The Health of Canadians The Federal Role
Interim Report
Volume Five: Principles and Recommendations for Reform - Part I
Towards a Population Health Strategy
As the Committee has noted in its Phase One report, it is clear that the state of the health care system affects our health. Services such as childhood immunization, medications to reduce high blood pressure as well as heart surgery all contribute to health and well-being. In fact, estimates by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research suggest that 25% of the health of the population is attributable to the health care system alone.[234] It is therefore important for governments to ensure that the health care sector continually strives to provide quality and timely services.
It has been estimated that the remaining 75% of the health of the Canadian population is attributable to a multiplicity of factors that include: biology and genetic endowment; income and social support; education; employment and working conditions; physical environment; personal health practices and skills; early childhood development; gender, and culture. The Committee heard repeatedly that, to maintain and improve health status, governments should, in addition to sustaining a good health care system, develop population health strategies. Population health strategies encompass a broad range of activities, ranging from health and wellness promotion, to illness and injury prevention through broader policies and programs that influence income distribution, access to education, housing, water quality, workplace safety, and so on.
There is increasing evidence that investing more human and financial resources in promotion, prevention and population health can improve the health outcomes for a given population. In the end, this can reduce the demand for health services and the pressures on the publicly funded health care system.
Indeed, injury and illness are very costly to the health care system. During Phase Two of its study, the Committee was informed that the total cost of illness and injury was estimated at $156.4 billion in 1998. Direct costs (such as hospital care, physician services and health research) amounted to $81.8 billion, while indirect costs (such as lost productivity and lower quality of life) accounted for $74.6 billion. The diagnostic categories with the highest total costs were cardiovascular diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, cancer, injuries, respiratory diseases, diseases of the nervous system, and mental disorders.[235] According to witnesses, many diseases, and most injuries, can be prevented. In their view, the only way to reverse disease trends and reduce the economic burden of illness is by investing more in health and wellness promotion, disease prevention and population health.
Overall, investment in health and wellness promotion, illness prevention and population health makes good financial sense. This fact was reflected in the 2001 report of the Auditor General of Canada which noted that “preventive health activities are estimated to be 6 to 45 times more effective than dealing with health problems after the fact.”[236]
The Committee believes that there are potentially enormous benefits to be derived from health and wellness promotion, illness prevention and population health, primarily in terms of improving health outcomes for Canadians, but also in terms of their financial impact on the publicly funded health care system. We wholeheartedly agree with the Mazankowski report which stated: “It sounds like just good common sense, but perhaps the best way to sustain Alberta’s health care system over the longer term is to take steps to enable people and communities to stay healthy.”[237]
In this chapter, the Committee outlines a series of principles based on an approach to population health that we feel should guide policy decisions. These principles flow from the evidence and documentation presented to the Committee, and are designed to lay the groundwork for a future thematic report in which the Committee will make specific recommendations on implementing these principles.
In addition to outlining the rationale behind these principles, this chapter also discusses the importance of a population health approach with regard to improving the health status of Aboriginal Canadians. The Committee wishes to stress that it intends to issue a separate report on the federal role with regard to the health of Aboriginal Canadians, and that the inclusion of a principle in this chapter that affirms the need for a population health approach in this area should not be taken as the Committee’s last word on this crucial subject.
Principle
7.1
Individuals should assume responsibility for their own health.
In 1974, the then federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Marc Lalonde, released a landmark working document entitled A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians. This report recognized the impact of individual behaviour on health outcomes, and stressed that individual Canadians should assume greater responsibility of their health, while also identifying broader determinants (such as the environment or socio-economic factors) that have an impact on health outcomes.
The Lalonde Report referred to the “behavioural threats to health” and the “self-imposed risks” that accompanied “city living, habits of indolence, the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and eating patterns which put the pleasing of the senses above the needs of the human body.”[238] It also stressed that:
While it is easy to convince a person in pain to see a physician, it is not easy to get someone not in pain to moderate insidious habits in the interest of future well-being. (…) The view that Canadians have the right “to choose their own poison” is one that is strongly held.[239]
There is no doubt that individual lifestyle choices have a significant impact on one’s health. A comprehensive report prepared for the Mazankowski Commission shows that lifestyle changes can markedly reduce the incidence and severity of a number of major diseases and leading causes of death and disability, especially heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes and selected cancers. Moreover, the report suggests that many people already know the kinds of thing they should be doing – making healthier eating choices, getting more active, avoiding health risks and stopping smoking. It is not clear, however, why people do not always act on what they know.[240]
The Mazankowski report concluded that, in the context of health care system delivery, better incentives may be needed to encourage people to stay healthy:
A number of ideas have been suggested for encouraging people to take more responsibility for their own health. Some people have suggested tying health care premiums to actions to stay healthy, providing tax credits or other tax incentives, or using medical savings accounts or some other form of co-payment to give people more control over their own health care spending. Others have suggested there should be penalties for people who do not look after their own health.[241]
The Committee agrees
that individuals should assume responsibility for their own health and that
incentives need to be developed to encourage them to do so.
We also agree that investment must be made in policies and programs
that empower Canadians to make better decisions about their own health.
This is an important step if Canada is to sustain publicly funded
health care in the long term.
Principle 7.2
Government programs that enable individuals to assume greater responsibility for their own health, and particularly health promotion and illness prevention activities, must be given high priority.
Many witnesses stressed that, though individual Canadians are responsible for their own health, government can play an important role in providing information on how to stay healthy. This point was very well captured in the testimony of Dr. Serge Boucher, from the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Quebec City, when he said:
Health is up to the individual. It is the individual who decides to become obese. It is the individual who decides whether or not to smoke. It is also the individual who decides whether or not he or she should exercise. Should the State intervene? Should the State compel the individual to do something? It is very important that we pinpoint accurately what the State can or must do; namely, looking first of all after the illness. As for health, we can give information.[242]
It is clear to the Committee that government programs that enable people to be responsible for their own health must be given high priority. This point was stressed as far back as 1974 in the Lalonde report. This view was reiterated again in 1986 when the then federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Jake Epp, released a report entitled Achieving Health for All: A Framework for Health Promotion, which focused on the broader social, economic and environmental determinants of health. Both the Lalonde report and the Epp report underlined health promotion and illness prevention as a complement to the health care system and a means to prevent the occurrence of injuries, illnesses and chronic conditions, and to enhance people's ability to manage and cope with diseases, disabilities and mental health problems.
The Committee believes that programs which enable individuals to be responsible for their own health must be given high priority. An expanded Canadian Health Network, such as the one we advocate in Chapter Four, is one important tool that could furnish Canadians with reliable, evidence-based information on health, injury and illness. Currently, the Canadian Health Network provides health promotion and disease prevention information to Canadians and is considered by many as among the best in the world. The Committee believes that we should build on this success and create a national portal for the Canadian public, which would give Canadians access to comprehensive and trusted health-related information that could support self-care decision making and be strategically linked to provincial and territorial website services to ensure consistency of health-related information across Canada.
Recognizing that Internet-based health information can only be available to those who have access to computers, the Committee believes that government must also pursue public awareness campaigns which can address a wide range of issues, such as the importance of eating healthy food, exercising regularly, not smoking and adopting safe sexual practices. These are all important messages that must be reiterated on an ongoing basis. We concur with witnesses that the role of government should not be to prescribe “good behaviour” but rather to help create an environment that allows people themselves to make the right choices.
Providing the “right information” with respect to health and illness and sustaining an ongoing public awareness campaign can significantly contribute to preventing many illnesses and most injuries, thereby improving the overall health status of the Canadian population. For example, with respect to cancer, Dr. Barbara Whylie, Director, Cancer Control Policy, Canadian Cancer Society, pointed out that:
(…) we know from research, or it has been estimated from research studies, that up to 70 per cent of cancer cases can be avoided by people avoiding exposure to known risk factors, which include tobacco use, diet, physical activity, exposure to the sun and occupational and environmental carcinogens.[243]
With respect to injury, Dr. Robert Conn, President and Chief Executive Officer, SMARTRISK, told the Committee:
What is most compelling about injury prevention is that over 90 per cent of all of the injuries that come to the hospital are preventable. They are predictable and preventable.[244]
Witnesses stressed that health promotion and disease prevention should not be seen as a substitute for the activities of the health care system, or as existing in a world cut off from the treatment of illness and the provision of care. Rather, promotion and prevention activities should be integrated with health services delivery.
Witnesses pointed to the Canadian Heart Health Initiative as an example of a program that exhibits the requisite integration features. The Canadian Heart Health Initiative is a multilevel strategy, linking national, provincial and local health departments. The Initiative is based on a multi-factor approach – one that addresses the major risk factors that are preventable or controllable. It combines research with the implementation of community-based heart health programs, directed primarily at achieving environmental changes supportive of “heart-healthy” habits and lifestyles among the general population.
Finally, the Committee was told that health promotion and disease prevention efforts should not be undertaken only by government. Employers can benefit in investing in prevention in their workplace settings. Edward Buffett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Buffett Taylor & Associates Ltd, Employee Benefits and Workplace Wellness Consultants, gave an example of how programs initiated at the workplace have a positive impact on health and wellness:
We have a lot of American data right now that makes it very clear that not only are there savings, but they are very significant. We are looking at organizations like IBM and others claiming that for every $1 they spend on disease prevention at the worksite they get a $6 return on their investment.
The best example I can give you here in Canada is Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. The average rate of absenteeism for their industry is 9.7 per cent. That particular organization, which is a worldwide entity based here in Canada, now has in excess of 2,000 Canadian employees, primarily at their Bolton operation, and has a rate of absenteeism of 1.2 per cent. The savings are phenomenal. Husky Injection Systems provides on-site naturopathic services. They have two physicians who visit the plant on a regular basis. They have a child care centre. Their enlightened initiatives, frankly, have made them a world-class competitive organization. That is the pay-off.[245]
The Committee is convinced that investment, both by government and the private sector, in health promotion and disease prevention is essential in order to maintain and enhance the health and wellness of Canadians, and that this investment will also make a significant contribution to the sustainability of our publicly funded health care system.
Similarly, with regard to injuries, Dr. Robert Conn of Smartrisk told the Committee that it costs the system $8.7 billion to treat people who are seriously injured.[246] The Committee believes that more can be done with regard to injury prevention, and agrees with Dr. Conn that a national strategy, encompassing research and appropriate evidence-based programs to help prevent injury, should be seriously considered.[247]
Principle 7.3
It is necessary to develop broad population health strategies that are long term, national in scope and based on multi-departmental efforts across all jurisdictions.
As the Committee has noted in its previous reports,[248] the concept of population health is not a new one and has been widely endorsed by policy-makers at all levels, inside and outside of government. Central to the formulation of policy based on a population health approach is the recognition that a wide range of factors contribute to health outcomes and to the overall health status of communities and individuals. During the Committee’s most recent hearings, witnesses gave many vivid examples of the importance of the broad determinants of health. For example, Gary O’Connor, Executive Director, Association of Ontario Health Centres, told the Committee that:
Over the past century, the most dramatic increases in health and wellness have come from sources other than the curative arts. They have come from safe drinking water, housing, income support and the use of seat belts, to name a few.[249]
Similarly, Dr. Robyn Tamblyn, Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, stated:
We are just beginning to understand the determinants of health. (…) In my mind, what you are trying to tackle is the fact that there are many things that influence people’s health. (…) If you really want to start much earlier in the process to determine people’s health, then you will have to effectively deal with all these other sectors that will impact on health.[250]
Throughout its hearings, the Committee heard repeatedly about the numerous long-term benefits that can be derived from population health strategies. However, we also learned that there are a number of difficulties associated with the design and implementation of programs and policies of a population health approach. One of them is the fact that the benefits of population health strategies can often take a long time to become apparent. This has significant consequences in a politicized system that is often not able to focus on the longer term because of the relentless short-term pressures of political life.
Another major challenge associated with devising a population health strategy is the difficulty to coordinate government activity in a context where decisions made by different ministries have an impact on health outcomes. Therefore, the responsibility for population health cannot reside exclusively with the minister of health. This difficulty is compounded several times over when the various levels of government are taken into account.
Despite the many difficulties that will have to be overcome, witnesses recognized the need for a multi-departmental and multi-jurisdictional approach to fostering the health and well-being of the Canadian population. For example, Mr. Gary O’Connor, Executive Director, Association of Ontario Health Centres, argued that:
True health comes from an integrated approach, which would be achieved by partnerships with other ministries within the government and with other governments.[251]
Multi-departmental efforts would ensure that the policies enacted by various government departments converge towards the same goals. This contrasts with the current situation in which policies may have diverging impacts on health outcomes. Dr. Tamblyn gave the following example:
In any event, we know that exercise influences glucose metabolism. Hence, the epidemics of diabetes and obesity in younger kids are related to exercise programs. At the same time, the Ministry of Education is cutting education budgets and teachers are refusing to get involved in extracurricular activities. What are we doing? We are ignoring an opportunity to encourage and teach physical fitness. This will have downstream negative effects on health. We are choosing to ignoring this and instead to make immediate cuts to education, in order to not achieve the final goal of influencing the determinants of health.[252]
The Committee heard that in at least one province a serious attempt is being made to find ways to implement a multi-disciplinary, multi-departmental approach to population health. Robert C. Thompson, Deputy Minister, Department of Health and Community Services, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, told the Committee about the Strategic Social Plan (SSP) that has been developed in his province:
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the institutional infrastructure to mount this type of approach already exists through the Strategic Social Plan, the SSP. The SSP was started in 1998. It involves economic and social departments and agencies in a comprehensive approach to promoting health, education, self-reliance, and prosperity for people in the context of vibrant communities and sustainable regions.
The SSP has resulted in multi-disciplinary committees in seven regions, identifying social priorities that can be achieved through the complimentary activities of many departments and agencies. The SSP also promotes and provides institutional support for cross-departmental planning and policy development.[253]
Drawing on the experience of his own province, Dr. Roy West (St. John’s), President of the Board of Directors of the National Cancer Institute of Canada, stated:
There must be a national strategic social plan – which we have; Newfoundland is the first province to develop a provincial strategic social plan. Newfoundland is having some difficulty implementing the plan, because of lack of resources, but it is heading in the right direction, in trying to empower communities to make them healthier and to make them economically more viable.[254]
The Committee believes that there are potentially enormous benefits to be derived from the development of strategies based on a population health approach. We therefore feel that it is important to attempt to overcome any difficulties that confront their elaboration and implementation. The Committee believes that, as a fist step in this direction, it is important to look carefully at the experience of provinces in their attempt to implement population health strategies, and in particular at how the federal government can contribute to ensuring that sufficient resources are available.
Principle
7.4
The federal government should continue to provide leadership in the field of population health and devote more resources to population health strategies.
Witnesses who appeared before the Committee stressed that the federal government has been recognized as a leader worldwide in elaborating the concept of population health, and many felt that it was imperative for the federal government to once again show leadership in implementing a population health strategy for all Canadians. Dr. Catherine Donovan, Medical Officer of Health, Health and Community Services, Eastern Newfoundland, indicated that, unless the federal government deploys sufficient effort and resources, many of the good ideas that have been pioneered in Canada with regard to population health strategies will lie fallow:
[Canada] needs adequate resources to support the kind of innovative health promotion and protection programming that is going to have a long term impact on health (…). Canada has always been very good at developing theory and approaches to the promotion of population health, but we have done relatively little to follow the path that earns us international recognition.[255]
The Committee believes that, because of their importance, serious consideration should be given by the federal government to devoting more attention, effort and resources to the development and implementation of population health strategies. The federal government should lead the way in population health by breaking down the ministerial silos that compartmentalize responsibility for health and by coordinating the activities of the different departments whose policies and programs impact on health (health, environment, finance, etc.).
Principle 7.5
Government policies should be examined in terms of their impact on health status and health outcomes.
The broad policy implication that flows from the recognition of the multiplicity of the determinants of health is that it is necessary to devise some sort of mechanism that would allow Canadians to monitor the impact of all government policy on health outcomes. One possible way to do this, which the Committee raised as an option in its previous report,[256] would be to charge a Health Commissioner with the responsibility of reporting to Parliament on the health impact of all federal government policy.
A number of witnesses responded favorably to this suggestion by the Committee. For example, Jeff Wilbee, Executive Director, Alcohol and Drug Recovery Association of Ontario and Addiction Intervention Association, said that “Canada should show world leadership, through a health commissioner, in measuring and improving our population health status.”[257] Similarly, Madeline Boscoe, Advocacy Coordinator, Women’s Health Clinic in Winnipeg, stated:
We very much appreciated your comments about health promotion and population health. We think this is critical, and are delighted with the idea of a commissioner in health impact assessments. We hope these concepts will be enshrined in an act of Parliament. As a matter of fact, the joke around our place is: since we do health impact assessments for the environment, how come we do not do them for people?[258]
The Committee strongly believes that the monitoring of health outcomes should be at the forefront of government policy. Principle Sixteen in Chapter Two lays out how we believe such monitoring should be performed with respect to health care delivery. Based on this principle, we advocate, in Chapter Four, the creation of a national mechanism, independent from government, responsible for monitoring and assessing the impact of health care policy on the health status of Canadians. The Committee is convinced that a similar mechanism, complementary to the first one, should be established to review and assess the impact of all government policies on health outcomes.
The Committee is convinced that the federal government could set a valuable example by financing a permanent mechanism for reporting to the Canadian public on the impact of its policies affecting health. Regardless of the exact nature of the office that would assume this responsibility, the important point is to devise a mechanism that enables all government policy to be screened through a population health lens. This would permit an ongoing analysis of health outcomes and provide some measure of overall public accountability. An annual report from such an office that focused on the broad determinants of health could also include prescriptions for how to ensure that all government policies have as positive an effect as possible on the health of Canadians.
Principle 7.6
Population health strategies must be adapted to local conditions, and their design and implementation must involve local communities.
The evidence suggests that population health strategies in general must be carefully thought through so that they take into account the realities facing specific communities. For example, people may be less inclined to bike or jog if the streets are unsafe. This implies that rigidly designed programs applied in a uniform and highly centralized fashion are unlikely to succeed. Successful community-based programs combine an understanding of the community, with the participation of the public, and the cooperation of community organizations. Some combination of coordination and decentralized implementation is therefore required.
Witnesses illustrated the importance of tailoring efforts to local conditions with examples from their own experience. Ms. Ingrid Larson, Member Relations Director, Community Health Services Association (Saskatoon), told the Committee:
In terms of our experience at the west side clinic where we primarily see an urban Aboriginal clientele, the issues we deal with are social determinants of health. There, our nurses do community outreach and community development work. They are very well aware that the issues facing that community are far more than physical health issues. We then work on issues related to housing, nutrition, and all the related issues that have a substantial impact on people’s well-being. It is not just about health when it comes to serving that population group. It involves some very complex issues, all of which have to be addressed.[259]
The Committee acknowledges that the wide range of determinants of health can affect different communities in many different ways. We believe that in order to be able to respond to the particular configuration of health determinants that occur in each community, it is therefore essential to adapt population health strategies as best as possible to local circumstances.
Principle 7.7
Given its fiduciary and constitutional responsibilities, the federal government should develop a population health strategy for Aboriginal Canadians.
In Volume Four of its study, the Committee stated unequivocally that in its view, the health of our Aboriginal peoples is a national disgrace and that the federal government must take a leadership role in working to immediately redress this situation.[260]
In Volume Two of its study, the Committee gave an overview of the some of the factors that contribute to poorer health outcomes amongst Aboriginal Canadians. We noted in this regard that there are significant socio-economic disparities between Aboriginal peoples and the general Canadian population. Aboriginal peoples are less likely to be in the labour force, and unemployment rates are higher than those of the general population. In 1995, the average employment income of the Aboriginal population was $17,382 compared to the national average of $26,474. The Committee also noted that Aboriginal Canadians appear to be the largest population sub-group that is the most at risk of becoming homeless in Canada, and that significant numbers of Aboriginal peoples (43%) live in inadequate housing.[261]
Although it did not hear extensively from Aboriginal representatives during its most recent hearings, the evidence that the Committee did gather pointed again to the many ways in which a population health approach might be suited to developing strategies to address the multi-faceted health problems confronted by Aboriginal communities. For example, the Hon. Edward Picco, Minister of Health and Social Services (Nunavut) reiterated the extent to which problems relating to socio-economic disadvantage afflicted Aboriginal communities, telling the Committee:
The unemployment rate in Nunavut is over 20 per cent, which compares with the annual Canadian rate of 8 per cent. The average annual income among 85 per cent of our population is well below the Canadian average. Again, it goes back to (…) the socio-economic factors and health determinants.[262]
He further explained how these kinds of problems have a negative impact on the health status of the Inuit in Nunavut, telling the Committee:
Mr. Chairman, I think it is also important to highlight overcrowding in Nunavut because of our housing situation. I am also the minister responsible for homelessness. In Nunavut, if you understand homelessness, you use two terms: one is "relative homelessness," and the other one is "absolute homelessness."
Absolute homelessness refers to the people you see on the streets in your larger cities. Relative homelessness is what we have in Nunavut, where 22 people live in a two-bedroom house, and people have to sleep in closets, on the floor, and in shifts on foam mattresses.
When you are in an environment like that, Mr. Chairman, when you have colds, the flu, pneumonia, and you are not getting enough to eat, of course your health status goes down. This is happening right now in Canada.[263]
Evidence such as this confirms the Committee’s belief that it is essential to work towards the development of “a comprehensive plan that could meet the health care needs of all Aboriginal peoples in Canada.”[264]
The Committee also previously indicated that the involvement of different jurisdictions in the delivery of health services to Aboriginal communities constituted another obstacle to the coordination of efforts aimed at improving health outcomes for Aboriginal peoples. We pointed out in Volume Two that jurisdictional barriers to the provision of health services to Aboriginal people exist on two levels.[265] One barrier arises from the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments and can lead to some services not being available to all communities equally. This problem was highlighted for the Committee by Minister Picco who stated with regard to Inuit Canadians:
Mr. Chairman, I have also previously stated that Inuit expect levels of health care that are comparable with other Canadians. To achieve this, we need resources from the Government of Canada. We would strongly recommend that the Government of Canada accept and discharge its responsibility for the 85 per cent of the population of Nunavut who are Inuit.[266]
Other consequences of having two jurisdictions involved in delivering health services include program fragmentation; problems with reporting mechanisms; inconsistencies, gaps, or possible overlaps in programs; and impediments to developing a holistic approach to health and wellness.
Witnesses also insisted on the importance of adapting health care delivery and preventive health measures to the concrete realities of Aboriginal communities. Ms Ruth Morin, Chief Executive Officer, Nechi Institute illustrated this point:
For instance, it became apparent to the Alberta Cancer Board that Aboriginal women had increased rates of breast cancer and were dying at a much higher rate than other Canadian women. It was discovered that Aboriginal women were not coming to get mammograms. Why? Part of the reason was due to travel, but there was also a high rate of sexual abuse associated with the whole residential school thing. Going through the whole process of getting a mammogram was seen as a huge mountain that a lot of people were not willing to climb. However, when a mobile mammogram was brought to the communities and they had lunch and they picked up the ladies and they had child care and things like that, Aboriginal women were more willing to be involved. They liked the safety of their own community, with their own people helping them. The women came, the mammograms were done, and everyone was happier.
How to achieve an integration of all health related activities in a way that meets the needs of Aboriginal peoples, and involves them in all aspects of the design and implementation of these programs, remains unresolved. This issue was recently raised in the Interim Report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, where it was noted that integration of health services might be fostered by allowing the provinces and territories to take charge to a greater extent:
Traditionally, Aboriginal peoples have emphasized a more integrated and comprehensive view of health than the current health care system has provided, with its narrower focus on hospital and doctor-delivered health services. In recent decades however, provincial and territorial governments have moved toward a more integrated approach that is perhaps more consistent with traditional Aboriginal perspectives on health. As a result, there has been some movement toward the integration of Aboriginal health services within provincial and territorial health care systems and the creation of Aboriginal-specific health programs.[267]
This raises the question of whether it would be possible for the provinces and territories to take advantage of the fact that they already are responsible for the delivery of health services to the general population in order to provide services in a more coordinated fashion to Aboriginal peoples as well. The Committee recognizes that there are many of possible ways to reorganize governmental responsibility for the delivery of health care to Aboriginal peoples in order to achieve a more integrated result, and that further consultation and reflection will be needed before it can issue any recommendations in this regard. Moreover, it is clear to the Committee that whatever arrangements are deemed most suitable, the federal government retains its constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities towards the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Committee therefore reaffirms its commitment to “the development of a National Action Plan on Aboriginal Health to improve inter-jurisdictional co-ordination of health care delivery.”[268] One option that should be considered in this context is for the federal government to fund health care programs that would be delivered by the provinces, on reserve as well as off reserve.
Because of the
importance of the issue of the health status of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples,
the Committee proposes to issue a separate report that will contain its
recommendations to the federal government.
List of Principles and Recommendations by Chapter
CHAPTER TWO:
Principles to Guide the Restructuring and Financing of Canada’s Health Care System
Principle One
There
should be a single funder (insurer) – the government directly or through an
arm’s length agency – for hospital and doctor services covered under the Canada
Health Act.
Principle Two
There
should be stability of, and predictability in, government funding for public
health care insurance.
Principle Three
The
federal government should play a major role in
sustaining a national health care insurance system.
Principle
Four
The
determination of what should be covered under public health care insurance
should be done through an open and transparent process. Health services
covered under the Canada Health Act
should remain publicly insured. Other
health services should continue to be funded using a mix of public and private
sources, as they are now.
Principle
Five
The
federal government should contribute on an ongoing basis to fund health care
technology.
Principle
Six
The
federal government should increase its investment in those areas of health and
health care for which it already has a major responsibility.
Principle
Seven
The
consequences arising from changes in the level or amount of government funding
for hospital and medical care should be clearly understood by government and
explained to the public, in as much detail as possible, at the time such
changes are made and announced.
Principle Eight
In the
first stage of health care reform, the method for remunerating hospitals
should be changed from the current annual global budget to service-based
funding.
Principle
Nine
Regional
health authorities should have the responsibility for purchasing hospital
services provided by institutions within their region.
Principle Ten
Primary
care renewal should lead to the provision of primary care by group practices,
or clinics, which operate twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
Principle
Eleven
To
facilitate primary care reform, the method of compensating general
practitioners should be changed from fee-for-service to some form of blended
remuneration combining capitation, fee-for-service and other incentives or
rewards.
Principle
Tweleve
New
scope of practice rules and other measures need to be developed in order to
enable all health care providers in the primary care sector to provide the
full range of services for which they have been trained.
Principle
Thirteen
In the
second stage of health care reform, an “internal market” should probably
be created in which primary health care teams would purchase health services
provided by hospitals and other health care institutions on behalf of their
patients.
Principle
Fourteen
A
national (not exclusively federal) strategy must be developed to achieve both
an adequate supply and optimal use of health care providers.
Principle
Fifteen
Accountability
and transparency in health care financing and delivery require the deployment
of a system of electronic health records (EHR) that can capture and translate
information on system performance and outcomes.
Principle
Sixteen
Measuring
treatment outcomes and system performance must become an essential part of the
health information system. Such
monitoring and evaluation of the health care delivery system should be
performed independently at the national (not federal) level and be funded by
government.
Principle
Seventeen
Canada’s
publicly funded health care system should be patient-oriented.
Principle Eighteen
Incentives
should be developed to encourage patients to use the hospital and doctor
system as efficiently as possible. Such
incentives should not include user fees for services that are deemed to
be medically necessary.
Principle
Nineteen
Programs
that enable people to be responsible for their own health and to stay healthy
must be given high priority. The
federal government can play a leadership role in this regard.
Principle
Twenty
For
each type of major procedure or treatment, a maximum waiting time should be
established, and made public. When this maximum time is reached, the insurer (government)
shall pay for the patient to receive immediately the procedure or treatment in
another jurisdiction including, if necessary, another country.
CHAPTER
THREE:
Financing
and Assessing Health Care Technology
That the federal government initiate a long-term program to assist provinces and territories in financing both the acquisition and ongoing operation of health care technology. Such a program should incorporate clear accountability mechanisms on the part of the provinces and territories on their use of these targeted federal funds.
That the federal government increase the funding it provides to CCOHTA and other HTA agencies.
That this additional funding be used to strengthen HTA capacity in Canada as well as to improve the dissemination and promotion of HTA findings to health care providers and managers.
That the federal government provide additional funding to the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation to support research into the potential impact of health care technology on health care costs.
CHAPTER FOUR
DEPLOYING A NATIONAL HEALTH INFOSTRUCTURE
That, once the three- to five-year period is over, the federal government provide additional financial support to Canada Infoway Inc. so that Infoway develop, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, a national system of electronic health records.
That the federal government, in collaboration with all stakeholders involved in the computerization of health records, define standards and rules for the collection, storage and use of such information.
That the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, undertake the establishment of a national system of evaluation on health care system performance and outcomes. Such a national system of evaluation should: 1) be built on existing expertise and institutions; 2) remain independent from governments; and 3) receive appropriate funding from the public purse. The federal government should devote substantial funding to this very important undertaking.
That the federal government maintain its support to rural health and invest in telehealth applications that will enhance access to care and improve the quality of health services in rural and remote communities.
That the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces/territories and stakeholders, develop a national health information portal, building on the success of the Canadian Health Network and the integration of provincial/regional portals.
- As a matter of priority, investments into this national portal should be made in locations where the basic systems infrastructure is inadequate, especially in rural, remote and Aboriginal communities. This would greatly enhance the capacity of all Canadians to access timely and objective electronic health information.
CHAPTER FIVE
NURTURING EXCELLENCE IN CANADIAN HEALTH RESEARCH
That the federal government set, on a regular basis, national goals and priorities for health research in collaboration with all stakeholders.
That the federal government foster multi-stakeholder collaborations when performing, funding and using health research. This should contribute to capitalizing on the best available resources while minimizing overlap and duplication.
That the federal government take a leadership role, through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Health Canada, in developing a strategy to encourage interchange of research scientists between government, academia and the private sector, including national voluntary organizations.
That the federal government, through both Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, coordinate and provide resources to ensure that Canada contributes to and benefits from the scientific revolution to maximize the economic, health and social gains for Canadians.
That the federal government:
- Increase, within a reasonable timeframe, its financial contribution to extra-mural health research to achieve the level of 1% of
total Canadian health care spending.
- Set and adhere to clear long-term plans for funding health research, particularly through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. More precisely, the federal government should commit to a five-year planning horizon for the CIHR budget.
- Provide predictable and appropriate investment for in-house health research.
That Health Canada:
- Be provided with the financial and human resources in health research that are required to fulfill its mandate and obligations.
- Engage actively in the establishment of linkages and partnerships with other health research stakeholders.
That the federal government, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, devote additional funding to health services research and clinical research and that it collaborate with the provinces and territories to ensure that the outcomes of such research are broadly diffused to health care providers, managers and policy-makers.
That the federal government, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada, provide additional funding to health research aimed at the health of particularly vulnerable segments of Canadian society.
That the federal government provide additional funding to CIHR in order to increase participation of Canadian health researchers, including Aboriginal peoples themselves, in research that will improve the health of Aboriginal Canadians.
That Health Canada be provided with additional resources to expand its research capacity and to strengthen its research translation capacity in the field of Aboriginal health.
That the federal government provide increased resources to the Global Health Research Initiative.
That the federal government require an explicit commitment from all recipients of federally funded health research that they will obtain the greatest possible benefit to Canada, whenever the results of their federally funded research are used for commercial gain.
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, while not ignoring the social value of health research that does not result in commercial gain, seek to facilitate appropriate economic returns within Canada from the investments it makes in Canadian health research, whenever the results of investments in Canadian health research are used for commercial gain. In doing so, CIHR should develop an innovation strategy aimed at accelerating and facilitating the commercialization of health research outcomes.
That the federal government invest additional resources to enhance the output of Canadian health researchers and strengthen the commercialization capacity of performers of federally funded health research through CIHR's innovation strategy. This new funding would be additional to the current health research investment. In particular, the funding of the indirect costs of research by the Canadian granting agencies should be made permanent. Health research performers should be made accountable for the use of these commercialization funds.
That Health Canada initiate, in collaboration with stakeholders, the development of a joint governance system for health research involving human subjects for all research that the federal government performs, that it funds, and that it uses in its regulatory activities.
That Health Canada, in the development of this ethics governance system, regard the following components as essential to progress:
- Work initially on all (health) research that the federal government performs, funds, or uses in its regulatory activities, to develop an effective and efficient system of governance that will become accepted as the standard of care across Canada;
- Give prime importance in the governance system to effective education and training mechanisms for all who are involved in research and research ethics, with certification as appropriate to their different responsibilities;
- Develop standards, based on the Tri-Council Policy Statement, the International Conference on Harmonization guidelines applying to clinical trials involving human subjects, and other relevant Canadian and foreign standards, against which research ethics functions or Research Ethics Boards can be accredited or certified as meeting the levels of function that are consistent with the expectations of Canadians and with those in other countries;
- Ensure that the Tri-Council Policy Statement is updated and is maintained at the forefront of international policies for the ethics or research involving humans;
- Remove inconsistencies between the various policies under which research involving humans is now governed, and make Canadian standards consistent with those of other countries that affect Canadian research;
- Establish an accreditation or certification process for research ethics functions that is at arm's length from government, but clearly accountable to government;
- Develop the governance system through open, transparent and meaningful consultation with stakeholders.
That all federal departments and agencies require compliance with the standards of the Canadian Council on Animal Care for:
- All research that is carried out in federal facilities, and
- All research that is funded by federal departments or agencies but performed outside federal facilities, and
- All research that is carried out without federal funding or facilities, but that is submitted to or used by the federal government for purposes of exercising its legislated functions.
That regulations such as those proposed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research receive their fullest and fairest consideration in discussion about providing greater clarity and certainty of the law with the view to ensure that its objectives will be met without preventing important research to continue to better the health of Canadians and improve their health services.
That discussions continue among stakeholders, the Privacy Commissioner, and those federal and provincial government departments involved with the provision, management, evaluation and quality assurance of health services.
That the federal government, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada, together with other relevant stakeholders, design and implement a program of public awareness to foster in Canadians a broad understanding of:
- the nature of, and reasons for, the extensive databases containing personal health information that must be maintained to operate a publicly financed health care system, and
- the critical need to make secondary use of such databases for health research and health care management purposes.
That the federal government, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada, together with other relevant stakeholders, be responsible for promoting:
- thoughtful discussion and consideration of the ethical issues, particularly informed consent issues, involved with the secondary use of personal health information for health care management and health research purposes;
- thorough examination of the control and review mechanisms needed for ensuring that databases containing personal health information are effectively created, maintained and safeguarded and that their use for health care management and health research purposes is conducted in an open, transparent and accountable manner.
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, in partnership with industry and other stakeholders, continue to explore the ethical aspects of the interface between the sectors with a view to ensuring that the collaborations and partnerships function in the best interests of all Canadians.
CHAPTER SIX
PLANNING FOR HUMAN RESOURCES IN HEALTH CARE
That the federal government:
- Work with provincial governments to ensure that all medical schools and schools of nursing receive the funding increments required to permit necessary enrolment expansion.
- Review mechanisms by which direct federal funding could be provided to support expanded enrolment in medical and nursing education, and ensure the stability of funding for the training and education of allied health professionals.
- Review student loan programs available to health care professionals and make modifications to ensure that the impact of inevitable increases in tuition fees, especially as they affect medical students, does not lead to denial of opportunity to students in lower socio-economic circumstances.
- Provide particular tuition support for nursing students, up to and including waiving tuition fees entirely for a limited period of time.
- Work with provincial governments to ensure that the relative wage levels paid to different categories of health professionals reflect the real level of education and training required of them.
That the federal government work with the provinces and medical and nursing faculties to finance places for students from aboriginal backgrounds over and above those available to the general population.
That in order to facilitate the return to Canada of Canadian health care professionals who are working abroad, the federal government should work with the provinces and professional associations to inform expatriate Canadian health professionals of emerging job opportunities in Canada, and explore the possibility of adopting short-term tax incentives for those prepared to return to Canada.
That the federal Government work with other concerned parties to create a permanent national coordinating body for health human resources, to be composed of representatives of key stakeholder groups and of the different levels of government. Its mandate would include:
- disseminating up-to-date data on human resource needs;
- coordinating initiatives to ensure that adequate numbers of graduates are being trained to meet the goal of self-sufficiency in health human resources;
- sharing and promoting best practices with regard to strategies for retaining skilled health care professionals and coordinating efforts to repatriate Canadian health care professionals who have emigrated to other countries;
- recommending strategies for increasing the supply of health care professionals from under-represented groups, such as Canada's Aboriginal peoples, and in under-serviced regions, particularly the rural and remote areas of the country;
- examination of the possibilities for greater coordination of licensing and immigration requirements between the various levels of government.
That the federal government continue to work with the provinces and territories to reform primary care delivery, and that it provide ongoing financial support for reform initiatives that lead to the creation of multi-disciplinary primary health care teams that
- are working to provide a broad range of services, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;
- strive to ensure that services are delivered by the most appropriately qualified health care professional;
- utilise to the fullest the skills and competencies of a diversity of health care professionals;
- adopt alternative methods of funding to fee-for-service, such as capitation, either exclusively or as part of blended funding formulae;
- seek to integrate health promotion and illness prevention strategies in their day-to-day work;
- organize themselves so that they develop the capacity to purchase services from hospitals and other institutional providers on behalf of their patients;
- progressively assume a greater degree of responsibility for all the health and wellness needs of the population they serve.
CHAPTER 7
TOWARDS A POPULATION HEALTH STRATEGY
Principle 7.1
Individuals should assume responsibility for their own health.
Principle 7.2
Government programs that enable individuals to assume greater responsibility for their own health, and particularly health promotion and illness prevention activities, must be given high priority.
Principle 7.3
It is necessary to develop broad population health strategies that are long term, national in scope and based on multi-departmental efforts across all jurisdictions.
Principle 7.4
The federal government should continue to provide leadership in the field of population health and devote more resources to population health strategies.
Principle 7.5
Government policies should be examined in terms of their impact on health status and health outcomes.
Principle 7.6
Population health strategies must be adapted to local conditions, and their design and implementation must involve local communities.
Principle 7.7
Given its fiduciary and constitutional responsibilities, the federal government should develop a population health strategy for Aboriginal Canadians.
List of Witnesses
Monday,
October 15, 2001
University
of Manitoba:
Linda West, Professor, Asper School of
Business
Frontier
Centre for Public Policy:
Western
Canadian Task Force on Health Research and Economic Development:
Dr. Henry Friesen,
Team Leader
Dr. John Foerster
Dr. Audrey Tingle
Chuck Laflèche
Regional
Health Authorities of Manitoba
Kevin Beresford, Chair, Council of
CEOs
Randy Lock, Executive Director
Manitoba
Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation:
Dr. Nora Lou
Roos
Women's
Health Clinic:
Hospice
and Palliative Care Manitoba:
Dr. Paul
Henteleff, Chair, Advocacy Committee
John Bond, Member
of Advocacy Committee
Margaret Clarke,
Executive Director
Canadian
Union of Public Employees in Manitoba (CUPE):
Paul Moist, President
Lorraine Sigurdson, Health Care
Coordinator
Société
franco-manitobaine:
Daniel Boucher, Chief Executive
Officer
As a walk-on:
Tuesday,
October 16, 2001
Saskatchewan
Registered Nurses' Association:
June Blau, President
Victorian
Order of Nurses:
Bob Layne, Vice-President, Planning
and Government Relations (Western Region)
Lois Clark, Executive Director, VON
North Central Saskatchewan
Brenda Smith, National Board Member
(Saskatchewan)
Community
Health Services (Saskatoon) Association:
Kathleen Storrie, Vice-President
Ingrid Larson,
Director, Member Relations
As
an individual:
Canadian
Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Saskatchewan:
Tom Graham,
President, CUPE Saskatchewan
Stephen Foley,
President, Health Care Council
John Welden,
Health Care Coordinator, Health Care Council
Saskatoon
Chamber of Commerce:
Dave Ductchak, President
Kent
Smith-Windsor, Executive Director
Jodi Blackwell,
Research and Operations Director
Arthritis
Society of Saskatchewan:
Sherry McKinnon, Executive Director
Joy Tappin, Board Member
Canadian
Parks and Recreation:
Randy Goulden, Executive Director,
Tourism Yorkton
Métis
National Council:
Gerald Morin, President
Don Fidler,
Director, Health Care
Wednesday,
October 17, 2001
Premier's
Advisory Council on Health (Alberta):
Peggy Garritty
Department
of Health and Social Services (Nunavut):
The Hon. Edward Picco, Minister
Calgary
Health Region:
Jack Davis, CEO
Capital
Health Authority:
Sheila Weatherill, President and CEO
Canadian
Practical Nurses Association:
Pat Fredrickson, President
University
of Alberta - Faculty of Nursing:
Dr. Donna Wilson
Health
Sciences Association of Alberta:
Elisabeth Ballermann, President
Alberta
Association of Registered Nurses:
Sharon Richardson, President
United
Nurses of Alberta:
Heather Smith, President
Friends
of Medicare:
Christine Burdett, Provincial Chair
Tammy Horne, Member
As
an individual:
Kevin Taft, MLA
Western
Canada Waiting List Project:
John McGurran, Project Director
Primary
Care Initiative:
Dr. June Bergman
Alberta
Consumers Association:
Wendy Armstrong
Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada :
George Arès, President
National
Advisory Council on Aging:
Pat Raymaker, Chairwoman
Alberta
Council on Aging:
Neil Reimer, Secretary/Treasurer
Nechi
Institute:
Ruth Morin, Chief Executive Officer
Richard Jenkins, Director of Marketing
and Health Promotion
Executive of the Alberta and
Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada - Health Advisory Committee:
Louise Rogers
Kent Harold
Don Junk
As
a walk-on:
Noel Somerville
Thursday,
October 18,2001
Commission
on Medicare, Saskatchewan:
Ken Fyke, Former Chair
Tommy
Douglas Research Institute:
Dave Barrett,
Chair
Marc Eliesen,
Co-Chair
Market-Media
International Corporation:
Joan Gadsby, President
University
of British Columbia, Family Practice Residency Program:
Dr. J. Galt Wilson, Program Director -
Prince George Site
University
of British Columbia:
Dr. John A. Cairns, Dean of Medicine
Dr. Joanna Bates,
Associate Dean, Admissions
Health
Professions Council:
Dianne Tingey, Member
Gerry Fahey, Research Director
Cambie
Surgery Centre:
Dr. Brian Day, Founder
As
an individual:
Cynthia Ramsay, Health Economist
Health
Association of British Columbia:
Lorraine Grant, Chair of the Board of
Directors
Lisa Kallstrom, Executive Director
University
of British Columbia:
Dr. John H. V. Gilbert, Coordinator of
Health Sciences
University
of British Columbia - Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre:
Professor Charles Wright, Director,
Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation
University
of British Columbia – Centre for Health Services and Policy Research:
Professor Barbara Mintzes
Professional
Association of Residents of British Columbia:
Dr. Kristina Sharma
Friday,
October 19, 2001
Canadian
Medical Association:
Dr. Peter Barrett, Past President
Dr. Arun Garg, Chair, Council on
Health Policy and Economics
British Columbia Medical
Association:
Darrell Thomson, Director, Economics
and Policy Analysis
University
of British Columbia, Anxiety Disorders Unit, Department of Psychiatry:
Dr. Peter D. McLean, Professor and
Director
Maples
Surgical Centre (Manitoba)
Dr. Mark Godley
Monday,
October 29, 2001
Canadian Radiation Oncology
Services:
Canadian Taxpayers Federation:
Canadian Council of Churches:
Buffett Taylor Employee Benefits
and Workplace Wellness Consultants:
As an individual:
Medical Reform Group:
At Work Health Solutions Inc.:
Gery Barry, President and CEO of
Liberty Health
Consumers' Association of Canada:
Mel Fruitman, President
Ontario Association of
Optometrists:
Medical Devices Canada (MEDEC):
AstraZeneca:
Comcare Health Services:
Saint Michael’s Hospital:
Association of Ontario Health
Centres:
Ontario Medical Association:
The Arthritis Society:
SMARTRISK:
Canadian Cancer Society:
Cheryl Mayer, Director, Cancer Control
Programs Alcohol and Drug Recovery Association of Ontario and Addiction
Intervention Association
Jeff Wilbee, Executive Director
Tuesday,
October 30, 2001
Canadian Institute for Health
Information:
Ontario Hospital Association:
Registered Nurses Association of
Ontario:
McMaster University - Department of
Economics:
University of Toronto - Public
Health Science Department:
University of Toronto:
Drug Trading Company Limited:
Jane Farnharm, Vice President Pharmacy
Canadian Pharmacists Association:
GlaxoSmithKline:
Medtronic:
Canadian Association for the Fifty
Plus:
Dr. Bill Gleberzon, Associate
Executive Director
Lilian Morgenthal, President
Canadian Association for Community:
Connie Laurin-Bowie
Margot Easton
Roeher Institute:
As individuals:
Robert S.W. Campbell
Wednesday,
October 31, 2001
As Individuals:
The Honourable Claude Castonguay
André-Pierre Contandriopoulos,
Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal
Hôtel
Dieu Hospital:
Conseil
du patronat du Québec:
Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
Michael N. Murphy, Senior
Vice-President, Policy
As Individuals:
Lee Soderstrom, Professor, Department
of Economics, McGill University
Montreal Economic Institute:
Dr. Edwin Coffey, Retired Associate
Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, and Former President of the
Quebec Medical Association
Frosst Health Care Foundation:
Janet Dunbrack, Executive Director.
Thursday,
November 1, 2001
Association
des optométrists du Québec:
Marie-Josée
Crête, Deputy Director General
Clairmont
Girard, Advisor
Collège
des médécins du Québec:
Dr. André Garon, Deputy Secretary
General
As an Individual:
Canadian Life and Health Insurance
Association:
Greg Traversy, Executive
Vice-President
Yves Millette, Senior Vice-President,
Quebec Affairs
Frank Fotia, Vice-President, Group
Insurance.
As Individuals:
Dr. Margaret Somerville, Acting
Director, McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, McGill University
Dr. Robyn Tamblyn, Associate
Professor, Department of Economics, McGill University
Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.:
Dr.
Terrance Montague, Executive Director, Patient Health
Association
québécoise des droits des retraités (AQDR):
Yollande
Richer, Vice-President, Communications
Myroslaw Smereka, Director General
Monday,
November 5, 2001
Department of Health and Community
Services, Newfoundland:
Department of Health and Community
Services, Newfoundland:
Victoria Order of Nurses (VON
Canada):
Bernice Blake Dibblee, Executive
Director, St. John’s Branch
Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador:
Canadian Union of Public Employees,
Newfoundland:
As an individual:
National Cancer Institute of
Canada:
Health and Community Services,
Newfoundland:
Weight Watchers:
Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and
Research Foundation:
As an individual:
Tuesday,
November 6, 2001
Canadian Auto Workers (CAW):
Nova Scotia Association of Health
Organizations:
Insurance Bureau of Canada:
Paul Kovacs, Senior Vice-President
Policy and Chief Economist
Canadian Coalition Against
Insurance Fraud:
Atlantic Institute for Market
Studies:
Dalhousie University:
Dr. Vivek Kusumakar, Head, Mood
Disorders Research Group, Department of Psychiatry
Lawrence Nestman, Professor, School of
Health Services Administration
Nova Scotia Valley Caregivers
Support Group:
Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s
Health and the Environment, Dalhousie University:
Feminists for Just and Equitable
Public Policy:
Cape Breton Regional Health Care
Complex:
Dr. Mahmood Naqvi, Medical Director,
Cape Breton Regional Facility
Capital District Health Authority:
Dalhousie University:
Canadian Medical Association:
Bill Tholl, Secretary General
Dr. Bruce Wright, President of the
Medical Society of Nova Scotia
Dr. Dana W. Hanson, President-Elect
Dalhousie University:
Dr. George Kephart, Director,
Population Health Research Unit, Department of Community and Epidemiology
Dr. Kenneth Rockwood, Faculty of
Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine
Cobequid Community Health Board:
Health Canada:
Wednesday,
November 7, 2001
Department of Health and Social
Services, Prince Edward Island:
PEI Seniors Advisory Council:
Heather Henry-MacDonald, Chair
Canadian Union of Public Employees,
PEI Division:
Ms. Donalda MacDonald, President
Raymond Léger, Research
Representative
Department of Health and Social
Services:
Deborah Bradley, Manager of Public
Health Policy
College of Family Physicians of
Canada:
Queen Elizabeth Hospital:
PEI Pharmacy Board:
Queen’s Regional Health
Authority:
West Prince Regional Health
Authority:
Department of Health and Social
Services:
Department of Health and Social
Services, Prince Edward island:
Bill Harper, Assistant Deputy Minister
Jean Doherty, Communications
Coordinator
Southern Kings Health Authority:
Department of Health and Social
Services:
Kathleen Flanagan-Rochon, Community
Services Coordinator
Evangeline Health Centre:
East Prince Regional Health
Authority:
Dalhousie University:
Thursday
Nov. 8, 2001
Faculty of Nursing, University of
New Brunswick:
New Brunswick Health Care
Association:
Canadian Association of Chain Drug
Stores:
Sandra Aylward, Vice President,
Pharmacy Services
As Individuals:
William Morrissey, Former Deputy
Minister of Health, Province of New Brunswick
Applied
Management:
Société
des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick:
Canadian Snowbird Association:
New Brunswick Senior Citizens
Federation Inc.:
Eilleen Malone, Member
Catholic Health Association of
Canada:
Miramichi
Police Force:
Canadian Union of Public Employees,
New Brunswick:
Federal Superannuates National
Association:
Roger Heath, Research and
Communications Officer
Union of New Brunswick Indians:
Wanda Paul Rose, Coordinator
Norville Getty, Consultant
Nurses Association of New
Brunswick:
Thursday,
February 21, 2002
Canadian Federation of Nurses
Unions:
Canadian Health Coalition:
Michael McBane, National Coordinator
Federal Superannuates National
Co-ordinator:
Roger Heath, Research and
Communications Officer
Thursday,
March 7, 2002
Canadian Healthcare Association:
Kathryn Tregunna, Director, Policy
Development
Canadian Labour Congress:
Cindy Wiggins, Senior Researcher,
Social and Economic Policy Department
v
v v
Other Written Submissions Received:
Abell Medical Clinic
Alberta Centre for Injury Control and
Research
Amgen Canada Inc.
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot
New Democratic Party Riding Association Executive Committee
B.C. Better Care Pharmacare Coalition
Bruce Bigham
Brain Injury Association of Nova
Scotia
Canada West Foundation
Canadian Association of Emergency
Physicians (CAEP)
Canadian Association of Internes and
Residents
Canadian Caregiver Coalition
Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre
Canadian Drug Manufacturers
Association (CDMA)
Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control
Chemical Sensitivities Information
Exchange Network Manitoba (CSIENM)
Conestoga College (Pat Bower, Course
instructor)
Faith Partners (Ottawa)
Federation of Medical Women in Canada
Dr. Michael Gordon, Baycrest Centre
for Geriatric Care
Serena Grant
Home-based Spiritual Care
Kidney Foundation of Canada
Kids First Parent Association of
Canada
Dr. Lee Kurisko
Caterine Lindman
Jim Ludwig
Dr. Keith Martin
Dr. Ross McElroy
Dr. Malcom S. McPhee
Verna Milligan
Moose Jaw-Thunder Creek District
Health Board
Dr. Earl B. Morris
Fran Morrison
John Neilson
Ontario
Psychological Association
Roy L. Piepenburg (Liberation
Consulting)
Red Deer Network in Support of
Medicare
Dr. Robert S. Russell
Society of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists of Canada
Christa
Streicher
Elaine
Tostevin
[234] Volume One, p. 81.
[235] Volume Two, p. 49.
[236] Auditor General of Canada, 2001 Report, Chapter 9.
[237] Mazankowski report, p. 14.
[238] Marc Lalonde, A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians, Working Document, Health and Welfare Canada, April 1974, pp. 5-6.
[239] Ibid., p. 6.
[240] Mazankowski report, pp. 14-15.
[241] Mazankowski report, p. 17.
[242]
Dr. Serge Boucher (39:32).
[243] Dr. Barbara Whylie (37:135).
[244]
Dr. Robert Conn (37:138).
[245] Edward Buffett (37:34-35).
[246]
Dr. Robert Conn (37:138).
[247] SMARTRISK Foundation, Brief to the Committee, Oct. 29, 2001, pp. 10-11.
[248] See Volume One (Chapter 5), Volume Two (Chapter 4) and Volume Four (Chapter 12).
[249] Gary O’Connor (37:115-116).
[250] Dr. Robyn Tamblyn (40:82).