Group items tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Canada Health Act

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

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

John Abbott, Chief Executive Officer, Health Council of Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Eaton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is right.

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

We want to share best practices.

it is not likely to happen without strong direction from above

Excellent Care for All Act

quality plans

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

Canadian Hospital Reporting Project

by March of next year we hope to make it public

performance, outcomes, quality and financials

With respect to physicians, it is a different story

We do not collect data on outcomes associated with treatments.

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

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

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

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

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

universal screening

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

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

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

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

colorectal screening

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

adverse drug effects

over-prescribing

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

catastrophic drug coverage

a patchwork across the country

with respect to wait times

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

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

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

Have we made progress?

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

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

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

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

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

send him or her to the States

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

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

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

Dr. Kitts: We are without a leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the national pharmaceutical strategy

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

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

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

While the access agenda has been the central focal point of the 2004 health accord, it is time to have the 2014 health accord focus on quality, of which access is one important dimension, with the others being effectiveness, safety, efficiency, appropriateness, provider competence and acceptability.

we also propose three specific funds that are strategically focused in areas that can contribute to improved access and wait time

Can the 2014 health accord act as a catalyst to ensure appropriate post-hospital supportive and preventive care strategies, facilitate integration of primary health care with the rest of the health care system and enable innovative approaches to health care delivery? Is there an opportunity to move forward with new models of primary health care that focus on personal accountability for health, encouraging citizens to work in partnership with their primary care providers and thereby alleviating some of the stress on emergency departments?

one in five hospital beds are being occupied by those who do not require hospital care — these are known as alternative level of care patients, or ALC patients

the creation of an issue-specific strategically targeted fund designed to move beyond pilot projects and accelerate the creation of primary health care teams — for example, team-based primary health care funds could be established — and the creation of an infrastructure fund, which we call a community-based health infrastructure fund to assist in the development of post-hospital care capacity, coupled with tax policies designed to defray expenses associated with home care

consider establishing a national health innovation fund, of which one of its stated objectives would be to promote the sharing of applied health system innovations across the country with the goal of improving the delivery of quality health services. This concept would be closely aligned with the work of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in developing a strategy on patient oriented research.

focus the discussion on what is needed to ensure that Canada is a high performing system with an unshakable focus on quality

of the Wait Time Alliance

Dr. Simpson

the commitment of governments to improve timely access to care is far from being fulfilled. Canadians are still waiting too long to access necessary medical care.

Table 1 of our 2011 report card shows how provinces have performed in addressing wait times in the 10-year plan's five priority areas. Of note is the fact that we found no overall change in letter grades this year over last.

The WTA has developed benchmarks and targets for an additional seven specialties and uses them to grade progress.

the lack of attention given to timely access to care beyond the initial five priority areas

all indications are that wait times for most specialty areas beyond the five priority areas are well beyond the WTA benchmarks

we are somewhat encouraged by the progress towards standardized measuring and public reporting on wait times

how the wait times agenda could be supported by a new health accord

governments must improve timely access to care beyond the initial five priority areas, as a start, by adopting benchmarks for all areas of specialty care

look at the total wait time experience

The measurements we use now do not include the time it takes to see a family physician

a patient charter with access commitments

Efficiency strategies, such as the use of referral guidelines and computerized clinical support systems, can contribute significantly to improving access

In Ontario, for example, ALC patients occupy one in six hospital beds

Our biggest fear is government complacency in the mistaken belief that wait times in Canada largely have been addressed. It is time for our country to catch up to the other OECD countries with universal, publicly funded health care systems that have much timelier access to medical care than we do.

The progress that has been made varies by province and by region within provinces.

Dr. Michael Schull, Senior Scientist, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences

Many provinces in Canada, and Ontario in particular, have made progress since the 2004 health accord following large investments in health system performance that targeted the following: linking more people with family doctors; organizational changes in primary care, such as the creation of inter-professional teams and important changes to remuneration models for physicians, for example, having a roster of patients; access to select key procedures like total hip replacement and better access to diagnostic tests like computer tomography. As well, we have seen progress in reducing waiting times in emergency departments in some jurisdictions in Canada and improving access to community-based alternatives like home care for seniors in place of long-term care. These have been achieved through new investments such as pay for performance incentives and policy change. They have had some important successes, but the work is incomplete.

Examples of the ongoing challenges that we face include substantial proportions of the population who do not have easy access to a family doctor when needed, even if they have a family doctor; little progress on improving rates of eligible patients receiving important preventive care measures such as pap smears and mammograms; continued high utilization of emergency departments and walk-in clinics compared to other countries; long waits, which remain a problem for many types of care. For example, in emergency departments, long waits have been shown to result in poor patient experience and increased risk of adverse outcomes, including deaths.

Another example is unclear accountability and antiquated mechanisms to ensure smooth transitions in care between providers and provider organizations. An example of a care transition problem is the frequent lack of adequate follow-up with a family doctor or a specialist after an emergency department visit because of exacerbation of a chronic disease.

A similar problem exists following discharge from hospital.

Poorly integrated and coordinated care leads to readmission to hospital

This happens despite having tools to predict which patients are at higher risk and could benefit from more intensive follow-up.

Perverse incentives and disincentives exist, such as no adjustment in primary care remuneration to care for the sickest patients, thereby disincenting doctors to roster patients with chronic illnesses.

Critical reforms needed to achieve health system integration include governance, information enablers and incentives.

we need an engaged federal government investing in the development and implementation of a national health system integration agenda

complete absence of any mention of Canada as a place where innovative health system reform was happening

Dr. Brian Postl, Dean of Medicine, University of Manitoba, as an individual

the five key areas of interest were hips and knees, radiology, cancer care, cataracts and cardiac

no one is quite sure where those five areas came from

There was no scientific base or evidence to support any of the benchmarks that were put in place.

I think there is much less than meets the eye when we talk about what appropriate benchmarks are.

The one issue that was added was hip fractures in the process, not just hip and knee replacement.

in some areas, when wait-lists were centralized and grasped systematically, the list was reduced by 30 per cent by the act of going through it with any rigour

When we started, wait-lists were used by most physicians as evidence that they were best of breed

That continues, not in all areas, but in many areas, to be a key issue.

The capacity of physicians to give up waiting lists into more of a pool was difficult because they saw it very much, understandably, as their future income.

There were almost no efforts in the country at the time to use basic queuing theory

We made a series of recommendations, including much more work on the research about benchmarks. Can we actually define a legitimate benchmark where, if missed, the evidence would be that morbidity or mortality is increasing? There remains very little work done in that area, and that becomes a major problem in moving forward into other benchmarks.

the whole process needed to be much more multidisciplinary in its focus and nature, much more team-based

the issue of appropriateness

Some research suggests the number of cataracts being performed in some jurisdictions is way beyond what would be expected to be needed

the accord did a very good job with what we do, but a much poorer job around how we do it

the accord has bought a large amount of volume and a little bit of change. I think any future accords need to lever any purchase of volume or anything else with some capacity to purchase change.

We have seen volumes increase substantially across all provinces, without major detriment to other surgical or health care areas. I think it is a mediocre performance. Volume has increased, but we have not changed how we do business very much. I think that has to be the focus of any future change.

It is at these transition points, between the emergency room and being admitted to hospital or back to the family physician, where the efficiencies are lost and where the expectations are not met. That is where medical errors are generated. The target for improvement is at these transitions of care.

I am not saying to turn off the tap.

the government has announced, for example, a 6 per cent increase over the next two or three years. Is that a sufficient financial framework to deal with?

Canada currently spends about the same amount as OECD countries

Many of our physicians are saying these five are not the most important anymore.

they are not our top five priority areas anymore and frankly never were

this group of surgeons became wealthy in a short period of time because of the $5.5 billion being spent, and the envy that caused in every other surgical group escalated the costs of paying physicians because they all went back to the market saying, "You have left us out," and that became the focus of negotiation and the next fee settlements across the country. It was an unintended consequence but a very real one.

if the focus were to shift more towards system integration and accountability, I believe we are not going to lose the focus on wait times. We have seen in some jurisdictions, like Ontario, that the attention to wait times has gone beyond those top five.

people in hospital beds who do not need to be there, because a hospital bed is so expensive compared to the alternatives

There has been a huge infusion of funds and nursing home beds in Ontario, Nova Scotia and many places.

Ontario is leading the way here with their home first program

There is a need for some nursing home beds, but I think our attention needs to switch to the community resources

they wind up coming to the emergency room for lack of anywhere else to go. We then admit them to hospital to get the test faster. The weekend goes by, and they are in bed. No one is getting them up because the physiotherapists are not working on the weekend. Before you know it, this person who is just functioning on the edge is now institutionalized. We have done this to them. Then they get C. difficile and, before you know, it is a one-way trip and they become ALC.

I was on the Kirby committee when we studied the health care system, and Canadians were not nearly as open to changes at that time as I think they are in 2011.

One thing I heard on the Aging Committee was that we should really have in place something like the Veterans Independence Program

some people just need someone to make a meal or, as someone mentioned earlier, shovel the driveway or mow the lawn, housekeeping types of things

I think the risks of trying to tie every change into innovation, if we know the change needs to happen — and there is lots of evidence to support it — it stops being an innovation at that point and it really is a change. The more we pretend everything is an innovation, the more we start pilot projects we test in one or two places and they stay as pilot projects.

the PATH program. It is meant to be palliative and therapeutic harmonization

has been wildly successful and has cut down incredibly on lengths of stay and inappropriate care

Where you see patient safety issues come to bear is often in transition points

When you are not patient focused, you are moving patients as entities, not as patients, between units, between activities or between functions. If we focus on the patient in that movement, in that journey they have through the health system, patient safety starts improving very dramatically.

If you require a lot of home care that is where the gap is

in terms of emergency room wait times, Quebec is certainly among the worst

Ontario has been quite successful over the past few years in terms of emergency wait times. Ontario’s target is that, on average, 90 per cent of patients with serious problems spend a maximum of eight hours in the emergency room.

One of the real opportunities, building up to the accord, are for governments to define the six or ten or twelve questions they want answered, and then ensure that research is done so that when we head into an accord, there is evidence to support potential change, that we actually have some ideas of what will work in moving forward future changes.

We are all trained in silos and then expected to work together after we are done training. We are now starting to train them together too.

The physician does not work for you. The physician does not work for the health system. The physician is a private practitioner who bills directly to the health care system. He does not work for the CEO of the hospital or for the local health region. Therefore, your control and the levers you have with that individual are limited.

the customer is always right, the person who is getting the health care

It is refreshing to hear something other than the usual "we need more money, we absolutely need more money for that". Without denying the fact that, since the population and the demographics are going to require it, we have to continue making significant investments in health, I think we have to be realistic and come up with new ways of doing things.

How do you help patients navigate a system that is so complex? How do you coordinate appointments, ensure the appointments are necessary and make sure that the consultants are communicating with each other so one is not taking care of the renal problem and the other the cardiac problem, but they are not communicating about the patient? That is frankly a frequent issue in the health system.

There may be a patient who requires Test Y, X, and Z, and most patients require that package. It is possible to create a one-stop shop kind of model for patient convenience and to shorten overall wait times for a lot of patients that we do not see. There are some who are very complicated and who have to be navigated through the system. This is where patient navigators can perhaps assist.

There have been some good studies that have looked at CT and MRI utilization in Ontario and have found there are substantial portions where at least the decision to initiate the test was questionable, if not inappropriate, by virtue of the fact that the results are normal, it was a repeat of prior tests that have already been done or the clinical indication was not there.

Designing a system to implement gates, so to speak, so that you only perform tests when appropriate, is a challenge. We know that in some instances those sorts of systems, where you are dealing with limited access to, say, CT, and so someone has to review the requisition and decide on its appropriateness, actually acts as a further obstacle and can delay what are important tests.

Since the crisis, all the hospitals involved have stopped outsourcing gemcitabine and cyclophosphamide mixtures and brought it in-house, mixing their own medications.

Their trust would be further hit. Within two weeks, the Star reported that health-care companies are allowed to mix drugs for hospitals without federal or provincial oversight, prompting top health officials — Ontario health minister Deb Matthews and federal health minister Leona Aglukkaq — to scramble to close that regulatory grey area.

This week Jake Thiessen, the founding director of the University of Waterloo school of pharmacy, submitted a final report of his investigation into the issue. There has been no formal indication when it will be made public. Hospital administrators say they have been told it will be two to three weeks before they or the public see this report.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists has passed legislation that allows it to inspect any premises where a pharmacist works — not just licensed pharmacies.

All of the changes taken together would have seen Marchese Hospital Solutions still able to supply drugs as it did but subject to inspection by the college.

The federal government has new rules defining who can be a drug producer, adding that any facility supervised by a licensed pharmacist can do the job. The province has said that hospitals can only purchase drugs from accredited suppliers.

There is very little clinical evidence to indicate what might happen to a cancer patient who receives an underdose of chemotherapy.

At the same time, many of the more recent advances in chemotherapy have been in drugs that alleviate side effects like nausea.

In an oncology pharmacy, strange is not good. And on March 20, one week before Marley’s last cyclophosphamide treatment, Craig Woudsma, a 28-year-old pharmacy assistant, and a colleague at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre, had a bad feeling.

In this case, it was a shipment of new gemcitabine chemotherapy bags that required refrigeration, according to the label. Previous batches, from a different supplier, had not.

Woudsma noticed more differences. The bags from Marchese only had a total volume and concentration on the label — 4 grams of gemcitabine in 100 mL of saline — instead of the specific concentration, the amount of drug per single mL of saline, as the old bags indicated.

The new bag’s label did not contain enough information for him to accurately mix the patient’s dose. He needed to know the specific concentration.

When preparing the solution, staff at Marchese Hospital Solutions, in Mississauga, Ont., dissolved the medication into a pre-filled 100 mL bag of saline. These bags typically contain between 3 to 20 per cent more solution than 100 mL,

“I told the pharmacist in the area. And then it kind of went above me at that point ... They came to me saying, this is kind of a big deal; teleconferencing with the minister of health, that kind of stuff,” said recently, sitting on the front steps of his red-brick, semi-detached home in the village of Millbrook, Ont. “It’s kind of a foreign concept, to think that what we do, in our corner of the hospital, is going to get that kind of exposure.”

This means that the bag Woudsma was holding contained 4 grams of gemcitabine in more than 100 mL of solution. The concentration of the medication wasn’t what the label would have made him think. It was weaker than advertised.

People have asked Woudsma why he was able to catch a problem that went undetected at other hospitals for more than a year. Simple, he says. He had something to compare it to.

The company’s pharmacy workers did not remove the known overfill when mixing the medication because they thought each bag was going to a single patient

referred to in the industry as overfill, included to account for possible evaporation.

The hospital had switched that very day to a new supplier — Marchese Hospital Solutions. A bag of the old supply from Baxter CIVA was still on site.

Medbuy, a group purchasing company for hospitals, starting in 2008, had a contract with Baxter Central Intravenous Admixtures to provide drug-mixing services. The two drugs in question, cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine, were outsourced because they come in powder form and are tricky to mix. It takes about four hours to reconstitute them in liquid, and in that time they must be shaken every 20 minutes.

As that contract was about to expire, Medbuy issued a request for proposals for drug-mixing services: Baxter CIVA, which wanted its contract renewed, Quebec-based Gentes & Bolduc and Marchese all stepped forward.

The details of the new arrangement remain known only to Medbuy. It was founded in 1989 to get better deals for hospitals buying products like scalpels, bed pans and even some medications in bulk. The company’s 28 member hospital organizations in Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island spent a combined $626-million on contract purchases in 2012.

Marita Zaffiro, president of Marchese, testified at Queen’s Park that the Medbuy contract did not indicate the hospitals wanted the labels on these drugs to cite a specific concentration. The reason she included it that way in the RFP was simply to show what could be done.

Sobel ran the calculations in his office. For a single patient to require a 4,000 mg dose of cyclophosphamide, on a common breast cancer treatment regime, that patient would need to be about 7 feet tall and weigh 2,200 lbs.

“The chance of 1,200 patients getting 4,000 mg exactly — it’s just impossible.”

Four Marchese pharmacists who played a role in the new contract work revealed to the Queen's Park committee in June that they had either limited or no background in oncology.

Marchese Hospital Solutions began as Marchese Pharmacy, a Hamilton-area community drugstore that expanded beginning in 1998 when Zaffiro became president. In 1999 the company obtained a contract to supply the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Community Care Access Centres, business they did until the contract expired in 2011, shortly before it was awarded the Medbuy contract.

It lost the CCAC contract in 2011, shortly before the Medbuy deal, and shed employees. Fifty-seven were either laid off or left the company during this troubled time, according to internal newsletters. But then things started looking up.

Zaffiro attempted to get accreditation for the site, according to her Queen’s Park testimony, approaching both the Ontario College of Pharmacists and Health Canada, neither of which took steps to regulate the fledgling business because each thought the other had jurisdiction.

Medbuy, Marchese and Jake Thiessen have maintained that cost was not a factor in the error. Marchese’s bid on the request for proposal came in at about a quarter of the cost of previous supplier Baxter Corporation. Bags from Marchese cost from $5.60 to $6.60; Baxter charged $21 to $34.

CEO David Musyj thinks about what went wrong. The problems, he says, go far beyond Marchese and Medbuy. “All of us are culpable,” he says. “We could have done some things internally that could have prevented this. We could have weighed the bags when they came in.”

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

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

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

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

The distinction drawn between the procedural advantage now accorded to non-DCO refugee claimants and the disadvantage suffered by DCO refugee claimants ... is discriminatory on its face," wrote Justice Keith M. Boswell in a 118-page decision. "It also serves to further marginalize, prejudice and stereotype refugee claimants from DCO countries which are generally considered safe and 'non-refugee producing.'

"We remain committed to putting the interests of Canadians and the most vulnerable refugees first. Asylum seekers from developed countries such as the European Union or the United States should not benefit from endless appeal processes." The latest court decision means all failed refugee claimants, whether on the list or not, are entitled to appeal negative asylum decisions at the Immigration and Refugee Board's refugee appeal division, better known as the RAD. "This is a very important victory for refugees," said Jared Will, counsel for the refugee lawyers association. "Every refugee deserves to have their claims determined on their own merits."

"This is another Charter loss for the Harper government," noted Lorne Waldman, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, a party to the legal challenge against the DCO regime. The government said it will appeal the decision and ask the court to set it aside while it is under appeal. "Reforms to our asylum system have been successful resulting in faster decisions and greater protection for those who need it most," said a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

This is another example of how the Stephen Harper government "flagrantly" overreaches its authority and disregards the Charter rights, he said, and "the court decision is confirming that." Calling the issues "complex," a spokesperson for the refugee board said it will respect the court ruling and "take the necessary time to examine the decision and its potential impacts." In December 2012, the federal government overhauled the asylum system in order to eliminate the growing backlog and expedite the processing of claims.

Not only do claimants face tighter timelines in filing their claims and scheduling a hearing and removal, those from DCO are ineligible to work for six months, appeal a rejected claim or receive a pre-removal risk assessment within three years after an asylum decision. Three refugee claimants - only identified in court by their initials - challenged the constitutionality of the DCO regime after they were denied asylum and subsequently the opportunity to appeal to the newly established refugee appeal tribunal.

Lawyers for the trio criticized the arbitrariness of the country designation process, arguing the DCO regime subjected some claimants to an "inferior determination process" - and discrimination - by limiting their access to opportunities and benefits that are afforded to others. They also argued that the government's branding of DCO claims as bogus, and the use of refugee statistics to trigger designation, feeds into the stereotype that their fears are less worthy of attention. In its defence, the government contended that it does not draw distinctions among claimants based on their national origin but rather whether they come from regions that are generally safe.

The government said the expedited processing for DCO claims is legitimate and conforms to Canada's international obligation. It explained that it limits the access to an appeal to the RAD only on the basis of a thorough assessment of the country conditions. However, Justice Boswell rejected its arguments: "This is a denial of substantive equality to claimants from DCO countries based upon the national origin of such claimants." He sent all three claims involved in the case to the refugee appeal tribunal for redetermination.

Mr. Georgiou, 51, is a long-time senior public servant. Between 2006 and 2012, he held various executive positions at Infrastructure Ontario, the procurement agency that was set up to administer the McGuinty government's ambitious plans to restore the province's outdated infrastructure through public-private partnerships. He was a project manager on the construction of several major projects, including some of the facilities for this summer's Pan Am and Parapan Games, eventually rising to the role of chief administrative officer. How he ended up admitting he issued false invoices - and why that information was not passed on by at least one of his former colleagues at Infrastructure Ontario - dates back to 2009, after a whistleblower complained to management at York about questionable invoices.

Court records show the scheme required Mr. Georgiou to invoice the university, through two family-owned companies, for work that those companies never performed. After cashing York's cheques, he passed on about $40,000 of the total $65,000 paid by York to an intermediary who was connected to a facilities official at the university. Mr. Georgiou said he kept $25,000 to declare for income tax purposes. "Once these events came to light, I fully co-operated with the authorities and counsel for York University, and I assisted them with their investigation. In addition, I ensured that the party who requested the invoices, repaid the entire amount to York University," he said in the statement. He did not address questions about what he told St. Michael's, if anything, about his role in the scheme.

St. Michael's and Infrastructure Ontario have ordered forensic audits. "These swift and prudent actions have been taken by the Board of Directors and Management to preserve and protect the public trust invested in St. Michael's Hospital," a statement from St. Michael's said. In its own statement, Infrastructure Ontario said it was "very troubled" by some of the facts The Globe presented to four of its officials in an interview. "The activity in question goes against everything [Infrastructure Ontario] stands for," said Bert Clark, the agency's chief executive, and Linda Robinson, vice-chair of Infrastructure Ontario's board. Mr. Georgiou, who has been placed on a leave of absence from the hospital, said in an e-mail that The Globe had not provided him enough time to give proper answers to about 40 questions it e-mailed to him last Wednesday. In a statement, he said he never profited from the "exercise" at York and stressed that he was never charged criminally for his role in the false invoice scheme.

He wrote these invoices, he told investigators, at the request of a friend who had nothing to do with the university, a parking industry executive named Luigi Lato. According to Mr. Georgiou, Mr. Lato told him maintenance work had been performed and he was hoping Mr. Georgiou could create invoices for that work. But for reasons Mr. Lato never explained, Mr. Georgiou said, whoever did the work did not issue their own invoices. Mr. Georgiou said he believed Mr. Lato was doing a "favour" for a friend at York who needed to pay for the work. A lawyer and an auditor for York pressed Mr. Georgiou on why the companies that actually did this work would not, or could not, issue invoices, and Mr. Georgiou said he did not know.

York investigated and concluded it had been the victim of a $1.2-million kickback scheme involving false invoices for nonexistent construction and maintenance work. A forensic audit determined that between 2007 and 2010, the university cut cheques to eight different companies for services that were never rendered. The York investigation found that two of those companies, Arsenal Facilities Consultants Inc. and Toronto Engineering Company, were connected to Mr. Georgiou. (He was the listed officer and director of AFC, and the other company was owned by his wife and her parents.) Mr. Georgiou and his lawyer, Gary Clewley, agreed to meet with auditors in February of 2011, and Mr. Georgiou admitted writing three false invoices totalling $64,800 between the two companies. The Globe has obtained a transcript of this meeting, which was marked "confidential" but included in court filings. Mr. Georgiou created paperwork showing that AFC did $22,000 worth of door lock repairs in November, 2007. In February, and then again in April, 2008, he drew up documents claiming that TECO completed a total of $42,800 worth of watermain work.

"There were no details provided to me," he explained at one point. Pressed further, he said, "I didn't ask any questions." York paid AFC and TECO, but Mr. Georgiou told investigators he did not keep the money. He withheld about $25,000 to declare as income tax for both companies, which he said he paid. As for the rest of the money, he made two trips to see Mr. Lato in which he paid him a total of about $40,000 in cash. Mr. Lato could not be reached for comment.

William McDowell, a lawyer acting for York, asked Mr. Georgiou how the teller at his bank reacted when he withdrew $14,500 in cash for Mr. Lato's first instalment: "Doesn't your banker kind of squint when you go in and ask for $14,500 in cash?" Mr. Georgiou replied: "I didn't go into the bank and ask for $14,500 in cash, you know, like in one shot. I had, you know, some cash at home, went to the bank for some cash..." About a year later, on Jan. 26, 2012, York filed a statement of claim against all of the people and companies it believed had defrauded the university, including Mr. Georgiou. The same day, the university's general counsel, Harriet Lewis, met with a senior executive at Infrastructure Ontario, Bill Ralph, who at the time was the procurement agency's chief risk officer, both York and IO said in separate statements. Ms. Lewis informed Mr. Ralph that York had launched a lawsuit against Mr. Georgiou and others because of what the internal investigation uncovered.

Mr. Ralph did not respond to requests for comment. Two weeks after the meeting, Mr. Georgiou suddenly resigned. A few days later, the CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, David Livingston, announced in a company-wide e-mail that Mr. Georgiou was "leaving." The departure e-mail made reference to "various personal and family matters" Mr. Georgiou needed to address. "I know it was a tough decision for him, but I admire him for making it." Mr. Livingston did not respond to repeated requests for comment e-mailed to him and to his lawyer. After leaving IO, Mr. Livingston was appointed chief of staff in May, 2012, to Dalton McGuinty, then premier of Ontario. Mr. Livingston has been accused by Ontario Provincial Police of orchestrating a plan to purge government records after the controversial cancellation of two power plants. He has denied through his lawyer that he did anything wrong.

Employment lawyer Natalie MacDonald said a chief risk officer should give the board of directors any information that could damage the organization's reputation. A risk officer has a "duty to inform the board so it can make an informed decision," Ms. MacDonald said, speaking generally. But according to Infrastructure Ontario's organization chart, the chief risk officer reports directly to the CEO rather than to the board. In an interview last Wednesday, Ms. Robinson, the board vicechair, said the news that Mr. Georgiou had, at one time, been named a defendant in the lawsuit and admitted writing false invoices never made its way to the agency's board.

In April of 2012, Mr. Georgiou and Mr. Lato signed a settlement agreement with York that required them to pay restitution - the amount has not been disclosed in public documents - which Mr. Georgiou said in his statement to The Globe was covered by the "party" who requested the invoices. One of the conditions of the settlement is that York "shall not make any statements to the media" about the agreement or about allegations levelled in York's claim, except to say that Mr. Georgiou co-operated.

Seven months later, St. Michael's board meeting minutes show that it had identified a preferred candidate to replace its chief administrative officer, and in the New Year, Mr. Georgiou officially started his new job. In its statement, St. Michael's said an external search firm was enlisted to identify Mr. Georgiou, and a separate firm conducted reference interviews. The issues at York were "never disclosed by Mr. Georgiou," St. Michael's statement said.

In his statement to The Globe, Mr. Georgiou said he has led the hospital in securing government funding, as well as capital redevelopment funding. "During my tenure at St. Michael's we have achieved tremendous results for the hospital both in the excellence of our hospital's performance as well in the success of our redevelopment project."

thanks to predictable and escalating funding over the first seven years of the plan

however, there are, unfortunately, pockets of inattention and/or mediocrity as well

Six areas, in fact, were identified by CHA

funding matters; health human resources; pharmacare; wellness, identified as health promotion and illness and disease prevention; continuing care; and leadership at the political, governance and executive levels

The focus of this 10-year plan has been on access. CHA would posit that it is at this juncture, the focus must be on quality and accountability.

safety, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness

Canada does an excellent job in providing world-class acute care services, and we should; hospitals and physicians have been the core of our systems for decades. Now is the time to ensure sufficient resources are allocated to other elements of the continuum, including wellness and continuing care.

Home care is one readily available yet underused avenue for delivering health promotion and illness prevention initiatives and programs.

four critically important themes: dignity and respect, support for caregivers, funding and health human resources, and quality of care

Nadine Henningsen, Executive Director, Canadian Home Care Association

Today, an estimated 1.8 million Canadians receive publicly funded home care services annually, at an estimated cost of $5.8 billion. This actually only equates to about 4.3 per cent of our total public health care funding.

There are a number of initiatives within the home care sector that need to be addressed. Establishing a set of harmonized principles across Canada, accelerating the adoption of technology, optimizing health human resources, and integrated service delivery models all merit comment.

great good has come from the 10-year plan

Unfortunately, there were two unintended negative consequences

One was a reduction in chronic care services for the elderly and

a shift in the burden of costs for drugs and medical supplies to individual and families. This was due to early discharge and the fact that often a number of provinces do not cover the drugs and supplies under their publicly funded program.

Stakeholders across Canada generally agreed that the end-of-life expectations within the plan were largely met

How do we go from having a terrific acute care system to having maybe a slightly smaller acute care system but obviously look toward a chronic care system?

Across Canada, an estimated 30 to 50 per cent of ALC patients could and should benefit from home care services and be discharged from the hospital.

Second, adopt a Canadian caregiver strategy.

Third, support accountability and evidence-informed decision making.

The return on investment for every dollar for home care is exponentially enhanced by the in-kind contribution of family caregivers.

Sharon Baxter, Executive Director, Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association

June 2004

a status report on hospice, palliative and end-of-life care in Canada

Dying for Care

inconsistent access to hospice palliative care services generally and also to respite care services; access to non-prescribed therapies, as well as prescription drug coverage

terminated by the federal government in March of 2008

the Canadian Strategy on Palliative and End-of-Life Care

Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Home Care Association embarked on what we called the Gold Standards Project

In 2008, the Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition released a progress report

progress was made in 2008, from the 2004 accord

palliative pharmaceutical plan

Canadians should have the right to choose the settings of their choice. We need to look for a more seamless transition between settings.

In 2010, the Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada released its 10-year plan.

Seventy per cent of Canadians at this point in time do not have access to hospice palliative care

For short-term, acute home care services, there was a marked increase in the volume of services and the individuals served. There was also another benefit, namely, improved integration between home care and the acute care sector.

last summer, The Economist released a document that looked at palliative services across 40 countries

The second area in the blueprint for action is the support for family caregivers.

The increasing need for home-based care requires us to step up and strive for a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated approach to hospice palliative care and health care.

Canadian Caregiver Coalition

in Manitoba they have made great strides

In New Brunswick they have done some great things in support of family caregivers. Ontario is looking at it now.

we keep on treating, keep on treating, and we need to balance our systems between a curative system and a system that will actually give comfort to someone moving toward the end of their life

Both the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation have produced reports this year saying it is chronic disease management that needs our attention

When we look at the renewal of health care, we have to accept that the days of institutional care being the focus of our health care system have passed, and that there is now a third leg of the stool. That is community and home care.

Over 70 per cent of caregivers in Canada are women. They willingly take on this burden because they are good people; it is what they want to do. The patient wants to be in that setting, and it is better for them.

The Romanow report in 2002 suggested that $89.3 million be committed annually to palliative home care.

that never happened

What happened was a federal strategy on palliative and end-of-life care was announced in 2004, ran for five years and was terminated. At best it was never funded for more than $1.7 million.

Because our publicly funded focus has been on hospitals and one provider — physicians, for the most part — we have not considered how to bring the other pieces into the equation.

Just as one example, in the recent recession where there was special infrastructure funding available to stimulate the economy, the health system was not allowed to avail itself of that.

As part of the 10-year plan, first ministers agreed to provide first dollar coverage for certain home-care services, based on assessed need, by 2006. The specific services included short-term acute home care, short-term community mental health care and end-of-life care. It appears that health ministers were to report to first ministers on the implementation of that by 2006, but they never did.

One of the challenges we find with the integration of mental health services is

A lot of eligibility rules are built on physical assessment.

Very often a mental health diagnosis is overlooked, or when it is identified the home care providers do not have the skills and expertise to be able to manage it, hence it moves then over to the community mental health program.

in Saskatchewan it is a little more integrated

Senator Martin

I think ideally we would love to have the national strategies and programs, but just like with anything in Canada we are limited by the sheer geography, the rural-urban vast differences in need, and the specialized areas which have, in and of themselves, such intricate systems as well. The national picture is the ideal vision, but not always the most practical.

In the last federal budget we got a small amount of money that we have not started working with yet, it is just going to Treasury Board, it is $3 million. It is to actually look at how we integrate hospice palliative care into the health care system across all these domains.

The next 10-year plan is about integration, integration, integration.

the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, the Health Council of Canada, the Canadian Health Leadership Network, the health sciences centres, the Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations, the Canadian College of Health Leaders, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and Accreditation Canada

We are all meeting on a regular basis to try to come up with our take on what the system needs to do next.

most people want to be cared for at home

Family Caregiver Tax Credit

compassionate care benefit that goes with Employment Insurance

Have you done any costing or savings? Obviously, more home care means more savings to the system. Have you done anything on that?

In the last federal election, every political party had something for caregivers.

tax credits

the people we are talking about do not have the ability to take advantage of tax credits

We have a pan-Canadian health/human resource strategy in this country, and there is a federal-provincial-territorial committee that oversees this. However, it is insufficient

Until we can better collaborate on a pan-Canadian level on our human resources to efficiently look at the right mix and scope and make sure that we contain costs plus give the best possible provider services and health outcomes right across the country, we will have problems.

We have not as a country invested in hospital infrastructure, since we are talking about acute care settings, since the late 1960s. Admittedly, we are moving away from acute care centres into community and home care, but we still need our hospitals.

One of the challenges is with the early discharge of patients from the hospital. They are more complex. The care is more complex. We need to train our home support workers and our nurses to a higher level. There are many initiatives happening now to try to get some national training standards, particularly in the area of home support workers.

We have one hospital association left in this country in Ontario, OHA. Their CEO will constantly talk about how the best thing hospitals can do for themselves is keep people out of hospitals through prevention promotion or getting them appropriately to the next place they should be. Jack Kitts, who runs the Ottawa Hospital, and any of the CEOs who run hospitals understand one hundred per cent that the best thing they can do for Canadians and for their institutions is keep people out of them. That is a lot of the language.

We have an in-depth brief that details a lot of what is happening in Australia

I would suggest that it is a potentially slippery slope to compare to international models, because often the context is very different.

It all started with Opposition critic Trent Wotherspoon, who questioned the logic of government-employed snowplow operators plowing the Trans-Canada Highway having to lift their blades as they approach the 20-kilometre stretch of bypass from Balgonie to Regina.

This is what will happen once the bypass opens in 2018, because all maintenance matters (plowing, grass cutting, pothole and structural repairs, etc.) for 30 years will be the responsibility of the successful bidder - a Paris-based conglomerate. It will hire Saskatchewan crews to do the work. Highways Minister Nancy Heppner was especially indignant, scolding Wotherspoon for not asking enough questions at his technical briefing and thus again bringing information to the assembly "that is not always correct."

The problem, however, is Wotherspoon does appear to be correct. And the Highways Ministry explanation as to why this would be the case was something-lessthan gracious. "So what?" ministry spokesman Doug Wakabayashi told the Leader-Post's Emma Graney, adding he failed to see why this was even an issue because it wasn't like "nobody's plowing" the bypass.

Of course the bypass will get plowed. No one is being so disrespectful as to assume the minister or her departmental officials don't understand their rudimentary maintenance responsibilities ... even if the politicians and their officials seem to have little interest in exchanging the same courtesies.

The question is how much more this approach might cost Saskatchewan taxpayers. It seems it will be substantially more expensive than using government crews ... although no one seems to know how much more. Notwithstanding the government spin-session briefings, that's one of the many things about the P3 bypass project ministers are not telling us. The maintenance costs are a portion of an extra $680 million (essentially, the difference between the previous bypass construction estimate of $1.2 billion and the current $1.8-billion-plus price tag) that is called "risk transfer."

But how much of that extra $680 million taxpayers will shell out during the next 30 years for maintenance of the measly 20-kilometre stretch of highway remains an unknown. What we do know is that the snowplowing budget for the whole province is only $29 million a year. Under the rules of the P3 bidding process, such a detailed breakdown in the bypass contract can't be released for competitive reasons, said SaskBuilds president Rupen Pandya.

But why, then, is the global cost of "risk transfer" so high? Well, risk transfer in P3 contracts is what the government considers to be the cost of replacing or restoring something to brand-new condition. Some in the know don't much like the concept.

Ontario provincial auditor Bonnie Lysak (who used to be Saskatchewan's auditor) criticized the use of risk management in her assessment of Ontario P3s. She concluded risk transfer didn't apply to any accounting reality. After all, it's not likely a school or hospital will have to be replaced because it was swept away by a tornado. It's even less likely this will happen to a bypass.

But it is a good way for a government to hide cost overruns and thus prove its philosophical case that P3s are less expensive than the traditional method of private companies bidding and then building an infrastructure project without taking any long-term ownership of it. By the same token it would also be a very good way of government claiming that a P3 project came in under budget if there were no cost overruns, or only modest ones.

"Risk transfer" may not have ever been a real cost in the P3 process - something the government might not be eager to tell you in a technical briefing. Maybe one day we will get answers. But one guesses the Sask. Party government won't be offering them before the April election.

In 2004, the Health Accord was established as an agreement between the government and each province and territory. It provided all regions with stable funding to deliver adequate medical care that met national standards. The $41-billion pact was a response to deep cuts throughout the 1990s and aimed to address issues around wait times, pharmaceuticals and term care. For much of the past 10 years, federal support hovered around 23 per cent.

The accord rightly placed the government in a position of leadership on health care, one from which it could co-ordinate medical delivery and uphold common principles for all Canadians. Under the Harper government, however, the agreement began to erode. In 2011, three years before its expiry, the Conservatives announced major cuts to the Canada Health Transfer of $36 billion over a decade beginning in 2017. Instead of the traditional annual rise of six per cent, funding would now be based on the rate of growth of Canada's GDP.

Then, in 2012, after agreeing to extend monopoly drug patents to European countries in a far-reaching trade agreement, the government increased pharmaceutical costs to Canadians by an estimated $1 billion. Two years later, the Health Accord was not renewed; every province and territory was left on its own to determine how it will fund growing and aging populations into the uncertain future.

The retreat of the federal government from its position of authority on national health care is a troubling trend, one made all the more distressing in light of recent projections outlined in a report compiled by the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. In the document, The Canada Health Transfer Disconnect, economist Hugh Mackenzie argues lower GDP growth estimates mean federal support for medicare will drop from 23 to 19 per cent by 2025. This represents a shortfall of $44 billion.

Based solely on GDP and distributed by population, the platform is "insensitive to the differences in the drivers of the costs of health care," Mackenzie writes. Most importantly, this includes an aging population. Within the next 25 years, the number of Canadians aged 65 and older will double, reaching a staggering 10 million.

The premiers want the Health Transfer increased to at least 25 per cent of all health-care spending. Without it, the provinces and territories will face insurmountable financial pressure. In real terms, this means fewer nurses, home care visits, primary care centres and long-term beds. Since the election of a Conservative majority government, taxes are at their lowest levels in more than half a century. In its myopic vision of deficit reduction and austerity, Ottawa now collects $45 billion less in revenue. It is no wonder the Canadian public is being told it cannot "afford" adequate levels of health-care funding.

Without negotiations in place to renew the Health Accord, Canada's most cherished public institution is at risk of crumbling at an inopportune historical moment of generational change. At worst, these changes signal the advent of a for-profit, two-tier system that favours the wealthy while driving up costs and delivering poorer outcomes for the rest. From the perspective of the private sector, after all, access to essential care is not based on need, but the ability to pay.