Group items tagged

As analysts Ake Blomqvist and Colin Busby note in a new C.D. Howe Institute study, "Many other countries, in Europe and elsewhere, also have systems that cost much less than the American one and that, arguably, are at least as equitable as Canada's, if not more so." Yet, "No other country is modelling their health-financing system around the Canadian example," they add. "None of them seem to think that a monopoly approach to paying for most health services is the best way to achieve equity and efficiency goals."

Many of these restrictions do not flow from the Canada Health Act, but rather from provincial laws. For example, Victoria, not Ottawa, prohibits doctors who opt out of the Medicare system from getting any payments from public funds, or doctors who work within the public system from billing patients over and above what the government pays. These restrictions, the study argues, impose big costs. To illustrate this, it focuses on how health care is paid for in four countries - the U.K., Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands - whose health systems are considered to be among the world's best.

"Their guiding principles are similar to those within the Canadian health care system. All endorse universal public coverage and access for a defined core set of services, the belief that costs should be borne by society at large ... and high standards of care." In all these countries, public spending covers a significantly smaller percentage of hospital and doctor-related costs than in Canada, leaving the balance to be paid by private insurance for those who have it. (The range is from 65-85 per cent for hospital costs, compared to 92 per cent in Canada, and 60-90 per cent for doctors fees, compared with 99 per cent in Canada.)

But their governments also cover 45-67 per cent of drug and other outpatient medical costs, compared with 35 per cent in Canada. The authors consider, and ultimately dismiss, the view that any deviation from Canada's single-payer system would result in higher costs - an often-cited factor when sky-high U.S. health costs are dissected, but not an issue in countries that have a more carefully balanced mix of public and private funders.

Nor do they buy the argument that the public sector would lose out if privately paid health services were allowed to compete for doctors and patients. Indeed, other countries have found that competition can improve service and lower costs. The bottom line is that Canada's health care system only looks as good as many of us like to think it is when we compare it to the American system. And other countries have figured out better ways to fully respect the same vaunted principles Canada aspires to while providing more or better care at comparable cost. We could learn from them.

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

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

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

In Alberta, where private MRI facilities advertise and operate, the median wait time for an MRI is much longer (80 days) than in Saskatchewan (28 days). Furthermore, the wait has lengthened in the public system in Alberta since privatized facilities came on the scene. The explanations are complex, but siphoning human capacity (doctors and technologists), as well as other resources, from the public system into the private and more lucrative stream plays a big role. So does the market generation of increased demand by deceptive advertising and promotion of privatized services.

Medical tests should be ordered in accordance with evidence-based guidelines about their usefulness and indications. Patient access to MRI is currently prioritized in Saskatchewan health-care facilities on the basis of medical need, from Level I (a life-threatening diagnosis or treatment requiring MRI within 24 hours) to a Level IV (stable patients needing long range diagnosis or management allowing for delay of 30-90 days).

This system works and prioritizes appropriately. While patients sometimes feel that an urgent MRI will make a difference to their outcome, this is rarely the case. When it is the case, patients are prioritized and get urgent access. Allowing private MRI's based on ability to pay and jump the queue will trample this well-developed, equitable system. It will allow the wealthy or anxious to bypass this system and result in two-tiered care.

And the queue-jumping is not just limited to getting an MRI. It will extend to preferential and quicker access to treatment options, such as specialist care and surgery based on the MRI results if positive.

The Wall government and the private MRI operators that will profit from this legislation have proposed a two-for-one deal, suggesting that one public MRI scan will be done for every private MRI performed. Don't be fooled. This will not get around the problem of prolonging public wait lists since it will siphon resources from the public system. If we really need more MRIs, why not increase capacity in the public system instead?

While MRI can be a useful tool, when inappropriately used it can lead to overdiagnosis or "false positives." This then triggers a costly cascade of subsequent investigations or interventions to reassure either physician or patient MRI technology has important limitations, and frequently finds unrelated non-significant abnormalities that frighten patients. For example, 90 per cent of healthy individuals over 60 years of age with no symptoms of back pain show degenerative abnormalities on MRI. Similarly, the vast majority of adults over 50 show knee damage on MRI and only clinical assessment by a doctor identifies whether or not these findings are significant. Early MRI has not been shown to improve outcomes in low back pain and may actually make for worse outcomes. A doctor examining for red flag symptoms can identify the very small number of patients for whom an MRI is useful.

Many MRI scans are therefore unnecessary. Allowing patients to purchase an investigation they don't need wastes resources, bypasses the role of an informed health-care provider, and may in the end actually harm patients with needless investigations and interventions. Physicians are engaged in initiatives to "choose wisely" in testing. Throwing the door open to investigations based on ability to pay, rather than medical need, flies in the face of sensible approaches to health resources.

We live in a society obsessed with health. Selling fear of sickness is profitable. But access to MRIs is not our most urgent health-care need. To suggest otherwise is to obscure the social and economic determinants that define who is healthy and who is not, and to further shift resources away from the sick towards the worried well.

Let's promote greater equity, not less, and preserve health care based on need, not two-tiered care based on ability to pay. Let's trust health-care providers to counsel patients about the right test at the right time and to prioritize patients appropriately. The marketplace has no role in these decisions.

Dr. Sally Mahood is a Regina family doctor and an associate professor, Family Medicine, University of Saskatchewan.

Many within the system believe allowing private, for-profit options is a potential solution. Government has always relied on private facilities such as walk-in clinics, X-ray clinics and laboratories to provide insured services within the public system. Perhaps it’s time to allow Canadians to purchase medical services on the open market.

Although a province may have an oversupply of surgeons, it has a shortage of the other disciplines. The hours nurses and anesthesiologists work in the private system would come at the expense of the hours they can devote to the public system.This is a key caveat on the argument in favour of allowing more private, for-profit health care options: it is difficult to create a private tier that does not ultimately weaken the public tier. In fact, it is tough to find examples where increased private options relieve pressure on the public system and reduce wait times.

There is some evidence of this in Saskatchewan, where the government has been allowing private, for-profit MRIs for about 10 months. To date, Saskatchewan claims it has taken 2,200 patients off public wait lists for MRIs. And yet, its wait times in the public system have not gone down.

In fact, during the first six months Saskatchewan allowed residents to purchase their own MRI tests, the government’s own website shows wait times went up.

If the Saskatchewan Party had wanted to meaningfully test the relative merits of private and public delivery for expanded health care services, it could easily have done so - guiding one of the province's major health regions toward increasing capacity through a private service delivery model, and the other toward expanded public service delivery. And it could then have compared the two to see which produced better returns on our public funding.However, that would have involved actually supporting some enhanced public service delivery - which is apparently utterly unacceptable to the Saskatchewan Party. And more importantly, it would have created a risk that the public system might perform better on the evidence.

Wall has tip-toed around the reality that in some cases the public/private mix has led to fewer services being performed than in the public system we started with.

there's been no evidencebased policy at work in our healthcare system under the Saskatchewan Party. Instead, the Wall government has been manufacturing policybased "evidence" to support its spin in favour of private service delivery

Today, the program is partially dismantled. Half of the provinces have scaled back their seniors' drug benefits. The rest of the system looks shaky. There has been no nationwide analysis and very little public commentary, just snippets from individual provinces. Now a Montreal think-tank has pulled it all together. The Institute for Research on Public Policy has just released an informative study, "Are Income-Based Public Drug Programs Fit for an Aging Population?"

The institute commissioned three health-care specialists - two from the University of British Columbia and one from Harvard - to track the retrenchment, analyze its impact and offer advice to the provinces that haven't ratcheted back seniors' drug benefits. The authors acknowledge that financial pressures the provinces face are real. Canada's population is aging, drug expenditures are escalating and the economy is no longer robust enough to accommodate rising costs.

What they question is the wisdom of restricting access to medicine for the highest-needs segment of the population

Former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell was the first Canadian politician to curtail drug coverage for seniors. Shortly after taking power in 2001 he imposed a three-year budget freeze on his province's health ministry. The following year, he raised the co-payment on seniors' prescriptions to $25. In 2003, he implemented an income-tested plan - "Fair PharmaCare" - requiring better-off seniors to contribute up to 3 per cent of their annual income to the cost of their medications.

Over the next decade, four of his counterparts followed his lead, imposing restrictions on seniors' drug benefits. In 2012, former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty went part-way. He reduced public drug coverage for seniors with incomes over $100,000. They are now required to pay the first $100 of their annual drug bill and a $6.11 co-payment (triple the standard seniors' fee of $2) for each prescription. In 2013, Alberta indicated it was considering the B.C. model. That is where things now stand.

The appeal of eliminating universal drug coverage is obvious. It reduces the burden on the public purse. It makes medicare more sustainable. It targets benefits to those who really need them. What's not to like? Three things, the authors say:

It is detrimental to the health of seniors. The more financial barriers governments put in front of elderly residents, the less likely they are to fill their prescriptions. Seniors in B.C. forgo drug treatment at twice the rate of their Ontario counterparts. Although they pay the highest price, taxpayers lose, too. Providing older people with medically necessary drugs is much cheaper than paying their hospital bills when their conditions become unmanageable.

It penalizes Canadians over 65 with chronic conditions or serious disabilities. "In effect the deductibles under income-based programs are tantamount to imposing a specific income tax on people with the highest medical needs," the authors say. This violates the spirit of medicare. And it is financially inefficient. By unloading the cost of medications on seniors and private insurers, governments reduce their leverage in the pharmaceutical marketplace. The fewer citizens they buy for, the less bargaining power they have.

There is a fourth drawback the authors don't mention. The premiers are pushing a full-fledged pharmacare plan out of reach, in defiance of the will of their citizens. Public opinion polls consistently show that 75 to 90 per cent of Canadians want medically necessary drugs brought into medicare. That was part of the vision forged by Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas and chief justice Emmett Hall, chair of the Royal Commission on Health Services half a century ago. They recommended that the cost of hospitalization be lifted from families' shoulders first; physicians' fees would be covered next; and finally prescription drugs would be publicly insured.

Today Canada is the only country in the developed world with a universal public health-care system that excludes coverage of prescription drugs. Policy-makers were inching in the right direction until the turn of the millennium. As of 2000, seniors, social assistance recipients and aboriginal people had full drug coverage.

Now the premiers are moving backward, creating an inequitable patchwork of drug coverage for seniors and lowering the likelihood of pharmacare for everyone else. The short-term savings may look appealing. The long-term costs will add up in ways Canadians haven't begun to contemplate.

Carol Goar'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Isabelle Leblanc, president of the pro-medicare group Médecins québécois pour le régime public, said the survey results show that radiologists in Quebec are increasingly choosing to work in the private sector to the detriment of the public system. "For us, this is the best example of how mixing the public and private systems can lead to decreased accessibility for most patients and increased accessibility for those who have the money to pay," Leblanc said. "Radiologists have no incentive to increase access in the public system, and in fact, they're draining resources from the public system." Leblanc explained that radiologists can earn more money charging patients for scans in private clinics than they would if they worked exclusively in hospital and billed the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. Leblanc's group warned in a report three years ago that wait times for MRIs in hospital would increase.

"We're the province that has the highest number of MRI and CT scan machines per capita in the country - with a third of the machines in the private sector - and yet our public wait times are going up," Leblanc added. Health Minister Gaétan Barrette, a radiologist by profession who had worked in a private clinic before entering politics, was unavailable for comment. Officials with the Association des radiologistes du Québec could not be reached for comment, either. The Fraser Institute report observed little progress in cutting wait times for medically necessary surgery or treatments. The median wait time in Canada for treatment inched up to 18.3 weeks from 18.2 weeks last year. In Quebec, the median wait time for treatment by a specialist rose to 16.4 weeks from 7.3 weeks in 1993, when the Fraser Institute first started compiling such data. The median wait time denotes the midpoint for those waiting, as opposed to an average. In Quebec, the median wait time to see a medical specialist following referral from a general practitioner rose to 7.3 weeks from 7.1 weeks last year. The survey found that the longest median waits in Canada were for orthopedic surgery at 35.7 weeks, or almost nine months.

"These protracted wait times are not the result of insufficient spending but because of poor policy," Bacchus Barua, the author of the Fraser survey, said in a statement. "In fact, it's possible to reduce wait times without higher spending or abandoning universality. The key is to better understand the health policy experiences of other more successful universal healthcare systems around the developed world." aderfel@montrealgazette.com Twitter.com/Aaron_Derfel

The median wait time in hospital for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan in Quebec jumped to 12 weeks this year from eight in 2014, a survey has revealed. Wait times also increased slightly for other medical imaging. ALLEN McINNIS-MONTREAL GAZETTE FILES • MONTREAL GAZETTE / Source: Fraser Institute

choices than British Columbians or Quebecers do," answered Kenney. Health Minister Sarah Hoffman has an answer: if Kenney wants a policy brawl over the injection of more private options, he's welcome to it. "I'm not surprised that he's trying to find ways to expand privatization in the health-care system," she said in an interview. "Certainly, that's unfortunate." As you'd expect from a federal Conservative, Kenney blames centralized decision-making. "I just believe that local management of resources is a lot more sensible than hyper-centralized control," he told the Herald. "You know, when hospitals are given a limited budget for a limited number of hours they can service people, that gets out of alignment with the actual local demand."

But Hoffman figures Albertans don't want another major shift in how health care is run, after watching a pack of failed experiments in the PCs' waning years. She has doctors and officials working on two related problems - how to get more use out of the city's publicly owned MRI machines, and how to make sure everyone on the list really needs the test. I asked if she eventually plans to fold the province's vast array of private clinics, including imaging centres, under the government wing through public ownership.

We're not planning on doing a full overhaul," she said. "In general, Albertans are proud of what we've got. I don't have any drastic plans for changing the way those programs are administered." As often happens, when you sift through the rhetoric the opponents are quite close together. Most New Democrats would agree with another Kenney statement (as long as they're weren't aware who said it): "We need to ensure our health care has adequate funding, that it's publicly administered, that it's universally available, that it complies with the Canada Health Act." The key point is not who owns the assets, but who pays the bill. If health care pays, it hardly matters whether you get the test in a public hospital or a private clinic.

The MRI dispute is a good example of how the public-private debate has become so futile and misleading. Nine MRI machines in Calgary are publicly owned. They perform the tests for people on the waiting list. But there are also three MRIs in privately owned clinics.

The province doesn't fund MRI tests in those private clinics. The PCs wouldn't, and now the NDP won't either. And yet, health care funds virtually every other imaging test, including X-rays, ultrasounds and mammograms. Those exams are done every day in the very same clinics that own the private MRIs. The cost of a private test is $750, which probably explains why those machines are underused despite the long public wait.

Simple answer, right? The province should just start funding tests on the private MRIs. Asked why she doesn't do that, Hoffman says, "Why would you pay to rent something when you already own it and you're only using it half the time?" OK then, why not use what you've got? Why does that have to be so ridiculously difficult? Health care in Alberta is extraordinarily complex, and because of that, far beyond the reach of simplistic rhetoric about private and public delivery. That debate is just a distraction from the real issue - making the system work. Do that, please. Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald dbraid@postmedia.com

Three multinational companies—LifeLabs, Gamma-Dynacare and CML HealthCare—will receive over 80% of this money.

since private sector corporations are substantially protected by law from the public disclosure of “confidential business information,” increased for-profit delivery has had the effect of decreasing transparency

The experience in Alberta and Saskatchewan provides some indication of the potential harm integration poses for private providers. Over the 15 years since all laboratory services were integrated under the control of the regional governments, the role of for-profit laboratories in Alberta has been significantly diminished, and in Saskatchewan for-profit laboratory provision has effectively ended.

the argument for using public sector institutions, primarily hospitals and public health laboratories, for all laboratory services is straightforward

“there is massive reserve capacity in the hospital laboratories … a fully staffed evening shift could absorb the private laboratories’ workload without difficulty.”

Excess capacity in either the public or private sector is paid for with public funds and, aside from the redundancy necessary to accommodate fluctuations in demand, is a waste.

the Canadian health care system could save a minimum of $250 million per year by moving all publicly funded medical laboratory work into an integrated public non-profit medical laboratory system

added benefits of facilitating the integration of medical records, staff, and administration, and of improving public accountability

In that vein, Enoch said in the report that accountability and transparency have been the first victims of privatization in Saskatchewan. "What it also means is that hard-working Saskatchewan people are losing good jobs," Hubich said. The report argues that in many instances, privatization has not delivered on the promises of "lower-cost, yet also higher-quality and more responsive services than the public sector." NDP MLA Trent Wotherspoon agreed the government seems to "use privatization at every turn," which he called short-term thinking that is not in the best interest of the province, driving up the cost of living and giving away quality jobs. "There's a large and growing concern across Saskatchewan about what's next," he said.

Deputy premier Don Mc-Morris dismissed the report as "fearmongering." "The basis of their argument is all around fear, trying to scare people to think that nobody else can deliver these services except government employees," he said. "That just isn't the record here in Saskatchewan or really anywhere else in North America." McMorris touted the growth Saskatchewan has seen under his party. "We'd never want to go back to the type of thinking that this organization is trying to profess," he said, referring to the idea that "privatization is an absolutely terrible word." He emphasized as one example how surgical wait lists have decreased with privatization. "They would have rather had people languish on long wait-lists than actually do something about it by using the private sector," McMorris said of the centre.

Privatization hasn't "necessarily" accelerated under the Saskatchewan Party, and future moves will be dictated by a common-sense approach, he said. While the report noted that several jurisdictions in Canada and around the world are bringing privatized sectors back into the public realm, McMorris pointed to the growing popularity of public-private partnerships in North America. "I wouldn't say jurisdictions are backing away," he said. McMorris was hesitant to say whether privatization would figure large in the 2016 provincial election, but Hubich and Wotherspoon said they think it will be a lightening rod. "I actually think it will define the next election," Enoch said. nlypny@leaderpost.com twitter.com/wordpuddle

Read the CLC backgrounder  

focusing in particular on public attitudes about quality, sustainability and public versus private provision of services

there is majority support for private sector delivery of tax-supported healthcare services, and Canadians are nearly evenly divided on the issue of allowing people to pay for quicker access to healthcare services when the public system cannot provide timely access

The general trend over the past few years, in line with public opinion, has been away from discussion of wait times and doctor shortages; more recent coverage focuses somewhat more on disease outbreaks (e.g., H1N1 flu) and also fitness and nutrition.

Instituting a means test: An equitable system does not mean you have to provide equal services to all at equal cost; user fees and co-payments are not necessarily unfair, but these approaches have to be used smartly

Regulating rather than outlawing private insurance and care. One of the most important lessons we have to take from Europeans is that we need a combination of a well-regulated private system and a well-managed public system.

Every health system worth its salt has a mix of private and public delivery and payment.

The question is not whether or not we have private and public care. It’s getting the mix right.

There are things private enterprise does well. There are things that public and non-profit enterprises do well. Let’s be pragmatic and benefit from both, as most European countries do.

We need to pay much more attention to equity – making sure everyone is cared for – and less to who is delivering the services.

Reform is going to happen only if the political environment changes, if we stop shouting down every proposal for change because it threatens vested interests.

We don’t need more tiresome private-public rhetoric. We don’t need Chicken Little screaming that medicare is unsustainable.

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

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

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

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

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

The Health Council has said planning remains “fragmented”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The for-profit health industry continues to grow unabated

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

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

Steve Morgan is an expert adviser with EvidenceNetwork.ca and Professor of health policy at the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health. Danielle Martin is a physician and vice-president at Women's College Hospital in Toronto.