Victoria conference highlights differences in federal,provincial stands on health care issues

When Canada''s health ministers met in Victoria recently, the number of issues debated were yet another sign of the many problems facing Canada''s health care system. There were dis-agreements about the use of facility fees by private clinics, and concern about the huge impact federal cuts to transfer payments are going to have on provincial governments. British Columbia, for instance, faces 1996 federal cuts totalling $375 million — 5.8% of the province''s health care budget. As well, ministers debated the merits of a report discussing alternatives to the fee-for-service method of paying physicians. Dr. Jack Armstrong, the president, said the CMA does not favour one particular remuneration system over another, but feels strongly that doctors should have the right to choose the system they want.     

Containing Health Care Costs: A Critical Test of the Public-Private Joint Venture in Health

As the federal government shifted from its traditional roles in health to the payment for personal health care, the relationship between public and private sectors has deteriorated. Today federal and state revenue funds and trusts are the largest purchasers of services from a predominantly private health system. This financing or “gap-filling” role is essential; so too is the purchaser''s concern for the costs and prices it must meet. The cost per person for personal health care in 1980 is expected to average $950, triple for the aged. Hospital costs vary considerably and inexplicably among states; California residents, for example, spend 50 percent more per year for hospital care than do state of Washington residents. The failure of each sector to understand the other is potentially damaging to the parties and to patients. First, and most important, differences can and must be moderated through definite changes in the attitudes of the protagonists.     

The Central San Joaquin Valley Area Health Education Center

With federal financial support, an area health education center was established in the central San Joaquin Valley of California. The center is a cooperative health sciences education and health care program organized by the University of California and some of the educational and health care institutions of the valley. The center''s goals include providing and improving primary health care education, and improving the distribution of health personnel. These goals are achieved through the cooperative development of a number of independent and interdependent activities. An extensive evaluation of the Area Health Education Center has shown that it is a highly effective program.     

Public versus private care: philosophy,not economics,is shaping the debate

A debate is brewing on the future of private health care within Canada''s medicare system, and even though the federal government professes its intention to defend the existing public system, the growing rightward trend of Canadian voters may mean they are willing to consider more private care. Citizens may continue to express undying support for medicare as an “untouchable” public good, says Charlotte Gray, but they are less and less willing to pay for it through taxes.     

The National Forum reports: Crisis? What crisis?

The National Forum on Health''s final report appears to have said what Canadians--and the federal Liberal government wanted to hear about the health care system. It called for preservation of the single-payer model and the 5 principles of the Canada Health Act, and also recommended that medicare be expanded to embrace pharmaceuticals and home care. Edmonton internist Tom Noseworthy, chair of the forum''s steering committee, said public anxiety about medicare is caused by the rapid pace of change, not its direction. However, the CMA''s Dr. Judith Kazimirski was quick to challenge Noseworthy and his criticism of those who say a crisis exists.     

Debate over NAFTA's effect on health care a sign medicare will be dominant election issue

Does the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) pose a threat to Canada''s medicare system? There was a flurry of political activity in March over concerns that US health care companies were eagerly eyeing the Canadian market because NAFTA had opened it to them. The issue disappeared almost as quickly as it arrived, but it caught the attention of federal politicians, who hastened to negotiate to protect all existing health and social services. The rapidity with which the question grabbed the headlines was another reminder that health care remains one of the key political issues in Canada, and politicians will ignore it at their peril.     

The National Forum on Health is talking,but is anybody listening?

The federal government''s National Forum on Health is organizing a series of discussion groups across the country to focus on problems facing Canada''s health care system. Although a great deal of time and money is being spent on this and other forum projects, Charlotte Gray asks whether anyone is listening. She says many provincial governments are treating the forum with “elaborate disdain” and the only governments that appear willing to give it a chance to work are found in have-not provinces that rely on Ottawa for handouts in the form of transfer payments.     

Implications of managed care for health systems,clinicians, and patients.

The rhetoric and realities of managed care are easily confused. The rapid growth of managed care in the United States has had many implications for patients, doctors, employers, state and federal programmes, the health insurance industry, major medical institutions, medical research, and vulnerable patient populations. It has restricted patients'' choice of doctors and limited access to specialists, reduced the professional autonomy and earnings of doctors, shifted power from the non-profit to the for-profit sectors and from hospitals and doctors to private corporations. It has also raised issues about the future structuring and financing of medical education and research and about practice ethics. However, managed care has also accorded greater prominence to the assessment of patient satisfaction, profiling and monitoring of doctors'' work, the use of clinical guidelines and quality assurance procedures and indicated the potential to improve the integration and outcome of care.     

Nurse Practitioner and Physician's Assistant Clinics in Rural California: Part II: A Survey

Twenty-six rural California clinics have employed nurse practitioners (NP''s) or physician''s assistants (PA''s) to meet the primary health care needs of local communities. Of the 24 NP''s and 5 PA''s involved, 11 were men and 18 were women. Their average age was 37, and all but five were trained in California. The clinics, with less than 50 percent on-site physician supervision, averaged 19 miles in distance from the nearest physician (ranging up to 63 miles). More than half the clinics were satellites of central, physician-staffed, nonprofit clinics, a third were community-administered and two were private. Half served a whole community, a quarter were established to serve Indians and a quarter to serve Chicanos. Each NP or PA saw an average of 13 patients a day. All nonprivate clinics received subsidies from a variety of local, state and federal funds. Four of the clinics had closed or had no medical staff at the time of our survey.NP/PA clinics are proving to be a feasible and valuable means of offering essential health care needs to remote communities.     

Nurse Practitioner and Physician's Assistant Clinics in Rural California: Part I: Issues

The primary health care needs of at least 26 rural California communities are being served by nurse practitioners (NP''s) or physician''s assistants (PA''s). All of these have physician supervision and support. NP''s and PA''s have proved to be acceptable and effective. With 230 rural areas in California identified as having unmet health care needs, this type of service is likely to increase and should be supported.NP/PA clinics serve total populations or concentrate on Indians, Chicanos or the poor. Many barriers have been overcome, especially over the past four years, to allow these clinics to flourish and increase in number. The availability of nurse practitioners and physician''s assistants has increased due to support to schools and to school policies. Clinic funding has greatly improved; federal funds for general rural clinics, Indians, migrants, family planning and maternalchild health have been greatly supplemented by California state funds. Beginning in 1978, rural NP and PA services can be reimbursed by Medicare and Medi-Cal (California''s Medicaid program).Since 1975 state laws have defined PA and NP roles broadly, and these roles are more precisely defined at the local level. Although nurse practitioners and physician''s assistants generally cannot prescribe or dispense drugs (a major problem in many clinics), demonstration legislation allows special pilot projects to do both. As remaining funding and legal problems are corrected, NP''s and PA''s will serve an even greater role in rural areas.     

Summary of the 2000 Surgeon General's Listening Session: Toward a National Action Plan on Overweight and Obesity

Objective: To provide insight into discussions at the Surgeon General's Listening Session, “Toward a National Action Plan on Overweight and Obesity,” and to complement The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. Research Methods and Procedures: On December 7 and 8, 2000, representatives from federal, state, academic, and private sectors attended the Surgeon General's Listening Session and were given an opportunity to recommend what to include in a national plan to address overweight and obesity. The public was invited to comment during a corresponding public comment period. The Surgeon General's Listening Session was also broadcast on the Internet, allowing others to view the deliberations live or access the archived files. Significant discussion points from the Listening Session have been reviewed by representatives of the federal agencies and are the basis of this complementary document. Results: Examples of issues, strategies, and barriers to change are discussed within five thematic areas: schools, health care, family and community, worksite, and media. Suggested cooperative or collaborative actions for preventing and decreasing overweight and obesity are described. An annotated list of some programmatic partnerships is included. Discussion: The Surgeon General's Listening Session provided an opportunity for representatives from family and community groups, schools, the media, the health-care environment, and worksites to become partners and to unite around the common goal of preventing and decreasing overweight and obesity. The combination of approaches from these perspectives offers a rich resource of opportunity to combat the public health epidemic of overweight and obesity.     

Dr. Jon Gerrard's attention switches from federal cabinet to evidence-based child care

Dr. Jon Gerrard, a Winnipeg pediatrician who went from the heights of political success with a post in the federal cabinet to a narrow defeat in the 1997 federal election, is now devoting his attention to improving health care for children. He thinks the internet can play a lead role in these improvements.     

Health research funding: Members' of Parliament knowledge of and attitudes toward health research and funding

Background

Establishment of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 2000 resulted in increased funding for health research in Canada. Since 2001, the number of proposals submitted to CIHR that, following peer review, are judged to be of scientific merit to warrant funding, has grown by 77%. But many of these proposals do not receive funding because of budget constraints. Given the role of Members of Parliament in setting government funding priorities, we surveyed Members of Parliament about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.

Methods

All Members of Parliament were invited to participate, or to designate a senior aide to participate, in a 15-minute survey of knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR. Interviews were conducted between July 15, 2006, and Dec. 20, 2006. Responses were analyzed by party affiliation, region and years of service as a Member of Parliament.

Results

A total of 101 of 308 Members of Parliament or their designated senior aides participated in the survey. Almost one-third of respondents were senior aides. Most of the respondents (84%) were aware of CIHR, but 32% knew nothing about its role. Participants believed that health research is a critical component of a strong health care system and that it is underfunded. Overall, 78% felt that the percentage of total government spending directed to health research funding was too low; 85% felt the same way about the percentage of government health care spending directed to health research. Fifty-four percent believed that the federal government should provide both funding and guidelines for health research, and 66% believed that the business sector should be the primary source of health research funding. Participants (57%) most frequently defined health research as study into cures or treatments of disease, and 22% of participants were aware that CIHR is the main federal government funding organization for health research. Participants perceived health research to be a low priority for Canadian voters (mean ranking 3.8/10, with 1 being unimportant and 10 being extremely important [SD 1.85]).

Interpretation

Our results highlight significant knowledge gaps among Members of Parliament regarding health research. Many of these knowledge gaps will need to be addressed if health research is to become a priority.Over the past 8 years, health research has been an important but declining priority for the federal government. The development of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs, Genome Canada, the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the Canadian Health Services Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)¹ reflects this initial interest. Although most of these programs receive multi-year funding, CIHR receives annual funding from the federal government. However, its annual increases have not risen proportionately with the number of requests for funding it receives each year.CIHR is the federal funding body for health research and consists of 13 institutes. It supports 4 pillars of research: biomedical research, clinical research, social and cultural aspects of health and population health research, and health services and systems research. With the formation of CIHR,² federal funding for health research increased from $289 million in 2000 to $553 million in 2002, with subsequent 5%–6% annual increases until 2006. That year, the increase was 2.4%.³ The initial increases in funding stimulated a sharp rise in the number of grants submitted and funded annually. In the 2006 competition, the increase in funding was lower than expected and the success rate in the open competition fell to 16% from the mean rate of 31.7% in previous years. As a result, 60% of peer-reviewed grants rated as very good or excellent were not funded, as compared with 38% in 2001 (CIHR: unpublished data,2007).Because Members of Parliament vote annually to determine CIHR''s budget for funding health research, we surveyed Members of Parliament and their senior aides about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.     

Costs and coverage. Pressures toward health care reform.

Signs of discontent with the health care system are growing. Calls for health care reform are largely motivated by the continued increase in health care costs and the large number of people without adequate health insurance. For the past 20 years, health care spending has risen at rates higher than the gross national product. As many as 35 million people are without health insurance. As proposals for health care reform are developed, it is useful to understand the roots of the cost problem. Causes of spiraling health care costs include "market failure" in the health care market, expansion in technology, excessive administrative costs, unnecessary care and defensive medicine, increased patient complexity, excess capacity within the health care system, and low productivity. Attempts to control costs, by the federal government for the Medicare program and then by the private sector, have to date been mostly unsuccessful. New proposals for health care reform are proliferating, and important changes in the health care system are likely.     

Health care,federalism and the new Social Union

The Social Union framework agreement and the Health Accord provide examples of the close relationship that exists between federalism and the delivery of health care. These recent agreements represent a move from a federal-unilateral style of federalism to a more collaborative model. This shift will potentially affect federal funding for health care, interpretation of the Canada Health Act and the development of new health care initiatives. The primary advantage of the new collaborative model is protection of jurisdictional autonomy. Its primary disadvantages are blurring of accountability and potential for exclusion of the public from decision-making.     

Promises,promises

As the federal election nears, Charlotte Gray looks at the role health care will play during the brief campaign. Reading through the campaign literature, she found that all parties are making similar statements. However, there are striking differences in the way they intend to preserve the health care system.     

The health and cost effects of substituting home care for inpatient acute care: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND: There is much interest in reducing hospital stays by providing some health care services in patients'' homes. The authors review the evidence regarding the effects of this acute care at home (acute home care) on the health of patients and caregivers and on the social costs (public and private costs) of managing the patients'' health conditions. METHODS: MEDLINE and HEALTHSTAR databases were searched for articles using the key term "home care." Bibliographies of articles read were checked for additional references. Fourteen studies met the selection criteria (publication between 1975 and early 1998, evaluation of an acute home care program for adults, and use of a control group to evaluate the program). Of the 14, only 4 also satisfied 6 internal validity criteria (patients were eligible for home care, comparable patients in home care group and hospital care group, adequate patient sample size, appropriate analytical techniques, appropriate health measures and appropriate costing methods). RESULTS: The 4 studies with internal validity evaluated home care for 5 specific health conditions (hip fracture, hip replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], hysterectomy and knee replacement); 2 of the studies also evaluated home care for various medical and surgical conditions combined. Compared with hospital care, home care had no notable effects on patients'' or caregivers'' health. Social costs were not reported for hip fracture. They were unaffected for hip and knee replacement, and higher for COPD and hysterectomy; in the 2 studies of various conditions combined, social costs were higher in one and lower in the other. Effects on health system costs were mixed, with overall cost savings for hip fracture and higher costs for hip and knee replacement. INTERPRETATION: The limited existing evidence indicates that, compared with hospital care, acute home care produces no notable difference in health outcomes. The effects on social and health system costs appear to vary with condition. More well-designed evaluations are needed to determine the appropriate use of acute home care.     

The Ethical Self-Fashioning of Physicians and Health Care Systems in Culturally Appropriate Health Care

Diverse advocacy groups have pushed for the recognition of cultural differences in health care as a means to redress inequalities in the U.S., elaborating a form of biocitizenship that draws on evidence of racial and ethnic health disparities to make claims on both the state and health care providers. These efforts led to federal regulations developed by the U.S. Office of Minority Health requiring health care organizations to provide Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services. Based on ethnographic research at workshops and conferences, in-depth interviews with cultural competence trainers, and an analysis of postings to a moderated listserv with 2,000 members, we explore cultural competence trainings as a new type of social technology in which health care providers and institutions are urged to engage in ethical self-fashioning to eliminate prejudice and embody the values of cultural relativism. Health care providers are called on to re-orient their practice (such as habits of gaze, touch, and decision-making) and to act on their own subjectivities to develop an orientation toward Others that is “culturally competent.” We explore the diverse methods that cultural competence trainings use to foster a health care provider’s ability to be self-reflexive, including face-to-face workshops and classes and self-guided on-line modules. We argue that the hybrid formation of culturally appropriate health care is becoming detached from its social justice origins as it becomes rationalized by and more firmly embedded in the operations of the health care marketplace.