The end of public health care in Canada
OP: I admit the title sounds alarmist, but it's also true. I'm posting two articles, one of which is older, in my own personal effort to do my bit to publicize the effects of the so-called reforms (both implemented and planned) by the current right-wing Conservative federal government in Canada (i.e. good friend to U.S. Republicans, among other things).
Unfortunately, many (most?) Canadians don't fully appreciate the HUGE significance of attacks on the Canada Health Act: many don't understand that while health care is under provincial purview, the framework for the public Canadian healthcare system which exists in every province WAS CREATED AND EXISTS as a result of a FEDERAL LAW which deals with the conditions applied to the federal tax money transferred to provinces and specifically earmarked for public health care spending. What happens to ordinary Canadians and their access to healthcare if this framework is removed?
---------------------------------
ARTICLE #1:
'It’s a sad day for Canadian health care, says Roy Romanow. On Monday, the Health Council of Canada shut its doors and a 10-year health-care accord expires.'
Roy Romanow, the one-time chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, laments the end of a 10-year health accord between the federal government, provinces and territories. "I am concerned that without leadership from Ottawa and with reduced money, we are going to see a further slowdown of reforms, more regional disparities and a push for more private health care."
--------------------------------------------------
Monday was a sad day for health care in Canada, says Roy Romanow, former NDP premier of Saskatchewan and one-time chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care.
The day marked the end of the Health Council of Canada and the 10-year health accord that led to its creation.
“It’s a blow to nation-building because it’s a blow to one of our revered, if not most revered, social programs, which is medicare,” Romanow said in a phone interview from the University of Saskatchewan where he teaches classes in federalism.
The 2004 accord was a joint creation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It was intended to force reforms and set national standards in areas such as primary care, wait lists and electronic health records, with strings attached to $41 billion in federal transfers and the council acting as watchdog.
The accord has been replaced with a funding scheme created unilaterally by the federal government. But with no conditions attached, critics charge Ottawa has abdicated its role in shaping the direction of the health system.
The commission’s recommendations, contained in the 2002 Romanow Report, shaped the accord and the council.
Romanow readily concedes the accord and council were never as ambitious, or as successful, as he would have liked. A national pharmacare program never did see the light of day.
Still, he laments their passing.
“At least it was a federal-provincial commitment to a level of funding and a degree of reform. We had the council to neutrally assess how we were doing on those reforms,” Romanow said.
“I am concerned that without leadership from Ottawa and with reduced money, we are going to see a further slowdown of reforms, more regional disparities and a push for more private health care,” he added.
A growing chorus of voices is calling for the creation of a new council and a new accord.
An appeal for a new oversight body appeared on the website of Longwoods Publishing earlier this month in the form of an open letter written by council director Mark Dobrow, council CEO John Abbott and Ottawa Hospital CEO Dr. Jack Kitts.
“Accountability for health care system performance may not be top of mind for all Canadians, but it should be. In the absence of the Health Council of Canada or a clear successor agency, we believe an objective voice for both Canadians and their governments will be lost. This situation needs to be addressed if governments collectively want to ensure public confidence in the measures they are taking to reform the system, and they should welcome the opportunity to be held accountable,” they wrote.
The Canadian Health Coalition launched a campaign for a new accord on Monday. It kicked off in Ottawa with a luncheon speech by Dr. Jeff Turnbull, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association.
In an interview, Turnbull said the accord did not bring about the massive, transformative change that was hoped for, but it did make modest progress in helping to improve wait times and availability of electronic medical records.
“I think we need to rethink strategically how we promote the ongoing transformation of our health care system. The engagement of a national government and a pan-Canadian solution is essential,” he said, adding that health care needs to be more community based with a focus on chronic disease management.
National input is imperative to reform, Turnbull said.
“I am worried if we leave this exclusively to the provinces and territories, we are going to have a patchwork of health care systems, we are going to have inequity within jurisdictions and between them,” he said.
The Canadian Health Coalition campaign for a new accord was to include a “musical, comical protest” in Toronto on Monday night, dubbed “Holler 4 Health Care.” Among those scheduled to attend were actor Shirley Douglas, daughter of the late Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas, known as the father of medicare.
Asked what her father would think of the state of health care in Canada today, Douglas said: “Before my father died, he warned that we were watching the slow strangulation of health care. He said, ‘If you don’t get up and fight for it, you are going to lose it. Don’t pretend you didn’t know.’ ”
-------------------------------------
ARTICLE #2:
'Harper's Solution to Health Care Woes? Disappear'
On November 22 and 23 [2013], Canada's premiers are holding an economic summit in Halifax. Stephen Harper was invited, but he's not coming.
On the agenda is the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the federal financial contribution allotted to the provinces to pay for health care. In December last year, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced cuts to the CHT totalling $36 billion by the end of 2024.
These cuts are already felt in Halifax's maternity ward, where new parents must purchase the diapers used by their newborns. Instead of talking about health care being a universal right and proud Canadian value, we're nickel-and-diming patients.
Hospitals and other health care service providers are so strapped for cash that -- similar to Americans --Canadians are being billed for even the smallest non-medically necessary services. Think hospital parking fees are bad now? Just wait until the full effect of these cuts kick in -- after the next federal election.
In addition to chopping $36 billion in transfer payments, the federal government is negotiating a new trade agreement with the EU that will add $2.8 billion to drug costs. A patent extension will keep cheaper generics off the shelf for several more years. Canada already has some of the longest patent times for new drugs in the developed world, and we pay some of the highest prices.
Indifference to higher drug costs exemplifies the federal government's diminishing role in medicare. When medicare was first established in Canada, the provinces and the federal government agreed to a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement. Today, the federal government contributes approximately 20 per cent of health care costs.
For poorer provinces like Nova Scotia, this is devastating. Healthcare requires a bigger and bigger piece of provincial budgets, leading critics to claim its unsustainable. Lobbyists would have you believe that spending is out of control, and that the only solution is privatization and for-profit health care. But public health care costs have remained stable as a percentage of GDP since the 1970s -- it's shrinking provincial budgets that are the real problem.
Sustainable costs don't mean that we shouldn't implement evidence-based solutions that will save us money, though. We have lots of research to show how we could make better use of our health care dollars. Canada is one of the only countries in the world that has a universal health care system which doesn't include prescription drugs. If we were to bring them under the medicare umbrella, we would save $10.7 billion a year -- as shown in a 2010 report by Marc-André Gagnon. We'd also ensure that everyone could access prescription medication regardless of ability to pay.
Other areas also require Canada's immediate attention. A national aging strategy will allow our seniors to age with dignity, with the help of homecare or long-term care options. Researchers have come to a consensus that the aging population is not going to drain Canada of its resources, or bankrupt the health care system.
If we plan now, we can create age-friendly communities with appropriate services across the country, and we can rest assured knowing that our grandparents, parents, and ourselves will be able to live out our golden years with dignity.
Our first ministers -- including Harper -- should be looking at the evidence-based research and creating new benchmarks and strategies to strengthen our public healthcare system. But without Harper at the table, little to no progress will be made on national strategies and universal health care.
Harper is well aware that his refusal to negotiate a 2014 Health Accord and the downloading of almost $40 billion will encourage provinces to charge patients out-of-pocket and bring in more for-profit services. This is the most expensive and least efficient method of delivering health care -- if you need proof, just look to our southern neighbours.
Harper's quiet absence at the first ministers' meeting in Halifax speaks volumes about his commitment to universal health care. The premiers must stay strong on their call for Harper to participate in a 2014 Health Accord negotiation, and they must say no to additional patent extensions for Big Pharma. Canadians must also keep up the pressure -- only then will we have a truly universal health care system.
SOURCE #1.
SOURCE #2.
Unfortunately, many (most?) Canadians don't fully appreciate the HUGE significance of attacks on the Canada Health Act: many don't understand that while health care is under provincial purview, the framework for the public Canadian healthcare system which exists in every province WAS CREATED AND EXISTS as a result of a FEDERAL LAW which deals with the conditions applied to the federal tax money transferred to provinces and specifically earmarked for public health care spending. What happens to ordinary Canadians and their access to healthcare if this framework is removed?
---------------------------------
ARTICLE #1:
'It’s a sad day for Canadian health care, says Roy Romanow. On Monday, the Health Council of Canada shut its doors and a 10-year health-care accord expires.'
Roy Romanow, the one-time chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, laments the end of a 10-year health accord between the federal government, provinces and territories. "I am concerned that without leadership from Ottawa and with reduced money, we are going to see a further slowdown of reforms, more regional disparities and a push for more private health care."
--------------------------------------------------
Monday was a sad day for health care in Canada, says Roy Romanow, former NDP premier of Saskatchewan and one-time chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care.
The day marked the end of the Health Council of Canada and the 10-year health accord that led to its creation.
“It’s a blow to nation-building because it’s a blow to one of our revered, if not most revered, social programs, which is medicare,” Romanow said in a phone interview from the University of Saskatchewan where he teaches classes in federalism.
The 2004 accord was a joint creation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It was intended to force reforms and set national standards in areas such as primary care, wait lists and electronic health records, with strings attached to $41 billion in federal transfers and the council acting as watchdog.
The accord has been replaced with a funding scheme created unilaterally by the federal government. But with no conditions attached, critics charge Ottawa has abdicated its role in shaping the direction of the health system.
The commission’s recommendations, contained in the 2002 Romanow Report, shaped the accord and the council.
Romanow readily concedes the accord and council were never as ambitious, or as successful, as he would have liked. A national pharmacare program never did see the light of day.
Still, he laments their passing.
“At least it was a federal-provincial commitment to a level of funding and a degree of reform. We had the council to neutrally assess how we were doing on those reforms,” Romanow said.
“I am concerned that without leadership from Ottawa and with reduced money, we are going to see a further slowdown of reforms, more regional disparities and a push for more private health care,” he added.
A growing chorus of voices is calling for the creation of a new council and a new accord.
An appeal for a new oversight body appeared on the website of Longwoods Publishing earlier this month in the form of an open letter written by council director Mark Dobrow, council CEO John Abbott and Ottawa Hospital CEO Dr. Jack Kitts.
“Accountability for health care system performance may not be top of mind for all Canadians, but it should be. In the absence of the Health Council of Canada or a clear successor agency, we believe an objective voice for both Canadians and their governments will be lost. This situation needs to be addressed if governments collectively want to ensure public confidence in the measures they are taking to reform the system, and they should welcome the opportunity to be held accountable,” they wrote.
The Canadian Health Coalition launched a campaign for a new accord on Monday. It kicked off in Ottawa with a luncheon speech by Dr. Jeff Turnbull, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association.
In an interview, Turnbull said the accord did not bring about the massive, transformative change that was hoped for, but it did make modest progress in helping to improve wait times and availability of electronic medical records.
“I think we need to rethink strategically how we promote the ongoing transformation of our health care system. The engagement of a national government and a pan-Canadian solution is essential,” he said, adding that health care needs to be more community based with a focus on chronic disease management.
National input is imperative to reform, Turnbull said.
“I am worried if we leave this exclusively to the provinces and territories, we are going to have a patchwork of health care systems, we are going to have inequity within jurisdictions and between them,” he said.
The Canadian Health Coalition campaign for a new accord was to include a “musical, comical protest” in Toronto on Monday night, dubbed “Holler 4 Health Care.” Among those scheduled to attend were actor Shirley Douglas, daughter of the late Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas, known as the father of medicare.
Asked what her father would think of the state of health care in Canada today, Douglas said: “Before my father died, he warned that we were watching the slow strangulation of health care. He said, ‘If you don’t get up and fight for it, you are going to lose it. Don’t pretend you didn’t know.’ ”
-------------------------------------
ARTICLE #2:
'Harper's Solution to Health Care Woes? Disappear'
On November 22 and 23 [2013], Canada's premiers are holding an economic summit in Halifax. Stephen Harper was invited, but he's not coming.
On the agenda is the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the federal financial contribution allotted to the provinces to pay for health care. In December last year, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced cuts to the CHT totalling $36 billion by the end of 2024.
These cuts are already felt in Halifax's maternity ward, where new parents must purchase the diapers used by their newborns. Instead of talking about health care being a universal right and proud Canadian value, we're nickel-and-diming patients.
Hospitals and other health care service providers are so strapped for cash that -- similar to Americans --Canadians are being billed for even the smallest non-medically necessary services. Think hospital parking fees are bad now? Just wait until the full effect of these cuts kick in -- after the next federal election.
In addition to chopping $36 billion in transfer payments, the federal government is negotiating a new trade agreement with the EU that will add $2.8 billion to drug costs. A patent extension will keep cheaper generics off the shelf for several more years. Canada already has some of the longest patent times for new drugs in the developed world, and we pay some of the highest prices.
Indifference to higher drug costs exemplifies the federal government's diminishing role in medicare. When medicare was first established in Canada, the provinces and the federal government agreed to a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement. Today, the federal government contributes approximately 20 per cent of health care costs.
For poorer provinces like Nova Scotia, this is devastating. Healthcare requires a bigger and bigger piece of provincial budgets, leading critics to claim its unsustainable. Lobbyists would have you believe that spending is out of control, and that the only solution is privatization and for-profit health care. But public health care costs have remained stable as a percentage of GDP since the 1970s -- it's shrinking provincial budgets that are the real problem.
Sustainable costs don't mean that we shouldn't implement evidence-based solutions that will save us money, though. We have lots of research to show how we could make better use of our health care dollars. Canada is one of the only countries in the world that has a universal health care system which doesn't include prescription drugs. If we were to bring them under the medicare umbrella, we would save $10.7 billion a year -- as shown in a 2010 report by Marc-André Gagnon. We'd also ensure that everyone could access prescription medication regardless of ability to pay.
Other areas also require Canada's immediate attention. A national aging strategy will allow our seniors to age with dignity, with the help of homecare or long-term care options. Researchers have come to a consensus that the aging population is not going to drain Canada of its resources, or bankrupt the health care system.
If we plan now, we can create age-friendly communities with appropriate services across the country, and we can rest assured knowing that our grandparents, parents, and ourselves will be able to live out our golden years with dignity.
Our first ministers -- including Harper -- should be looking at the evidence-based research and creating new benchmarks and strategies to strengthen our public healthcare system. But without Harper at the table, little to no progress will be made on national strategies and universal health care.
Harper is well aware that his refusal to negotiate a 2014 Health Accord and the downloading of almost $40 billion will encourage provinces to charge patients out-of-pocket and bring in more for-profit services. This is the most expensive and least efficient method of delivering health care -- if you need proof, just look to our southern neighbours.
Harper's quiet absence at the first ministers' meeting in Halifax speaks volumes about his commitment to universal health care. The premiers must stay strong on their call for Harper to participate in a 2014 Health Accord negotiation, and they must say no to additional patent extensions for Big Pharma. Canadians must also keep up the pressure -- only then will we have a truly universal health care system.
SOURCE #1.
SOURCE #2.