NOTE: The essay is written for the Canadian context, so we caution that Canada’s model is NOT readily translatable to most other countries. However, it may be a viable option for economically developed ones that still lack universal coverage.
We reserve the right to change our views on any aspect of this essay as new analysis may emerge to justify revision, and in this sense it may be viewed as a work in progress.
NEW NOTE January 25, 2013: Due to the popularity of this posting (based on our web traffic statistics) we wish to alert readers to a related article: White F, Nanan D. A Conversation on Health in Canada: revisiting universality and the centrality of primary health care. J Ambul Care Manage. 2009;32(2):141-149. Full FREE access to that article has been arranged at the following site: http://www.phabc.org/modules.php?name=Contentpub&pa=showpage&pid=173
CANADIAN HEALTH CARE – An Overview
Canada’s health system enjoys wide public support. Its most valued features are: universality, portability and no direct fees for insured services, financed by government in accordance with the Canada Health Act (1984). The objective under the Act is "to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."
While the Canada Health Act resonates politically, not all health modalities are equally recognized. Nor are they equal in terms of need, quality of supporting evidence, nor necessarily affordable. Choices have always have been made. Thus, even though “comprehensiveness” is one of the stated principles, in practice this particular attribute has never been a reality as it refers historically to services deemed “medically necessary” in the context of 3-4 decades ago when the provincial acts supporting universal health care were promulgated. Elements still not adequately recognized include: home care, long term care, dental care, physiotherapy and pharmaceuticals, and others. A relevant question: will universality be applied in future to services not fully financed today?
To the extent that the system delivers on equity therefore, it approaches this only for fully insured medical and hospital-based services; but where coverage is not universal, ability to pay is critical. This contrast reflects how society views health as a public good, what it considers essential, the extent of equity it seeks, and the resources it is prepared to allocate. While the Canadian experience overall has been positive, the commitment and sustainability are remain functions of social values and political will. Canada’s health care system is justifiably a source of pride, but there is still much room for improvement
Health therefore is both a complex social goal and a major enterprise in Canada, mostly now based in the public sector. While compassion and human rights lie at its base, it is also seen in terms of the social and economic benefits it provides to the entire population.
INTER & INTRA JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISONS
A systematic review of 38 studies recently confirmed that Canada’s system leads to health outcomes that are favourable overall when compared with the US private for-profit system, at less than 50% of the cost [3]. However, perhaps more relevant is WHO’s landmark study in 2000 of health systems performance in almost 200 countries, ranking the UK in 18th place, Canada at 31st, and the US (most expensive health care in the world) at 37th. Most European countries performed better than Canada, while Australia’s performance (similar socio-demographics) at 32nd place was virtually tied with Canada [4]. Several other countries also scored better than Canada eg., Singapore, Japan. In our view, rather than dismiss such comparisons (which is unfortunately a defensive reaction in some circles) Canada should study and learn from those systems which appear to be doing better, and (while staying consistent with the core principles of the Canada Health Act) be more prepared to innovate, test and evaluate new approaches. We should also show more interest in the internal comparisons being revealed from within our health and social sectors [5], specifically: why are health conditions so different for different groups within the country, and what can be done about this? The key premise here is to be guided by evidence within the social contract represented by the Canada Health Act.
When one examines overall health status of populations using objective measures, it is tempting to conclude that the health systems of countries with similar socio-economic conditions appear to vary more with regard to cost than performance, irrespective of the public-private mix. However, the type of system does appear to have a strong influence on the indicators of equity. Beyond observing the principle of universality, this is reflected in steadily improving outcomes. A new Canadian study [6] reveals that – over a 25 year period – differences between the richest and poorest quintiles in expected years of life lost amenable to medical care decreased 60% in men and 78% in women. Reductions in rates of death amenable to medical care made the largest contribution to narrowing the socioeconomic mortality disparities. Continuing disparities in mortality in causes amenable to public health suggest that public health initiatives have a potentially important but yet unrealized role in further reducing mortality disparities in Canada.
If we make the political decision that there is probably already enough money in the system, the challenge in achieving better performance necessarily must lie in improving leadership, priority-setting, decision-making and management at all levels: in particular, we must do better on health promotion, public health and preventive medicine. On the other hand, there are many in society and among the ranks of the health professions who believe that the system we have is already doing very well, and – while its underlying principles seem secure – we would adjust its design and the way it is working at our peril. Nonetheless, the existing budget is by definition aligned with the status quo, mostly a legacy of thinking of the early 1970s (when most Canadian provinces launched their particular version of “medicare”). Does it necessarily follow that this is the only formulation we are capable of, or has the time come to expand the scope of health services to more within currently underfinanced sub-sectors eg., pharmacare, dentistry?
LOOKING WHERE THE OBJECT IS LOST, NOT WHERE THE LIGHT IS BEST
When engaged in public debate about health care, as a society Canada tends to focus on the high cost items that preoccupy institutional administrators, while overlooking the powerful forces that preserve our health: healthy living environments and workplaces, primary prevention (eg., nutrition education, childhood immunization, ante-natal care, physical activity, smoking prevention), and social policies (affecting literacy, employment, crime, housing quality and community wellbeing). These are the “upstream factors”. We also become so preoccupied with acute care issues, which are crisis-prone and sometimes glamorized, forgetting not only the upstream factors, but even downstream ones (eg., long-term care, home care) whose availability determines the speed with which acute care patients may move on to more appropriate levels of care.
To the extent that health systems fail, especially with regard to addressing priority needs and the ethic of equity (universality, access, affordability), this most often results from failing to deliver on basic needs, especially for groups that lack power or recognition.
OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONTINUED STEWARDSHIP OF CANADIAN HEALTH CARE
o That federal and provincial governments continue to recognize health as a public good, recommit to the principles of universality and equity in health services delivery, and curtail private for-profit entities as an alternative in any area of core or essential services. Clearly our governments must continue to ensure that how it puts together services must be in compliance with the Canada Health Act (1984).
o The Government of Canada should be kept under scrutiny regarding the decline in its financial contributions to provincial health services, thereby contravening the Canada Health Act. The “new” federal government must be held accountable for reneging on the Kelowna Accord (investment in aboriginal peoples) and Child Care. These failures to honour prior commitments that enjoyed public support reveal a short-sighted federal political agenda that undermines important determinants of health and social equity.
o Also in the spirit of the Canada Health Act, we urge government to re-examine now what services should be core or essential, and to consider expansion of the scope of publicly financed provisions, with emphasis on the more vulnerable eg., dental provisions for children and the elderly; provisions for new parents eg., maternity leave and child care, and expand the eligibility and/or scope of pharmacare for elderly. This is particularly timely given record governmental budget surpluses in recent years.
o Health care quality and outcomes for Canadian jurisdictions generally compare favorably with those of the US. Nonetheless, the tendency of Canadians to refer to the US performance in health care and outcomes as if this is a desirable norm is misplaced. It makes more sense to learn from the experience of systems elsewhere in the world eg., western Europe, Japan, Singapore, that are better performers than the failing US model. To the extent that Canada looks to the US for systems design support or medical records contracting, this must not threaten privacy; under the current US administration even its own citizens are losing trust regarding the invasion of privacy in the name of security.
o The most critical elements of any health system needs to be public health (ie., population health provisions, including health promotion) and primary health care: to the extent that systems fail, this is often due to failure to support these components. Effort is needed to attract talented individuals to engage in these fields. The responsibility for this lies with professional education institutions, specialty bodies and professional associations, with support from relevant ministries to ensure that effective action is taken.
o There is a need for Canada to strengthen its response to the surging chronic disease burden. The international literature indicates that about half of this burden is potentially preventable through attention to modifiable behaviours eg., smoking, fitness, weight control; and about half of those who do develop these conditions can be prevented from progressing to more complicated forms through attention to secondary prevention eg., blood pressure screening; active glucose monitoring for persons with diabetes.
o When one looks at Canada’s population health internally, it is obvious that there is still a substantial amount of inequity, both regionally eg., northern regions, inner city areas, and by population group eg., First Nations. We therefore recommend that, equity must be given more prominence in the public debate and in government decision making.
References1. Conversation on Health. Government of British Columbia, Canada (2007): http://www.bcconversationonhealth.ca/EN/401/
2. Pacific Health & Development Sciences. Shaping health in BC – observations and suggestions. Submission to the B.C. Conversation on Health. http://www.bcconversationonhealth.ca/media/PacificSci_COH_Submission.pdf
3. Guyatt GH, Devereaux PJ, Lexchin J, et al. A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States. Open Med 2007;1(1):e27–36.
4. The World Health Report 2000. June 21, 2000. Geneva. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html
5. Hertzman C, Irwin LG. It takes a child to raise a community: population-based measurement of early child development. Human Early Learning Partnership. No 1: July 2007. http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/
6. James PD, Wilkins R, Detsky, Tugwell, Manuel DG. Avoidable mortality by neighbourhood income in Canada: 25 years after the establishment of universal health insurance. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61:287-296. http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/61/4/287
