Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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.

In 2012, age-related needs were identified as the single most common problem requiring help from caregivers (28%) (Chart 1). This was followed by cancer (11%), cardio-vascular disease (9%), mental illness (7%), and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia (6%).

The majority of caregivers reported providing transportation to their primary care receiver, making it the most frequent type of care provided in the last 12 months (73%)

Most often, caregivers spent under 10 hours a week on caregiving duties. In particular, one-quarter of caregivers (26%) reported spending one hour or less per week caring for a family member or friend. Another 32% reported spending an average of 2 to 4 hours per week and 16% spent 5 to 9 hours per week on caregiving activities.  

The most common types of care were not always the ones most likely to be performed on a regular basis (i.e., at least once a week). For instance, despite the fact that personal care and providing medical assistance were the least common forms of care, when they were performed, these tasks were most likely to be done more regularly.

Emotional support often accompanied other help to the care receiver. Nearly nine in ten caregivers (88%) reported spending time with the person, talking with and listening to them, cheering them up or providing some other form of emotional support. Virtually all caregivers (96%) ensured that the ill or disabled family member or friend was okay, either by visiting or calling.

Overall, caregivers spent a median of 3 hours a week caring for an ill or disabled family member or friend. This climbed to a median of 10 hours per week for caregivers assisting a child and 14 hours for those providing care to an ill spouse (Chart 3).

In addition, about half of caregivers (51%) reported that they performed tasks inside the care recipients’ home in the last 12 months, such as preparing meals, cleaning, and laundry. Another 45% reported providing assistance with house maintenance or outdoor work.

For some, caregiving was a large part of their life - equivalent to a full time job. Approximately one in ten caregivers were spending 30 or more hours a week providing some form of assistance to their ill family member or friend.  These caregivers were most likely caring for an ill spouse (31%) or child (29%).5

The actual time spent performing tasks is often combined with time needed to travel to provide care. Approximately three-quarters (73%) of caregivers indicated that they did not live in the same household or building as their care receiver, meaning they often had to travel to reach the care recipients’ home. Just over half (52%), however, reported having to travel less than 30 minutes by car.  Roughly 12% of caregivers provided help to a family member who lived at least one hour away by car.

Certain health conditions required more hours of care. This was the case for developmental disabilities or disorders, where 51% of these caregivers were spending at least 10 hours a week providing help

Caregivers have multiple responsibilities beyond caring for their chronically ill, disabled or aging family member or friend. In 2012, 28% of caregivers could be considered “sandwiched” between caregiving and childrearing, having at least one child under 18 years living at home

Four provinces had rates above the national average of 28%, including Ontario (29%), Nova Scotia (31%), Manitoba (33%) and Saskatchewan (34%) (Textbox Chart 1). The higher levels of caregiving in Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba were largely related to caring for a loved one suffering from a chronic health condition or disability, whereas in Saskatchewan, the higher level of caregiving was attributed to aging needs. 

Historically, caregivers have been disproportionally women (Cranswick and Dosman 2008). This was also true in 2012, when an estimated 54% of caregivers were women.

Although the median number of caregiving hours was similar between men and women (3 and 4 hours per week, respectively), women were more likely than their male counterparts to spend 20 or more hours per week on caregiving tasks (17% versus 11%). Meanwhile, men were more likely than women to spend less than one hour per week providing care (29% versus 23%) (Chart 5).

For instance, they were twice as likely as their male counterparts to provide personal care to the primary care receiver, including bathing and dressing (29% versus 13%).

Caring for an ill or disabled family member or friend can span months or years. For the vast majority of caregivers (89%), their caregiving activities had been going on at least one year or longer, with half reporting they had been caring for a loved one for four years or more.

The aging of the population, higher life expectancies and the shift in emphasis from institutionalized care to home care may suggest that more chronically ill, disabled and frail people are relying on help from family and friends than in the past. Using the GSS, it is possible to examine the changes in the number of caregivers aged 45 years and older, recognizing that methodological differences between survey cycles warrant caution when interpreting any results.

Bearing in mind these caveats, results from the GSS show that between 2007 and 2012, the number of caregivers aged 45 and over increased by 760,000 to 4.5 million caregivers, representing a 20% increase in the number of caregivers over the five years.

Having less time with children was an often cited outcome of providing care to a chronically ill, disabled, or aging family member or friend. About half (49%) of caregivers with children under 18 indicated that their caregiving responsibilities caused them to reduce the amount of time spent with their children.6

Overall, the vast majority of caregivers (95%) indicated that they were effectively coping with their caregiving responsibilities, with only 5% reporting that they were not coping well.7 However, the feeling of being unable to cope grew with a greater number of hours of care. By the time caregivers were spending 20 or more hours per week on caregiving tasks, one in ten (10%) were not coping well.  

In addition, while most were able to effectively manage their caregiving responsibilities, 28% found providing care somewhat or very stressful and 19% of caregivers indicated that their physical and emotional health suffered in the last 12 months as a result of their caregiving responsibilities.

The health consequences of caregiving were even more pronounced when caregivers were asked specific questions on their health symptoms. Over half (55%) of caregivers felt worried or anxious as a result of their caregiving responsibilities, while about half (51%) felt tired during the past 12 months (Chart 8). Other common symptoms associated with providing care included feeling short-tempered or irritable (36%), feeling overwhelmed (35%) and having a disturbed sleep (34%).8

The financial impacts related to caring for a loved one can be significant. Lost days at work may reduce household income, while out-of-pocket expenses, such as purchasing specialized aids or devices, transportation costs, and hiring professional help to assist with care, can be borne from caring for a loved one. In many cases, financial support, from either informal or formal sources, can ease the financial burden associated with caregiving responsibilities. Overall, about one in five caregivers (19%) were receiving some form of financial support. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Canada Health Act

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

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

John Abbott, Chief Executive Officer, Health Council of Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is right.

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

We want to share best practices.

it is not likely to happen without strong direction from above

Excellent Care for All Act

quality plans

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

Canadian Hospital Reporting Project

by March of next year we hope to make it public

performance, outcomes, quality and financials

With respect to physicians, it is a different story

We do not collect data on outcomes associated with treatments.

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

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

Senator Eaton

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

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

universal screening

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

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

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

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

colorectal screening

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

adverse drug effects

over-prescribing

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

catastrophic drug coverage

a patchwork across the country

with respect to wait times

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

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

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

Have we made progress?

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

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

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

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

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

send him or her to the States

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

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

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

Dr. Kitts: We are without a leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the national pharmaceutical strategy

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

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

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

As well, a report this fall from Ontario Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk found that as little as 61 cents out of every dollar spent by the agencies goes to face-to-face client services, and discovered gaps in the level of care offered across the province. A second report on home care will be included in the Auditor-General's annual report in early December.

Suggested changes to the way primary care is delivered by family doctors and other health-care providers are also expected to gain wide attention, especially from doctors, who are in a battle with government over fees. Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins has been hinting for some time that change was in the works, but the existence of a policy paper and its contents have been kept under wraps.

Individuals familiar with different aspects of the document, who spoke to The Globe on the condition that they not be identified, describe it as "transformational" - a term that has become a favourite of the Health Minister. Earlier this month, Dr. Hoskins delivered a speech at a hospital conference in Toronto in which he repeatedly spoke of "system transformation" and the need for stronger "local governance."

The minister responded to questions from The Globe in a statement Monday night, saying that the ministry is "putting together a document which we hope will serve as a starting point for discussions and consultation about how we can better integrate various parts of the system and improve the patient experience." "We plan to share that discussion document in the coming weeks and will be engaging with our partners, including care providers and the public, to solicit feedback on those ideas to achieve deeper integration," the statement said.

The plans for change come at a critical time for Ontario's Liberal government as it looks to cut costs and tame the provincial deficit. To do that, keeping health-care spending in check is imperative, but the minister has also pledged to make improvements such as ensuring more people have access to primary care, and are not reliant on walk-in clinics and emergency rooms for after-hours nonurgent care. Any efforts to change how primary care is paid for or organized are likely to meet resistance from doctors, who are already at odds with the province after it imposed a contract and two rounds of fee cuts this year.

An expert panel report on primary-care reform - released quietly this fall and widely criticized by doctors - recommends dividing the province into "patient care groups," similar to school boards, with each group responsible for ensuring every resident in the area has access to primary care. As a prelude to the coming reform, at least one merger plan among two hospitals and a CCAC was paused this fall after the ministry advised the boards involved of the coming changes.

John Davies, chair of the board of William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ont., said merger talks with the Central West CCAC and Headwaters Health Care Centre in Orangeville, Ont., were suspended after deputy Health Minister Bob Bell wrote to them a few weeks ago advising them to suspend talks because of the coming reforms. Those familiar with the proposed reforms say the beefed-up local health networks will be given responsibility for overseeing home care, with front-line workers and case managers retaining their jobs.

"For the client, there will be no change," one source said. Some aspects of home care involving patients who have been hospitalized will continue to move over to a new model called "bundled care," which has been piloted by St. Joseph's Health System in Hamilton and was recently expanded to six other sites, one source said. The province will also look at tailoring care delivery to the needs of local communities, with different models possible for urban and rural settings, another source said.

To make aging at home a reality for all Canadians, we must redesign the delivery of home care to make it more accessible, accountable and affordable.

As government funding continues to decline, unpaid caregivers — typically a spouse or child — are having to fill the gap or pay out of pocket to hire care privately. In 2007, approximately 3.1 million Canadians, largely women between the ages of 45–64 years old (44%) (StatsCan 2012), were estimated to act as an informal caregiver to their loved ones, providing over 1.5 billion hours of care annually.

These caregivers provide 10 times the number of care hours by formal services, which is not only taxing on their personal well-being and their relationship with their recipient, but also on Canada’s economy — the cost to businesses from absenteeism and turnover related to unpaid care was estimated to be $1.28 billion in 2007.

The Caring Economy is made up of for-profit marketplaces that serve the needs of others. Like the Sharing Economy, it is a marketplace that empowers neighbours to care for neighbours— removing the need for corporations to intervene. Through the latest mobile technology, businesses in the caring economy connect the supply of care to the demand for care.

In the Caring Economy, there are two key end users: the demand side that needs to hire care and are willing to pay and the supply side that has time and is looking to help. Demand side users can build their own personalized team of care providers, communicate directly within the platform, and pay on demand via mobile payments — a seamless, convenient and transparent process. This is made possible through a peer-to-peer marketplace that uses mobile technology to efficiently manage the relationships between paid care-workers to primary caregivers and their loved ones — on demand. Simply put, it is Uber for home care.

At its core, this model redesigns how care is delivered to make ‘aging in place’ a reality. The model’s objective is threefold — to help seniors age with dignity, to unburden their family caregivers, and to turn compassionate people and Personal Support Workers (PSWs) into ‘micro-entrepreneurs’ — providing them with an opportunity to earn a 20–30% higher wage- a win, win, win.

The Uplift® smartphone platform delivers on-demand home care services — at the touch of a button. As a company, we are laser focused on harnessing the latest mobile technology and analytical problem solving to deliver a superior user experience that fulfills the aging population’s demand for higher quality care. We are setting the new standard.Our app is an affordable solution to expensive agency fees. We offer 30–50% lower fees than private agencies. We are also an innovative substitute to long-term care.As an organization, we are devoted to making a positive impact in the world. Moreover, we are a pioneer of the ‘caring economy’ — where neighbours can care for neighbours and caregivers are empowered.

Despite this increased attachment, the chance of being seen in a timely way did not improve. Ontario's primary care models require evening and weekend clinics and on-call duties, and penalize practices for out-of-group primary care visits; therefore, these findings are unexpected. While many factors are likely involved, Ontario's auditor general noted two major faults: not establishing mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and not enforcing practices' contractual obligations, especially for after-hours care

The access bonus is reduced by outside primary care use but not by emergency department visits. Physicians responding rationally to such a financial incentive would logically direct their patients away from walk-in clinics and toward emergency departments. The access bonus also strongly discourages healthcare groups from working together to provide late evening and night coverage because all parties would lose financially. An incentive that costs more than $50 million annually should be structured to align better with health system needs.

A recent systematic review found insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of care (Scott et al. 2011).

In Ontario, there was little relationship between incentive payments and changes in diabetes care (Kiran et al. 2012), nor were there substantial improvements in most aspects of preventive care despite substantial incentives (Hurley et al. 2011). Similar cautionary tales about pay-for-performance can be found elsewhere in the health system (Jha et al. 2012).

Ontario adjusts capitation for only age and sex, whereas most other jurisdictions further adjust for expected healthcare needs, patient complexity and/or socioeconomic disparities (e.g., the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups http://www.acg.jhsph.org/). That may be why Ontario's primary care capitation models have attracted healthier and wealthier practices (Glazier et al. 2012).

Community health centres care for disadvantaged populations with superior outcomes (Glazier et al. 2012; Russell et al. 2009) and could play a larger role in Ontario's health system.

Unlike some other jurisdictions (National Health Service Information Centre for Health and Social Care 2012), Ontario has no routine measurement of primary care at the practice, group or community levels. It has no organized structures, such as the Divisions of General Practice in Australia (Australian Department of Health and Ageing 2012) or the Divisions of Family Practice in British Columbia (2010), that can help practices come together to improve care. It has also failed to hold practices accountable for their contractual obligations, including after-hours clinics.

Ontario's reforms occurred in the absence of routine measurement of primary care within practices, groups or communities and with limited accountability for how funds were spent.

Access to primary care has proven to be challenging in Canada, leaving it behind many developed countries in timely access and after-hours care, and more dependent than most on the use of emergency departments (Schoen et al. 2007).

A strong primary care system is consistently associated with better and more equitable health outcomes, higher patient satisfaction and lower costs (Starfield et al. 2005).

Bailey's network is using its surplus to pay its nurse practitioners and other team members - and the pot is disappearing. Moe said the excess $1 million will be depleted by the end of the fiscal year.

"We've been operating in a nonsustainable model," Bailey said. "If we were to maintain all the programs we currently run in many (primary care networks), it would take close to twice the $50 just to maintain, let alone to expand."

We have 80 per cent of doctors in the province within them

But negotiations for a new physician contract broke down earlier this year and the existing contract was stretched to June 2012. The Alberta Medical Association's new Calgarybased president, Dr. Linda Slocombe, said primary care networks are a "critical" part of moving forward.

Concerned, too, that more services are being downloaded onto primary care networks. They are expected to play a huge role in treating and preventing obesity, whereas such programs were historically offered in hospitals and paid for by the health authority, Bailey said.

And yet he said Alberta's system is still too reliant on having doctors do most of the work, rather than let them focus on the complex cases while dietitians or pharmacists help manage diabetes or the overweight.

provincial executive leaders in this area will meet in Calgary Oct. 14 and 15 to come up with a consensus document for the AMA to present to the government in negotiations.

Long-term care: Invest in infrastructure so there is an adequate number of beds, and so they are affordable, particularly for seniors with specialized needs, such as those with dementia. Palliative care: Promote advance-care planning and ensure everyone gets palliative care at the end of life. In a wide-ranging discussion, delegates to the CMA meeting identified a number of specific issues that are hampering the provision of care to seniors with chronic health conditions, such as the lack of electronic health records, the way health-care delivery is siloed in Canada, the absence of pharmacare, physician payment schemes that reward volume rather than quality of care, the lack of training in geriatrics and a lacklustre commitment to patient-centred care.

The overarching theme was that if care is going to be improved for the burgeoning population of seniors, it must begin with better co-ordination. Dr. David Naylor, who headed the federal Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation, also stressed this as an essential element of reform. In a keynote address to the CMA meeting, he said that while Canadians love their medicare system - at least in theory - the reality is that "the scope is narrow and performance is middling." Dr. Naylor said the main reason Canadians don't get good value for money when it comes to health spending is a lack of co-ordination of care. "The critical factor is integration of services," he said.

Right now, far too many patients, especially seniors with chronic conditions, are being cared for in hospitals rather than in the community and their care is disjointed, the CMA's report notes. Fixing that will, among other things, require a reorganization of roles between various health professions, including physicians, nurses and pharmacists. "All health-care professionals are going to have to do their bit to deal with this grey tsunami," he said, stressing that many innovative solutions have been put in place across the country, but they are too rarely scaled up.

Dr. Naylor said policy-makers, and federal politicians in particular, need to take a leadership role to ensure this happens. Dr. Simpson of the CMA also called for federal political parties to commit to a seniors' strategy during the current election campaign, and said he is confident they will. "We know they're thinking about it. We know their hearts are in the right place," he said. "Now we want them to start talking about seniors' health care in the context of the election campaign so people can cast their votes accordingly."

The health care system was in crisis. It took nearly 15 years of incremental increases to bring the federal portion of health funding back to the level is was at before Paul Martin took his axe to it. Going through an exercise like that again would be devastating for the health services that Canadians depend on each and every day.

Adding fuel to the speculation that the Liberals are planning massive cuts to health funding is Trudeau’s September 2nd letter to the Council of the Federation that makes no firm commitments to health care or federal transfers. The only firm commitment was to improve the federal-provincial relationship. That’s pretty thin gruel considering the state of that relationship after 10 years of Stephen Harper!

All Canadians who are concerned with the future of health care in this country need to scratch below Trudeau’s soothing words and take a look at his hard numbers. When you break down their plan, 77 per cent of the value of their “new investments” are tax shifts and benefits (including others not listed under that category), 12 per cent is the catch-all of ‘infrastructure’ spending (though most Canadians don’t think of early learning and cultural facilities as ‘infrastructure’), and five per cent is EI (paid for through EI premiums).

That leaves only six per cent, or a little over two billion a year for everything else. How much of that available funding will go to public home care and long-term care? How much will go to the provinces for new hospital beds after years of cuts? On reading the Liberal plan, we have to conclude: not a penny.

Their plan also targets $6.5 billion in spending reductions from an expenditure review. Will health care be on the table for cuts, if they can’t meet that ambitious target? John McCallum said on Saturday that in the effort to balance their books before the next election, ‘everything was on the table.’ Contrast this with Tom Mulcair’s plan for health care under a federal NDP government, and the stark choice is brought in to focus. 

Mulcair has committed to reversing Harper’s $36 billion in health care transfer cuts to the provinces.  He has committed to investing $5.4 billion into new public health care programs, including a prescription drugs, a plan for 41,000 home care and 5,000 long-term care spots. Over five million more Canadians will have access to primary health care through his plan to build 200 Community Health Clinics. And there are practical policy initiatives on mental health for youth, Alzheimer’s and dementia care.

Canadians cherish their universal Medicare system as one of the things that makes Canada great. They want a federal government that will commit the necessary funding and leadership to build the public health care system of our collective futures, to meet the challenges of an aging population and increasing drug costs. The next party to lead the federal government should be judged by the real dollars and focused policy it has committed to meet Canadians’ health care needs.

On that measure, the Liberal plan is dead on arrival. Paul Moist is national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Representing over 633,000 members, including over 153,000 working in the health care sector, it is Canada’s largest union.

The document is expected to propose shifting much of the CCACs' home-care planning and oversight roles to the 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) that now are responsible for overall regional planning, funding and health-care integration. The job of co-ordinating face-to-face services, which now falls to CCAC staffers, may be moved to primary care agencies, such as hospitals or community health clinics led by doctors or nurse practitioners. The goal is to save more than $200 million by eliminating the bureaucracy-heavy CCACs, with their high-paid executives, and directing the savings to front-line services.

More than 700,000 Ontario residents receive care annually at home or in community settings. The province spends $2.5 billion a year on home and community care, about 4 per cent of its total health budget. Despite overwhelming evidence that the system is in dire need of reform, Hoskins seems reluctant to move ahead with any speed. Two months ago his office cancelled a private lock-up for home-care stakeholders at which they were to discuss a "white paper" on reforms. Hoskins also scrapped plans for a special home-care task force on the grounds it would be viewed as just another stalling tactic. Still, Hoskins is indeed moving, albeit slowly.

On Nov. 20, he spoke privately with the board chairs and chief executive officers of the 14 CCACs about the coming changes. On Nov. 30, Bob Bell, the deputy health minister, met with the same CCAC bosses and while he didn't share any "concrete plans," he did suggest health ministry officials will consult with CCACs and other agencies about the proposed changes "in the new year." And on Dec. 1, Hoskins wrote to the CCAC bosses to explain that his ministry has every intention of "working together with CCACs to build a health care system that truly responds to the needs of patients and their families." Again, no specifics were mentioned. Clearly, Hoskins is dealing with a health-care establishment that is reluctant to change. That includes the CCACs, LHINs, doctors and his own bureaucrats.

LHIN officials, for example, don't want to be in charge of direct delivery of care. They have few staffers who actually know how to run a big health system on a day-to-day basis. At the same time, the LHINs have their own troubles, as Lysyk noted in her report. She said their "marching orders are not clear enough" and performance gaps are widening, especially on wait times. In the weeks ahead, Hoskins must address whether the LHINs are ready to assume greater duties, whether they should be in the health-care delivery sector at all and how to achieve better integration of hospitals, public health, primary care and home-care agencies. Also, he should look at whether all - not just some - home-care delivery should be left to private and non-profit service providers. Hoskins and his bureaucrats may be delaying the reform push until they develop "the perfect plan."

But Hoskins, who has shown true vision in this initiative, should view the document as the starting point - not the end point - for wholesale reforms that cut out an entire layer of costly bureaucracy and that improve the delivery of services that patients need and deserve. Everyone in the health-care sector is primed and ready to act, although not eagerly in all cases. Just as important is the fact that more delays and more wasted tax dollars won't fix the broken system. So it's time for Hoskins to end the needless holdups and move swiftly and boldly on behalf of the people who really matter - Ontario patients. Bob Hepburn's column appears Sunday. bhepburn@thestar.ca

Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins may be delaying action until his team develops "the perfect plan" for home-care delivery, Bob Hepburn writes. • Chris Young/THE CANADIAN PRESS file photo

Sadly, the offerings in our health system are driven as much by tradition as they are by evidence. We needn't be prisoners of our outmoded structures. In the fifties and sixties, we created a system to provide care in hospitals and in physicians' offices and it's almost impossible to break that mould and innovate - for example, by putting psychological care on an even footing with psychiatric/medicinal treatment. What we really need to do is provide care where people bring their mental-health problems - in primary care. As most provinces try to transition from a solo, fee-for-service model to multidisciplinary teams, it provides a perfect opportunity to bolster mental-health care by integrating psychologists onto teams. Other countries have done so, notably Britain and Australia, and the early evidence is that it's paying off. The fear, of course, is that providing public funding of psychological care will cost more. Of course it will. Estimates range from $950-million to $2.8-billion a year.

But the offering of psychological care doesn't have to be an open buffet like other aspects of health care, and some of the hundreds of millions now paid for (not always trained) doctors to provide psychotherapy can be spent more smartly. If done right, the investment should pay off down the road, in lower health costs, disability-insurance payouts and absenteeism. Because the greatest costs of mental illness arise when it is left untreated, and festers. Mental illness is common: 10 per cent to 25 per cent of women and 5 per cent to 12 per cent of men experience a major depression; 4 per cent to 7 per cent of Canadians suffer from anxiety disorder; 7 per cent to 12 per cent experience posttraumatic stress disorder; 10 per cent suffer from phobias; 5 per cent experience panic disorders; 2 per cent to 4 per cent suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder or eating disorders; 1 per cent to 2 per cent suffer from bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. For years, we have been focusing efforts on combatting the stigma, urging Canadians with mental-health disorders to come forward. But the care is not available for those who need it; waits stretch from months to years, and an estimated one in three adults and one in four children don't get care at all.

Psychotherapy can help fill the gap. There are 8,000 psychologists in Canada. About three-quarters are in private practice, charging $100 to $200 an hour, and roughly one-third work exclusively in the public system, where there is no charge to patients. Canadians spend about $950million on psychological care, most of it covered by private insurance and workers compensation; but a good chunk, about one-third, is paid out of pocket. We have a mixed health-funding model in this country, but when it comes to mental-health care, we don't have the mix right. Too many people are being denied care because they can't afford it, or because their workbased insurance provides paltry benefits for psychological care. As it stands, mental-health care remains an orphan. We can take another big step toward correcting this by adopting a more rational approach to the use and funding of psychological care.

Health Minister Madeleine Dubé said Friday that changes to primary health care will be driven in part by the opinions received at the Primary Health Care Summit held in Fredericton this week.

But Dubé stopped short of saying primary health care would come before the needs in acute care.

Premier David Alward also expressed a need for the province to move towards greater preventative health-care measures alongside of strengthening primary health care in the province.

reinvest some of the money we have within the system now into things like prevention

Primary Health Care Steering Committee

The committee is to forward recommendations derived from the summit to the provincial government by early 2012.

Two reports this fall from Ontario Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk found as little as 61 cents out of every dollar spent by the agencies went to face-to-face client services, and few improvements had been made to correct problems identified years before. Health Minister Eric Hoskins, in a statement Wednesday, said the government "wants to reduce bureaucracy and administration in home and community care."

Even so, the policy paper introduces the idea of a smaller, local organization to co-ordinate the delivery of home care and primary care - something those familiar with the plans have been calling a "sub-LHIN." Several sources stressed that unlike the discredited CCAC model, these organizations would not mean the creation of another layer of bureaucracy. The job could be given to existing organizations such as community health centres, some speculated, and will allow for better planning. There will be no change in the relationship between the government and doctors, who will not report to the new organizations, one source said. "Our goal is to make it easier for patients to find a primary health-care provider when they need one, see that person quickly when they are sick, and find the care they need, closer to home," the Health Minister said in a statement.

There has been widespread speculation about how far the reforms would go and how the province can restructure primary care at a time when it is waging an increasingly bitter battle with doctors, who have been without a fee agreement for more than a year. After the government imposed two across-the-board fee cuts this year, the Ontario Medical Association, which represents the province's doctors, began a public campaign criticizing the measures that it argues are hurting patient care. Senior government officials stressed that the plans mapped out in the paper would be the basis of consultations in the new year, and that no changes would be "imposed" on doctors. An OMA spokeswoman said the organization would not comment until it saw the paper.

When we established our universal health care system more than 50 years ago, the average Ontarian was 27 years of age and less likely to be living with chronic and complex health issues. In contrast, 60 per cent of our total hospital days last year were amongst older Ontarians, particularly those living with multiple health issues, and with minimal social supports.

When these patients end up in hospitals, it becomes a particular challenge to get them back in their own homes. In fact, more than 14 per cent of Ontario's hospital beds are currently occupied by patients like these who cannot be discharged because we don't have the right types of services available in the community. By having to stay in hospital, these patients aren't getting the kind of care that they should. And by remaining in hospital, the cost of their care and cost to their overall health is much higher than it actually needs to be. The majority of these patients are waiting for less costly at-home care services through home and community care agencies, or care in more supervised or assisted living environments, such as nursing homes. We also know that too many older Ontarians are still sent to nursing homes when there isn't enough home care, which is less expensive, available. With these growing pressures coming to a head, now is the time to act and make sure that our province can continue to provide the high-quality care that Ontarians want, need and deserve.

It is time to invest aggressively in home and community care, nursing home and assisted living services, and other vital areas so that patients can stay healthy and independent in their communities for as long as possible and when hospitalized, be discharged quickly and safely to get quality care in their community.

We need to identify the right mix of services to ensure all Ontarians can get the right kinds of care where and when they need it. That means knowing the right number of beds needed in hospitals or long-term care homes, as well as the number of assisted living spaces, home care hours, and primary care and mental health services required to meet the needs of our aging population. Given the exploding need for different kinds of services, it also means we need to be innovative by creating new models of care.

While the government has recently acknowledged the importance of robust health-service capacity planning, neither we nor any other Canadian jurisdiction currently has such a plan. This is worrisome because what we do know with absolute certainty is that the number of older Ontarians will double over the next two decades. With service demands growing rapidly at the same time that the system moves to further contain cost growth, we owe it to patients and clients to meet their changing health care needs not only for today but for the decades still to come.

Ontario needs clear-eyed and effective long-term planning to ensure its health care system has the ability meet the evolving health care needs of Ontarians. Until we know exactly what services the people of Ontario need, our system won't have the long-term plan required to meet them. Dr. Samir Sinha is director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals and provincial lead of Ontario's Seniors Strategy. Anthony Dale is president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association.

A large portion of those profits are possible because of unregulated "hospitality" fees, and an operational funding model that does not require government funds for front-line staffto actually go toward staffpay. No regulation exists for staff-to-patient ratios or to ensure patient and family councils are welcomed at each facility. Contracts between these providers and the government are confidential, meaning Albertans do not have the right to know how much public money is being doled out or what the terms of the contract are, and whether or not care is the No. 1 priority in these arrangements. This "wild west" model of continuing care providers was set up by the previous PC government, but it remains in place under the NDP government. However, there is hope positive change is coming. While the PC government significantly expanded the role of for-profit corporations in continuing care, the new government has taken a different position. Responding to promises from the previous government to open new care beds in Alberta, on Nov. 19, 2014, then-opposition leader Rachel Notley said in the legislature, "We don't argue with the need for more spaces for seniors; we do think that they should be publicly funded, publicly delivered."

In the same spirit, the NDP's election platform promised to open 2,000 public long-term care beds and "end the PCs' costly experiments in privatization, and redirect the funds to publicly delivered services." The previous government not only stopped building new public beds, but also unnecessarily closed hundreds of functional public long-term care beds and often funded the construction of replacement beds owned by for-profit corporations. Some of the closed facilities are currently empty and could still be reopened for public use.

In light of the problems the previous government created by funding private, for-profit care, the new government should begin by standardizing and limiting fees charged to residents, disclosing the amounts these corporations are being given and spending on direct care and how much of the public money is going to their shareholders, and setting standards for staff-topatient ratios. The most meaningful sign the new government can send would be to make good on their promise to open 2,000 public long-term care spaces, where profit is not a factor and care is the No. 1 priority. Fulfilling that promise should be the government's first step to phasing out private, for-profit continuing care. Our public health care dollars should not be given to corporate shareholders; it should be spent on care for Albertans. Private, for-profit care facilities are no more acceptable than Ralph Klein's short-lived private, for-profit hospitals. Noel Somerville is the chair of Public Interest Alberta's Seniors Task Force. Sandra Azocar is the executive director of Friends of Medicare.

The VON was trapped, and ultimately crushed, by that contradiction. It was not the first - the Canadian Red Cross Society's legendary blood transfusion service flamed out in an even more spectacular fashion with the taintedblood scandal in which 20,000 recipients contracted hepatitis C or HIV - and it will not be the last. Canadian Blood Services has taken over the former Red Cross role.

The health-care advocacy group Friends of Medicare said the neardemise of the VON is proof that "experiments in private care must be ceased." But the VON's story is much more complicated than the "public, good; private, bad" and "notfor-profit, good; for-profit, bad" narrative. For a long time, governments funded not-for-profit groups in the health and social services sectors - hospitals, home care, group homes, the Red Cross and so on - in a pretty loosey-goosey fashion. These groups did good, and they were funded relatively well.

But as budgets soared, new accountability measures were put into place. In the home-care sector, for example, competitive bidding was introduced. Stodgy old organizations such as the VON were not ready, and did not adapt. Their market share fell from more than 90 per cent to about 20 per cent. On the surface, this is a good thing. Canadians spend $219-billion a year on health care, including about $10-billion on home care, and, as consumers and taxpayers, they deserve to get value for money.

While we like to preach the gospel of value-for-money, we don't measure it well - the ultimate irony being that expensive bureaucracies have been built to ensure home-care agencies are lean and mean. The VON had many disadvantages in a competitive market.. place - first and foremost that it never provided just home care to its clients. It delivered hot meals, made friendly visits (especially to veterans), ran adult daycare programs, provided respite care to families, visited new mothers and babies, did flu shots at home and did countless other little things that never had a place in the accounting ledger. Some were covered by government payments, but many were not. The VON supplemented its funds from government contracts with charitable donations. It had more volunteers (9,000) than staff (6,000). The VON also paid its workers a decent, living wage. The work force - mostly nurses and therapists - is unionized, salaried and they have benefits, including a pension plan.

In the brave new home-care industry, piecework is the norm, meaning nurses get paid per visit, and few have benefits, pensions or stable employment. It is also in the interest of workers (and employers) to get visits done quickly, and cram as many as possible into a day. While this is a cost-effective business model, anyone with a loved one in home care knows that there is little continuity of care. The relationships that are so important to intimate acts such as health-care delivery to frail seniors living at home are virtually non-existent. When you have a strict business model, when all that matters is the much-vaunted bottom line, none of that gets counted.

The real tragedy in the VON's unravelling is not that another home-care business is biting the dust (after all, there are hundreds more out there), but that the "old-fashioned" way of delivering care - taking the time required to talk and listen to patients and treating them as people, not "units of service" for example, not just changing their dressings, but feeding them and filling the fridge - is falling by the wayside. With the VON's collapse, we have a home-care system that may be more efficient - at least in theory - but one that has less heart.

Our report shows that while demand for seniors' housing in B.C. is outpacing supply as more seniors opt for homes in independent living communities , not enough is being done to understand their longer-term health and housing needs. In the next 25 years, seniors will make up 25 per cent of B.C.'s population. We think it's time for the provincial and municipal governments to sit down with us and come up with a new plan to support the development of more independent housing and assisted living as a cost-effective alternative to residential care.

We also need improved planning and implementation of home health services provided by the Ministry of Health and the health authorities to residents of independent living communities to allow them to remain in the communities for as long as possible. There are approximately 355,700 people in B.C. over the age of 75, of which 8.2 per cent live in seniors' residences. Improved utilization and expansion of B.C.'s independent living and assisted living sectors to accommodate residents with a broader range of health and social needs could reduce reliance on residential care.

In the past, residential care was the primary option for people who needed additional care and support, but increasing costs and a shortage of publicly subsidized residential care facilities led to the development of publicly subsidized assisted living facilities. Since 2004, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of both independent living and assisted living units, which are often located in the same development and provide many benefits for their residents. But the time has come to take a fresh look at the services available to seniors and how we provide them. For example, the Ministry of Health could explore options to allow registered assisted living facilities to offer a more flexible approach to what and how services are provided to residents. Expanding the range of services could allow residents to return from hospital sooner and free up beds for other patients, or delay their admission to residential care facilities .

Not everyone has the resources to look after their own care and housing needs in their senior years, but the public resources to help are not unlimited. That means we have to be smart how we develop and implement policies for our seniors. Carole Holmes is president of the B.C. Seniors Living Association. Elder care in B.C.

Private-pay and publicly subsidized housing and care options for seniors in B.C. include: Independent living: A combination of housing and hospitality services for functionally independent seniors. Assisted living: A semiindependent type of housing regulated under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and includes housing, hospitality services and at least one, but not more than two prescribed services for people who require regular help with daily activities. Residential care: 24-hour professional supervision and care in a protective, supportive environment for people who have complex care needs and can no longer be cared for in their own homes or in an assisted living residence.

Under this program, paramedics will provide basic health-care services, within their scope of practice, in partnership with local health-care providers. The enhanced role is not intended to replace care provided by health professionals such as nurses, but rather to complement and support the work these important professionals do each day, delivered in non-urgent settings, in patients' homes or in the community. "As a former BC Ambulance paramedic, I understand the potential benefits of community paramedicine," said Jordan Sturdy, MLA for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky. "Expanding the role of paramedics to help care for the health and well-being of British Columbians just makes sense." Community paramedicine broadens the traditional focus of paramedics on pre-hospital emergency care to include disease prevention, health promotion and basic health-care services. This means a paramedic will visit rural patients in their home or community, perform assessments requested by the referring health care professional, and record their findings to be included in the patient's file. They will also be able to teach skills such as CPR at community clinics.

"Community paramedics will focus on helping people stay healthy and the specific primary care needs of the people in these communities," said Linda Lupini, executive vice president, BC Emergency Health Services. "This program also allows us to enhance our ability to respond to medical emergencies by offering permanent employment to paramedics in rural and remote areas of the province." "Community paramedicine brings improved patient care and more career opportunities to rural and remote areas," said Bronwyn Barter, president, Ambulance Paramedics of BC (CUPE 873). "Paramedics are well-suited to take on this important role in health-care provision." Community paramedicine was initially introduced in the province in 2015 in nine prototype communities. The initiative is now expanding provincewide, and will be in place in 31 communities in the Interior, 18 communities in northern B.C., 19 communities on Vancouver Island, and five communities in the Vancouver coastal area this year.

At least 80 new full-time equivalent positions will support the implementation of community paramedicine, as well as augment emergency response capabilities. Positions will be posted across the regional health authorities. The selection, orientation and placement process is expected to take about four months. Community paramedics are expected to be delivering community health services in northern B.C. this fall, in the Interior in early 2017, on Vancouver Island and the Vancouver coastal area in the spring of 2017. BC Emergency Health Services has been co-ordinating the implementation of community paramedicine in B.C. with the Ministry of Health, regional health authorities, the Ambulance Paramedics of BC (CUPE 873), the First Nations Health Authority and others. Copyright 2016 Williams Lake Tribune

In fact, barely 62 cents of every $1 goes to actual direct patient care. For years, CCAC bosses have being boasting - falsely it turns out - that 92 cents of every dollar went to direct patient care. Lysyk's audit also found that barely half of the complex-needs patients discharged from hospitals receive the care they are supposed to get within 24 hours, often because CCAC nurses don't work on weekends or rarely after 5 p.m.

In the wake of the latest major report that blasts the way Ontario looks after home care in this the province, it is time for Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins to take immediate action to fix a system that is clearly broken. The latest horror-filled report, released last week by auditor general Bonnie Lysyk, outlined a system that is utterly confusing, often mismanaged, lacking in oversight and filled with inconsistencies in how patients are treated. Lysyk took particular aim at the 14 Community Care Access Centres (CCACs), the publicly funded organizations that co-ordinate nursing, therapy and personal support services for patients outside of hospitals.

Despite these two major reports and similar reports in years gone by, the Liberal government has done nothing to address the troubles within the CCACs. Now it's up to Hoskins to act boldly and quickly to fix the system.

As a first step, Hoskins should immediately create a powerful task force that can review the CCACs and look for a better way of co-ordinating home-care in Ontario. Ultimately, that could mean scrapping the CCAC system, which as Lysyk's report finds, is simply not working. The task force should be composed of experts from all sectors of the health area, including representatives of hospitals, patient advocacy groups, nurses, therapists such as speech language pathologists, personal support workers, CCACs and the 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) that oversee and fund CCACs, hospitals and other community health services. Also, Hoskins should give the task force a short deadline to report its recommendations, ideally within six months. That's a tight schedule, but it should be possible given that so much investigation has been done over the last five years into the flaws in the system. One specific mandate that Hoskins should give the task force is to determine if all planning and monitoring roles for home care now performed by CCACs can be transferred to beefed-up LHINs.

Also, the task force should study whether care co-ordination now handled by CCACs can be transferred to the primary-care sector. Hoskins, who has talked of wanting "bold and transformative change," has hinted broadly that he is willing to look in this direction. He has taken great efforts to point out the auditor's recommendation that the government revisit the current model of delivering home and community care. "We endorse this recommendation and see it as a catalyst not only to continue but to deepen our reform process," he said. The auditor general will release two more reports on home care in 2015, both to be included in her annual report to be filed likely in early December. One is on the CCAC's home-care program focusing on personal support services and the other on the performance of the 14 LHINs. But Hoskins doesn't need to wait for these reports before acting.

The evidence that the home-care system is a mess and that the CCACs are a big reason for that sorry state is overwhelming. It's time for Hoskins to appoint a task force with a mandate to propose real reforms that will improve the lives of all Ontario patients who need treatment at home. Bob Hepburn's column appears Sunday. bhepburn@thestar.ca