to the health system, has stated flatly that he is “not going to get involved” in home care because he sees it as a provincial matter.  As if to underscore his point, the government has dismantled the Secretariat set up in 2001 to coordinate the development of a national strategy on end-of-life care.

the government has been sitting on the report of the Wait Times Advisor for two full years.  Positive recommendations, including a more multidisciplinary approach and gender analysis, have been side-tracked. 

the federal government’s silence while for-profit forces have exploited public concern over wait times to resurrect their false promise of salvation through parallel for-profit care

after developing the Framework for Collaborative Pan-Canadian Health Human Resources Planning, the action plan so urgently needed has hit the doldrums

The Health Council has said planning remains “fragmented”

urgent need to address the health deficit faced by aboriginal Canadians with improvements to both health services and the determinants of health for aboriginal communities

Although the 10-year Plan includes health care in Northern communities and has incorporated the 2004 Blueprint for Aboriginal Health, the Health Council reports that “preventable health problems… continue to be of concern across the country”, and that “relatively little funding seems to have flowed”.

the federal government’s decentralized approach to national health care priorities has resulted in the loss of a national vision for health care and a directionless, leaderless renewal process at the national level

We recommend, therefore, that the federal government commit itself to a national, pan-Canadian, system-wide approach to public health care renewal anchored in Canada Health Act principles and enforcement, and with the jurisdictional flexibility and asymmetrical federalism found in the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care.

We recommend, therefore, that the government take urgent actions to get the Plan back on track in each of its areas of focus as quickly as possible, including: acting on the recommendations of the 2006 Interim Report of the National Pharmaceutical Strategy and the Report of the Wait Time Advisor; advancing the action plan under the Framework for Collaborative Pan-Canadian Health Human Resources Planning; energetically pursuing the objectives of the 2004 Blueprint for Aboriginal Health (most particularly where it relates to measures under direct federal jurisdiction); working with the provinces and territories to re-establish the Advisory Committee on Governance and Accountability as a functioning part of the renewal process; and convening a meeting of ministers of health to identify roadblocks that are impeding progress and to develop strategies to overcome these obstacles. 

the Canada Health Act, our main tool in protecting public health care, to which the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care is committed, is being undermined through inadequate monitoring and enforcement

The for-profit health industry continues to grow unabated

The Canada Health Act annual reports to Parliament do not reflect this due to their limited scope and the government’s failure to make improvements identified by the Auditor General back in 2002.

We recommend, therefore, that the Health Minister fully enforce the Canada Health Act by: setting data collection standards for reporting and enforcement that capture all for-profit activities that may impact on public health delivery; working collaboratively with the provinces and territories to fill gaps in reporting; stipulating that federal transfers should only be used for non-profit health care delivery; and removing any requirements that health infrastructure endeavours consider for-profit options such as public-private partnerships.

hospital services be covered by the provincial and territorial health insurance plans, whether the services are provided in a hospital or in a facility providing hospital care. There are concerns about queue jumping and charges to insured persons at private surgical clinics in British Columbia, for services that are covered under its provincial health in

atient charges and queue jumping at private diagnostic clinics also remain issues in some provinces where private clinics are charging patients for medically

services and allowing them to jump the queue for insured health services.

Schedule 28 gives cabinet authority over “contracting out or privatization of any and all Ontario Government Services,” to any person or corporate entity, whether Canadian or foreign-owned

The act overrides requirements for quality standards contained in other, pre-existing laws. It also allows private service providers of public services new powers to collect and retain fees, even though that is prohibited by the Financial Administration Act, and transfers decision-making authority from the Legislature to individuals and private corporations.

It opens the door to back-room deals to sell off the LCBO or Hydro One, and allows government services including water quality monitoring or school curriculum development to be privatized or contracted out.

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

Dr. Brian Day's court challenge is underway in Vancouver. The main issue is whether Canadians should be permitted to pay privately for "medically necessary services" already covered by their provincial health plan. Is there a need for increased private health care in Canada? If so, can it be implemented without jeopardizing the public system?

Philpott admits "innovation" is required. Yet governments are constrained by blindly adhering to certain parts of the CHA, while ignoring others. As Ben Eisen of the Fraser Institute has emphasized, provinces have been forbidden to experiment with user-fees, copayments, etc. that would encourage individuals to use health services more responsibly. A "two-tier" system has always existed. Federal prisoners, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board patients, members of the military and RCMP, politicians and professional athletes usually obtain more timely care - often at private facilities. For those not near an inter-provincial border and not a member of a "special group," the main option for timely care may be to go to the United States. This provides employment to American doctors and nurses and profits to U.S. hospitals. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow all Canadians to spend their after-tax discretionary income on health in their own province? Frozen hospital budgets have caused excessive wait times for knee and hip replacements as operating rooms often don't function at full capacity. According to a 2013 survey, 15 per cent of Canadian surgeons considered themselves underemployed and 64 per cent cited poor access to ORs. About 25 per cent of nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador work only part of the year.

If orthopedic surgeons had access to additional "private" OR time, wait times could be shortened for all Canadians and new employment would be created for health-care professionals. If hospitals were permitted to operate electively on Americans and other foreign patients, this would bring in extra revenue and relieve the strain on provincial health ministries. So that MDs did not abandon the public system, they could be required to work 25 to 30 hours per week in the public system in order to receive government reimbursement for malpractice insurance. Most MDs would confine their practice to the public system. They deserve fair treatment. Philpott should amend the Canada Health Act to mandate binding arbitration when provincial negotiations fail, as they have in Ontario. Since 1984, the population has grown and aged, new diseases have been recognized, and new drugs and technologies have developed. Some 32 years ago, it was understood that Ottawa would pay half of health costs. Now it covers less than a quarter. We need to amend and modernize the Canada Health Act. Where wait times are excessive, certain diagnostic services and surgical procedures should allow for private access for all Canadians - not just a select few. This would maximally utilize expensive equipment and provide new employment for nurses, technicians and surgeons. It would provide extra revenue that would help to keep universal public health care sustainable and accessible for all Canadians. Ottawa should then enforce all sections of the Canada Health Act on all provinces and territories. Dr. Charles Shaver Ottawa

In 2004, the Ontario Liberals passed legislation called 'The Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act' reaffirming the commitment of "the people of Ontario and their government," to the Canada Health Act. "It begs the question, are the McGuinty Liberals on the verge of breaking their promise to defend Medicare?

the principles of universality, inter-provincial portability and comprehensiveness should all be retained in their current form

Some sections of the Canada Health Act do, however, need to be revised

Section 8, which contains the requirement for public administration, requires a single, non-profit insurer, thus preventing competition and alternate forms of ownership and operation of the insurer

Section 12 covers accessibility and is one of the more problematic sections

It is also intimately related to sections 18 through 21. These sections disallow the use of extra billing and user charges. We recommend repealing these prohibitions

We also recommend that Section 12 focus on accessibility for those experiencing low income by encouraging the provinces to shelter such people from the burden of user fees, co-pays, or other financial contributions.

The federal government has taken some productive first steps in reforming the transfer payments and accordant conditions attached to them. However, the federal government must now revise the Canada Health Act

Jason Clemens and Nadeem Esmail are co-authors of First, Do No Harm: How the Canada Health Act Obstructs Reform and Innovation, which was recently released by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Among significant changes: 1. Develop clear guidance on when and how hospitals should use QCIPA to avoid the large variation in how the act is currently used. 2. Amend the act to ensure appropriate disclosure to patients and families following a critical care incident so they are informed about the results of an investigation, including what happened and what measures would be taken to prevent future incidents. 3. Establish an appeal mechanism for the investigation of critical incidents so in circumstances where patients or families are not satisfied with a hospital review, they can request an investigation from an independent body, possibly the Office of the Patient Ombudsman. 4. Establish a publicly available database or registry that contains information about all of the critical incidents investigated in Ontario hospitals, including the type of incident, the causes and the recommendations to prevent future incidents. 5. Patients and families must be interviewed as part of the process of investigating critical incidents and then be fully informed of the results.

This clearly puts the doctors involved in a conflict of interest. In a health system experiencing a significant shortage of practitioners, medical resources are drained from public hospital-based "free" care and into private purses. It also ties health care quality and accessibility to a patient's wealth - precisely what the Canada Health Act tries to prevent. For example, Montreal Children's Hospital - one of Montreal's two pediatric university hospitals - has decided to stop offering many medically necessary services. Instead, it will direct some patients to a new outpatient clinic. There, parents may be billed for such services as dermatology, endocrinology, general pediatrics and other important specialized care.

This steady disintegration of the principles of health care could soon be irreversible. Premier Philippe Couillard's new Bill 20 will legalize direct patient billing for medically necessary services provided outside of hospitals. The provincial government is confident that Ottawa won't intervene to enforce the Canada Health Act in Quebec (the federal government hasn't intervened in the past decade). Bill 20 makes legal practices that were grey-zone breaches in the universal public health system. This is creates a parallel, legal private health-care system subsidized by public health insurance. This could be the final blow to health care in Quebec. An unhealthy coalition - the Couillard government, private clinic owners, medical federations, private insurers and even some hospital administrators - is irresistibly pushing to decrease the care offered in public institutions and to increase the market share of direct payment and privately insured services. The only chance to save health care in Quebec is direct intervention by the federal government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and federal Health Minister Jane Philpott must enforce the Canadian Health Act in Quebec, even cutting federal health transfers until the province conforms.

Doing anything less will mean access to care according to a Quebec patient's wealth, rather than their needs. Astrid Brousselle is a professor in the Community Health Department, and researcher at the Centre de recherche de l'Hopital Charles-LeMoyne, Universite de Sherbrooke and Canada Research Chair in Evaluation and Health System Improvement. Damien Contandriopoulos is a professor in Nursing and a researcher at the Public Health Research Institute at University of Montreal (IRSPUM). CIHR Research Chair in Applied Public Health.

Underlying both reforms is a quiet resignation to the idea that two-tiered health care is inevitable. This sense of resignation is understandable, coming as it does on the heels of a decade-long void in federal leadership on health care. Throughout the Harper government's time in office, the Canada Health Act went substantially unenforced as private clinics popped up across the country. Even in its reduced role as a cheque-writer, the federal government took steps that undermined national unity on health care, switching the Canada Health Transfer to a strict per capita formula, which takes no account of a province's income level or health-care needs. If Canadians hope to reverse this trend, we cannot simply wage a rearguard battle for the enforcement of the Canada Health Act as it was enacted in 1984. Even if properly enforced, the act protects universal access only for medically necessary hospital and physician services. This is not the blueprint of a 21st-century public health-care system.

We desperately need universal coverage for a full array of health-care goods and services -- pharmaceuticals, mental-health services, home care and out-of-hospital diagnostics. Canada is unique among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the paucity of what it covers on a universal basis despite falling in the top quartile of countries in levels of per capita health spending. Far from being our saviour, the Canada Health Act in its current incarnation is partly to blame -- not because of its restrictions on queue-jumping and private payment, but because it doesn't protect important modern needs, such as access to prescription drugs.

There are limits on what a public health system can provide, of course -- particularly as many provinces now spend nearly half of their budgets on health care. But fairness requires these limits be drawn on a reasoned basis, targeting public coverage at the most effective treatments. Under the current system, surgical removal of a bunion falls under universal coverage, while self-administered but life-saving insulin shots for diabetics do not. A modernized Canada Health Act would hold the provinces accountable for reasonable rationing decisions across the full spectrum of medically necessary care.

Instead of modernizing medicare, Saskatchewan and Quebec are looking to further privatize it. Experience to date suggests allowing two-tiered care will not alleviate wait times in the public system. Alberta has reversed course on its experiment with private-pay MRIs after the province's wait times surged to some of the longest in the country.

The current wisdom is long wait times are better addressed by reducing unnecessary tests. A 2013 study of two hospitals (one in Alberta, one in Ontario) found more than half of lower-back MRIs ordered were unnecessary. Skirmishes over privatization have to be fought, but they should not distract us from the bigger challenge of creating a modern and publicly accountable health system -- one that provides people the care they need, while avoiding unnecessary care.

Achieving that will make National Medicare Week a true cause for celebration. Bryan Thomas is a research associate and Colleen M. Flood is a professor at the University of Ottawa's Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics. Flood is also an adviser with EvidenceNetwork.ca.