Group items tagged

allow people to buy health insurance from a choice of up to 180 private insurers

Though there is a shortage of empirical evidence in any of the countries on what works, evidence suggests that such a system encourages patients and doctors to better manage their health, curbing the likelihood people will end up in an emergency ward or pricey acute-care hospital bed, the report said.

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

A "Medicare-plus" approach works in Australia, and could work for Canada too. Measures similar to Australia's could be applied at the provincial level, or can be built into whatever agreement replaces the current federal-provincial Health Care Accord in 2014.

he main difference is that although these countries have universally accessible health-care systems, they also allow people to receive private medical services by paying outof-pocket or purchasing insurance. Their systems result in better overall care, for two main reasons. First, competition from private hospitals and medical practices provides an incentive for the public system to improve. As the C.D. Howe Institute's Åke Blomqvist and Colin Busby argue in a policy paper released last month, in Canada, "lack of competition between provincial health insurance plans and privately financed medicine has lessened the pressure on publicsector managers and politicians to improve an inadequately performing system."

Having a parallel private alternative also helps reduce wait times in the public system. Last year, Canadians waited an average of 9.8 weeks to receive medically necessary treatments after seeing a specialist - three weeks longer than what most doctors consider to be "reasonable." In the Commonwealth Fund study, Canada ranked dead last in terms of "timeliness of care," while the U.K. came in third and Australia sixth. (The U.K. and Australia also ranked first and second respectively in terms of quality of care.) Fears of a mass migration of doctors into the private system are easily answered. In the U.K., doctors trained in public universities are required to work in the National Health Service (the public system) for at least two years before they can move into the private system. Doctors who receive NHS funding are also allowed to set up parallel private practices, but must work 40 hours a week for the NHS.

Fortunately, Canadian provinces have quite a bit of leeway to experiment with allowing more privately delivered medical services. As Mssrs. Blomqvist and Busby argue, "Although this is not widely understood, the [Canada Health Act] does not rule out transactions in which providers are paid privately for their services. There is also no prohibition on private insurance that covers the same services as those under the public plans, provided these services are supplied entirely independent of publicly funded services." Indeed, all that is needed is for provincial governments to take the initiative and remove some of their restrictions on private health services.

The health-care debate in this country has traditionally focused on comparing our system with that of the United States. Yet the truth is that we have much more in common with European and other industrialized countries. As many of these countries have shown us, it is possible to provide world-class health care that is accessible to all people, while allowing those who choose to pay for private services to do so here at home, rather than travelling overseas.

"Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect health system and it certainly doesn't reside in any one country," Mark Britnell, global chairman for health at the consulting giant KPMG, writes in his new book, In Search of the Perfect Health System. "But there are fantastic examples of great health and health care from around the world which can offer inspiration."

As a consultant who has worked in 60 countries - and who receives in-depth briefings on the health systems of each before meeting clients - Mr. Britnell has a unique perspective and, in the book, offers up a subjective and insightful list of the traits that are important to creating good health systems. If the world had a perfect health system, he writes, it would have the following qualities: the values and universal access of the U.K.; the primary care of Israel; the community services of Brazil; the mentalhealth system of Australia; the health promotion philosophy of the Nordic countries; the patient and community empowerment in parts of Africa; the research and development infrastructure of the United States; the innovation, flair and speed of India; the information, communications and technology of Singapore; the choice offered to patients in France; the funding model of Switzerland; and the care for the aged of Japan.

In the book, Mr. Britnell elaborates on each of these examples of excellence and, in addition, provides a great precis of the strengths and weaknesses of health systems in 25 countries. The chapter on Canada is appropriately damning, noting that this country's outmoded health system has long been ripe for revolution, but the "revolution has not happened."

Why? Because this country has a penchant for doing high-level, in-depth reviews of the health system's problems, but puts all its effort into producing recommendations and none into implementing them. Ouch. "Canada stands at a crossroads," Mr. Britnell writes, "and needs to find the political will and managerial and clinical skills to establish a progressive coalition of the willing."

The book's strength is that it does not offer up simplistic solutions. Rather, it stresses that there is no single best approach because all health systems are the products of their societies, norms and cultures. One of the best parts of the book - and quite relevant to Canada - is the analysis of funding models. "The debate about universal health care is frequently confused with the ability to pay," Mr. Britnell writes. He notes that the high co-payments in the highly praised health systems of Asia would simply not be tolerated in the West.

But ultimately what matters is finding an approach that works, not a perfect one: "This is the fundamental point. There is no such thing as free health care; it is only a matter of who pays for it. Politics is the imperfect art of deciding 'who gets what, how and when.' " The book stresses that the challenges are the same everywhere: providing high-quality care to all at an affordable price, finding the work force to deliver that care and empowering patients. To do so effectively, you need vision and you need systems. Above all, you need the political will to learn from others and put in place a system that works.

The massive CPP Fund had $282.6 billion worth of assets at the end of 2015. Wiseman’s speech noted more than 75 per cent of its investments were made outside Canada, including about $7 billion in Australia.

Andrew McNeill, a researcher for one of Canada’s biggest unions, believes it’s basically another name for privatization, which he says has negative connotations.

activity-based funding of hospitals

It also makes the federal government fully responsible for funding and delivering “aged care;”

AU$20 billion boost in funding for public hospitals over the next decade

But the final agreement fell short on one of the key objectives identified at the start of the exercise — a blending of federal and state government services and funding

Australia’s constitution makes the federal government responsible for national health policy, subsidization of public hospitals and funding of medical services and pharmaceuticals under medicare. State and territorial governments are responsible for public health services, such as dental, maternal and child health care; all direct care, including most acute and psychiatric hospital services; as well as a portion of the funding of public hospitals.

Costs have been rising at about a 9% rate for the past five years, while the revenues of state and territorial government have grown by about 6%.

The agreement essentially trades an increase in federal funding in exchange for reforms to be undertaken by the states.

There has been considerable recent interest in bed occupancy in Australia4

80% to 85% is widely, if anecdotally, quoted although the 85% level apparently arises from earlier work on queues.4

There is a great deal of evidence linking "overcrowding" and adverse events

We need to know the true cost of re-work in public hospitals that have become highly "efficient" and this should include costs to patients (who may require extended convalescence on welfare) and society as well as to the hospitals.

it seems unrealistic, at least in the foreseeable future, to be able to run a complex computer program in a busy public hospital at intervals to determine optimum bed occupancy

cutting bed numbers to promote "efficiency" may have unintended and perhaps unforeseen consequences

Now Complexity and Network Science tell us that sustainability and resilience are most important, that some redundancy is essential for resilience, and that as we become increasingly efficient we simultaneously become increasingly vulnerable to failures.

lowering average bed occupancy in busy public hospitals to an average of, say, 85% may still be feasible and very worthwhile.

£7 an hour, receives an extra £1 an hour for a night shift and £2 an hour for weekends.

"The NHS encourages you to have these NVQs, all this training, improve your knowledge, and then they [private care companies] come along and it all comes to nothing.

Care UK expects to make a profit "of under 6%" by the end of the three-year contract

£700,000 operating profit in the six months between September last year and March this year,

In 1993 the private sector provided 5% of the state-funded services given to people in their homes, known as domiciliary care. By 2012 this had risen to 89% – largely driven by the local authorities' need for cheaper ways to deliver services and the private sector's assurance that they could provide the answer. More than £2.7bn is spent by the state on this type of care every year. Private providers have targeted wages as a way to slice out profits, de-skilling the sector in the process.

1.4 million care workers in England are unregulated by any professional body and less than 50% have completed a basic NVQ2 level qualification, with 30% apparently not even completing basic induction trainin

Today 8% of care homes are supplied by private equity-owned firms – and the number is growing. The same is true of 10% of services run for those with learning disabilities

William Laing

report on private equity in July 2012

"It makes pots of money.

Those profits – which are made before debt payments and overheads – don't appear on the bottom line of the health firms' company accounts, and because of that corporation tax isn't paid on them.

Some of that was in payments on loans issued in Guernsey, meaning tax could not be charged. Its sister company, Silver Sea, responsible for funding the construction of Care UK care homes, is domiciled in the tax haven of Luxembourg

Bridgepoint

.voterDiv .ob_bctrl{display:none;} .ob_pdesc IMG{border:none;} .AR_1 .ob_what{direction:ltr;text-align:right;clear:both;padding:5px 10px 0px;} .AR_1 .ob_what a{color:#999;font-size:10px;font-family:arial;text-decoration: none;} .AR_1 .ob_what.ob-hover:hover a{text-decoration: underline;} .AR_1 .ob_clear{clear:both;} .AR_1 .ob_amelia, .AR_1 .ob_logo, .AR_1 .ob_text_logo {display:inline-block;vertical-align:text-bottom;padding:0px 5px;box-sizing:content-box;-moz-box-sizing:content-box;-webkit-box-sizing:content-box;} .AR_1 .ob_amelia{background:url('http://widgets.outbrain.com/images/widgetIcons/ob_logo_16x16.png') no-repeat center top;width:16px;height:16px;margin-bottom:-2px;} .AR_1 .ob_logo{background:url('http://widgets.outbrain.com/images/widgetIcons/ob_logo_67x12.png') no-repeat center top;width:67px;height:12px;} .AR_1 .ob_text_logo{background:url('http://widgets.outbrain.com/images/widgetIcons/ob_text_logo_66x23.png') no-repeat center top;width:66px;height:23px;} .AR_1:hover .ob_amelia, .AR_1:hover .ob_logo, .AR_1:hover .ob_text_logo{background-position:center bottom;} .AR_1 .ob_org_header { border-top: 10px solid #D61D00; display: block; font-family: georgia,serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-top: 5px; } More from the guardian Rogeting: why 'sinister buttocks' are creeping into students' essays 08 Aug 2014 Theatre's decision to ban Jewish film festival is 'thin end of wedge' 09 Aug 2014 Sir Paul Nurse: 'I looked at my birth certificate. That was not my mother's name' 09 Aug 2014 Adventures in contraception: eight women discuss their choices 10 Aug 2014 Child prison deaths 08 Aug 2014 [?] .voterDiv .ob_bctrl{display:none;} .ob_pdesc IMG{border:none;} .AR_2 .ob_what{direction:ltr;text-align:right;clear:both;padding:5px 10px 0px;} .AR_2 .ob_what a{color:#999;font-size:10px;font-family:arial;text-decoration: none;} .AR_2 .ob_what.ob-hover:hover a{text-decoration: underline;} .AR_2 .ob_clear{clear:both;} .AR_2 .ob_amelia, .AR_2 .ob_logo, .AR_2 .ob_text_logo {display:inline-block;vertical-align:text-bottom;padding:0px 5px;box-sizing:content-box;-moz-box-sizing:content-box;-webkit-box-sizing:content-box;} .AR_2 .ob_amelia{background:url('http://widgets.outbrain.com/images/widgetIcons/ob_logo_16x16.png') no-repeat center top;width:16px;height:16px;margin-bottom:-2px;} .AR_2 .ob_logo{background:url('http://widgets.outbrain.com/images/widgetIcons/ob_logo_67x12.png') no-repeat center top;width:67px;height:12px;} .AR_2 .ob_text_logo{background:url('http://widgets.outbrain.com/images/widgetIcons/ob_text_logo_66x23.png') no-repeat center top;width:66px;height:23px;} .AR_2:hover .ob_amelia, .AR_2:hover .ob_logo, .AR_2:hover .ob_text_logo{background-position:center bottom;} .AR_2 .ob_org_header { border-top: 10px solid #D61D00; display: block; font-family: georgia,serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-top: 5px; } /* updated via mysql on 2014-04-08 */ .AR_2 .ob_what { display: block; } /* added via mysql on 2014-06-20 */ .OUTBRAIN:hover .ob_what a { text-decoration: underline; } .ob_box_cont.AR_2 { padding-bottom: 5px; } /* end mysql add */ /* added via mysql on 2014-07-14 */ .AR_2 .ob_org_header span { color: #999; font-family: arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; display: block; } /* end 2014-07-14 */ More from around the webPromoted content by Outbrain http://paid.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=0iZOm4XuGW6R5uuT6ZFciNevzJlIfmxs0SRwpiMrH7gWrMXoPie4vIA9PlhaEW%2BXNi57pCgl9j8yOE3HuJT75pwCLNj4n18v3EKQDEV0YFQjOBxc46mOs

Currently 76,000 vulnerable seniors live in nursing homes. Thousands more are on regional waiting lists. Hospitals consider them "bed blockers." Private retirement residences aren't equipped to meet their needs. Their families can't take care of them or get enough home care to keep them clean, safe and stable. "I think we see nursing homes as a symbol of failure - failure of the individuals to care for themselves, of families to care for older people, of the medical system to cure them," Armstrong said. "It's something we don't want to think about because we intend to avoid such places when we grow old." That attitude has led to underfunding, understaffing, low wages and high turnover in nursing homes. Care providers don't have time to listen to residents, respond to their needs, help them eat, talk to them or alleviate their boredom. Food service workers lock the dining room between meals. Clothes vanish in the laundry. Government-required paperwork takes precedence over caregiving. It is not unusual to see a dozen seniors - some with dementia, some in wheelchairs, some heavily sedated - lined up in front of a television staring vacantly at a rerun of I Love Lucy.

"They deserve better," Armstrong thought. So she pulled together a team of 26 researchers from six countries (Canada, Britain, Sweden, Germany, the United States and Australia) to reimagine institutional long-term care. Could it be a humane, dignified, financially viable option? The team included doctors, pharmacists, architects, economists, psychologists, social workers, historians, philosophers and communication experts. It began by collecting success stories from Europe and North America and identifying the most promising practices and best ideas in the field. That was five years ago. Armstrong and her colleagues have now done 25 site visits in 10 jurisdictions; interviewed thousands of long-term care residents, workers, managers, policy-makers and advocates for seniors; published 50 academic papers and released an 86-page public report entitled "Promising Practices in Long-Term Care."

Last week, she and co-author Donna Baines, of the University of Sydney in Australia, led a panel discussion in the dining room of Hart House at the University of Toronto. "The reception was very positive. People are excited by the possibilities." It will take many more community forums - and a lot of public pressure - to change the mindset at the ministry of health and long-term care. It regards the elderly as a financial burden and nursing home workers as an expense to be controlled. For one evening, Armstrong and Baines managed to change the public dialogue from failures and shortcomings to promising practices. They provided proof that nursing homes don't have to be grim, depressing places. They offered hope to desperate families, exhausted caregivers and aging boomers contemplating their future.

Armstrong acknowledged afterward that it will take a prodigious effort and a significant public investment to reach the level of long-term care regarded as normal in countries such Germany, Sweden and Britain. But even without a cash infusion, she argued, there are ways to make life better for the residents of Ontario's nursing homes: Label their clothes properly before sending them to the laundry; allow them to make a cup of mid-afternoon tea or go to the fridge for a beer; let them eat chocolate or ice cream if they wish; make the decor less hospital-like and more like a home. Give personal care precedence over paperwork. Reorganize who does what to bolster teamwork and reduce staff turnover. These reforms are not costly. Three principles are vital for high-quality long-term nursing care, the researchers concluded: It fosters person-to-person relationships. It respects individual differences, while striving for equity. It offers dignity to older citizens regardless of their infirmities.

One of the biggest impediments to progress, Armstrong said, is the province's knee-jerk response to scandals. Any time something goes wrong in one of Ontario's 629 nursing homes, the ministry of health imposes blanket regulations. These one-size-fits-all rules reduce the ability of care providers and nursing managers to tailor their practices to the needs of residents. "We've become so obsessed with safety and standardization that we've taken the life out of living." So far, there's been no sign of interest in the project from Queen's Park. That is not likely to change until Ontarians open their eyes and raise their voices. Instead of complaining after their elderly parent is admitted to a nursing home, they need to speak out for everyone's parents. Instead of giving up on long-term care, they need to push back when policy-makers offer visiting part-time help.

The United Kingdom and Australia consider an 85% acute care bed occupancy rate to be the safe upper limit, according to the OECD. But Campbell, who says the OECD’s figures on Canadian occupancy rates are probably accurate, is not interested in debating appropriate overall rates.

It may come as a surprise that despite these statistics, Ontario Hospital Association president Pat Campbell is not advocating for more hospital beds.

Between 1998 and 2011, the number of all types of hospital beds in Ontario remained “virtually constant at approximately 31,000” while the population increased by 16%, according to a 2011 Ontario Hospital Association document.

Rose says, for example, that occupancy rates in surgical critical care units, characterized by rapid turnover and short stays, should be about 75% to be efficient.

This kind of cooperation could also work when hospital crowding becomes excessive, for example when flu season hits, says Mike Tierney, vice-president for clinical programs at The Ottawa Hospital and one of the editors of Healthy Debate. What is needed is “an ability to look at hospital occupancy

Still, Schull does not advocate for more hospital beds. “It would be a mistake to add beds to a dysfunctional system,” he says.

Occupancy rates matter if you accept the premise that high rates lead to poor access for patients who need to be admitted from emergency departments, notes Michael Schull, an emergency room doctor at Sunnybrook who has published on wait times in emergency and overcrowding risks.

and bed availability across a region in real time, rather than each hospital trying their best to manage on their own

The sobering reality is that Ontario hospitals are tight for capacity largely because of the number of beds occupied by patients, most of them elderly, waiting for admission to another facility (such as rehabilitation or long-term care) or for support to return home.

Administrators at Health Sciences North in Ontario have discovered the benefit of very active cooperation between the 459 bed Ramsey Lake Health Centre (formerly the Sudbury Regional Hospital) and the local Community Care Access Centre (CCAC).

Working together, the result has been a reduction of ALC patients at the health centre from 133 to 78 in the period between September and December 2012, says David McNeil, vice president of clinical services and chief of nursing.

The challenge for the CCAC was to expand its capacity for community-based care, and some funding was received from the province for new programs including behavioural support and mobility programs. For its part, the hospital recruited a new geriatrician, gradually closed beds at the former Memorial Hospital site that had been used for ALC patients, and redirected money towards chronic disease management.

As well, community groups have been engaged “to help them understand that the hospital is no longer the centre of the universe,” McNeil says

That question dominated the recent Public Health 2016 conference in Toronto. Speakers described persistent inequity and inaction across the health system, from research to medical training to hospital care. “The common response is to deny that the problem lies in the structures,” said Charlotte Loppie, director of the Centre for Indigenous Research and Community-led Engagement at the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

She argued that it’s a mistake to see “colonization” as something that happened in the past. “It’s about the control that some people have over other people, which obviously continues today in the health policies and programs that are developed and expanded on indigenous communities, rather than with those communities.”

Research Loppie spoke at a panel hosted by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), which faced criticism in February for awarding less than 1% of funding to Aboriginal health projects in its first major competition since restructuring. “We know we have to work to get this right and get this better and I think we’re learning as we go,” said Nancy Edwards, scientific director of the Institute of Population and Public Health at CIHR.

According to Edwards, Aboriginal health is now a “standing item” at science council meetings, which bring together CIHR top brass every four to six weeks. There has also been “a lot of consultation” with indigenous researchers and communities. There isn’t a single barrier standing in the way. “It’s not that simple,” she said.

Speakers at the Canadian Public Health Association’s annual conference urged structural change to improve indigenous health.

Loppie said she considers Edwards an ally, but noted that CIHR has “a long way to go” to correct the disadvantage to Aboriginal health research under the new funding structure. “Change is a difficult point,” particularly at the most senior levels of administration, she said.

Medical education Australia’s experience integrating indi genous health education into medical training shows how change at that level can help transform a system. Australia’s version of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended compulsory courses for all health professionals in 1989. But this didn’t become reality for doctors until 2006, when the Australian Medical Council set standards that the indigenous health training schools must provide.

With accreditation on the line, change was rapid and meaningful, said Janie Smith, a professor of innovations in medical education at Bond University in Australia. “If you don’t meet the standards, you can’t run your program, so it’s very powerful.” Bond’s medical program overhauled its case-based curriculum to include indigenous examples to teach core concepts. Students also complete a two-day cultural immersion workshop in first year and a remote clinical placement in fifth year.

“It’s a really important principle that this is the normal program and it’s funded out of the normal budget,” Smith said. Integration in core curriculum teaches students that cultural sensitivity is fundamental to being a good doctor, like understanding anatomy. It also protects indigenous health education from “toe cutters” when budgets are tight. Although Canadian medical schools are expanding their indigenous health content, some educators noted that it’s still peripheral to core training.

Lloy Wylie teaches medical students as an assistant professor of public health at Western University in London, Ontario. She recalled one indigenous health session that only a third of students attended. “When it’s voluntary, only the people who don’t need the training show up.”

Hospital care Wylie said she encountered the same indifference among some medical colleagues at Victoria Hospital in London, Ont., where she is appointed to the psychiatry department. “There are still some very unsettling things that I see going on in our hospital system.” She shared stories of “huge jurisdictional gaps” between the hospital and reserve, of patients with cancer denied adequate pain medication because of assumptions about addiction, and of health workers “woefully unaware” of indigenous culture and services.

People in the hospital weren’t even aware of the Aboriginal patient liaison that was in the hospital,” Wylie said. There are some recent bright spots; for example, British Columbia and Ontario are boosting cultural sensitivity training for health workers. But Wylie noted that the same workers “go back to institutions that are very culturally unsafe, so we need to look at changing those institutions as a whole.”

Brock Pitawanakwat, an assistant professor of indigenous studies at the University of Sudbury in Ontario, cited the importance of creating space for traditional healing alongside clinical care. In some cases, it’s a physical space: Health Sciences North in Sudbury has an on-site medicine lodge that provides traditional ceremonies and medicines.

These services are as much about healing mistrust as any physical remedy, Pitawanakwat said. “Going into a hospital after attending a residential school, there’s still that negative emotion,” he explained. “If you look at these buildings in archival photos, they’re almost identical.”

Wylie suggested that the fee-for-service model could also be changed to support physicians building better relationships with patients. “Anything we do to make our hospitals more welcoming places for Aboriginal people will be good for everybody,” she said. “Right now, they’re really alienating for everybody.”

he APEC hub, which will be hosted at the University of British Columbia in collaboration with the University of Alberta and the Mood Disorders Society of Canada (MDSC), will serve as a permanent and far-reaching working effort between Canadian mental health researchers across the country and their counterparts in the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and more than a dozen other economies of the Asia-Pacific region.