Category Archives: Health System

Ontario looks at hospital report cards — Citizen

How many stars does your hospital have? According to the Ottawa Citizen, the Ontario government is contemplating a public ranking system for hospitals.

Ironically, as government MPPs bought the OHA argument that access to quality information from hospital committees would amount to naming and shaming, the ranking system appears to do just that.

The system was tried briefly in the United Kingdom, but ran into numerous problems. The naming and blaming turned back on government as hospitals with low ratings complained of lack of funding. Low rated hospitals also tried to spend their way out of the low ratings, resulting in escalating deficits.

The Citizen reports considerable gaming of data took place in the UK, including making patients linger outside hospitals in ambulances to meet the target of a four hour wait for treatment.

In 2005 the UK government ended the star system in favour of a two-part report card on quality and resource utilization. Hospitals were given a rating on a continuum from excellent to weak.

Some claim that shining the light on hospital performance spurs them on to improvement.

At present Ontario hospitals are posting performance information on their web sites as part of the Excellent Care For All Act. However, this information is not always easy to find. For the average Ontarians, it may also be difficult to decipher what the score card actually means.

In the case of emergency department wait times, hospital funding is connected to performance, as is CEO remuneration.

By attaching hospital funding to the report card it does pose the risk of penalizing not just the hospital, but the community accessing that hospital. Given few communities have any opportunity to elect members of their hospital board, it seems incumbent on government to fix poor performing hospitals rather than create a gap in quality access between communities. We can probably guess which well-heeled communities would have high-performing hospitals, and which would lose funding under such a scenario.

A quality agenda is always welcome, but it should focus on improving the whole system, not on creating winners and losers.

Lack of civility as opinions differ

This week OHA CEO Tom Closson wrote to a number of groups opposing the recent “hospital secrecy law” (Schedule 15 of Bill 173) that will allow the Ontario Hospitals to shield specific quality information from the public.

Given Schedule 15 had alredy been amended — presumably to the OHA’s approval — it is questionable as to the purpose of Closson’s sudden enthusiasm for letter writing. The actual amendment passed at the legislature’s finance and economic affairs committee Thursday morning.

What is most surprising from Closson’s letter-writing is his accusations that public interest groups were attempting to “grossly mislead” the public about the meaning of the Bill. The letters, all posted the OHA’s website, manage to insult the community organizations in a way we haven’t quite seen before.

He says Cybil Sack (Impatient4Change) “took significant liberties with the facts…while also making derogatory comments about hospitals, their leaders, and the professionals who work in them.” He further writes “it is apparent from your note that you believe the people who work in hospitals spend their days devising new ways to stifle public debate.”

To many of the organizations – including the Ontario Health Coalition, the Registered Nurses Association and the Service Employees International Union, he says he is writing to “rebut the grossly inaccurate claims.” He finishes all the letters with “on an issue as important as Ontarians’ health and safety, the “facts optional” approach your organization has taken to date is simply irresponsible. Ontarians deserve better.”

If these submissions were full of factual errors and misleading commentary, one might understand. Closson’s rebuttals fail to point out much in the way of factual error, but instead revisits the OHA’s original argumentation around the need for the schedule and takes issue with some of the intervenor’s interpretation of the role of the Quality of Care Information Act.

To suggest on this basis that anybody is trying to “grossly mislead” is a bit much. It also calls into question the OHA’s attitude towards public engagement.

By any interpretation, the government has opened the door to hospital transparency, and closed it to a degree with this amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation. That’s a fact.

Closson is not the only one getting in on the act of incivility.

Georgina Thompson, Chair of the South East LHIN, recently told the media that prior to the LHIN’s recent Road Map plan, hospitals “talked to each other but they didn’t play together in the sandbox well.”

We could be wrong, but some hospitals may take umbrage to their characterization as children who got straightened out by the LHIN.

It’s been a long cold and wet spring. Here’s hoping that with a bit of better weather we can all go back to debating health care policy without this kind of nasty rancour.

Oh, and Tom – no need to reply.

Hospital secrecy – changes to Budget Bill fail to protect public interest

The latest amendment to Ontario’s Budget Bill 173 fails to address concerns raised around a change to freedom of information legislation that will permit greater hospital secrecy.

Schedule 15 of Bill 173 enables a hospital CEO to shield from public scrutiny any information about quality of care produced for or by a hospital committee. More than a dozen groups appeared before the legislature’s Standing Committee on Financial and Economic Affairs in April asking the offending schedule be removed.

Instead the McGuinty government has amended the proposed Bill to exempt “information provided in confidence to, or records prepared with the expectation of confidentiality by, a hospital committee to assess or evaluate the quality of healthcare and directly related programs and services provided by a hospital, if the assessment or evaluation is for the purpose of improving that care and the programs and services.”

Ontario hospitals are the last in Canada to come under Freedom of Information legislation. After introducing a public sector accountability bill last fall that would open up hospitals to freedom of information requests beginning January 2012, the McGuinty government recently caved-in to a lobby by the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association and a private insurance company to narrow what would be accessible.

“The government’s amendment allows hospital executives to make some documents secret by simply stamping ‘confidential’ on them or retroactively suggesting that the records were intended to be private,” says Cybele Sack of Impatient for Change, a patient advocacy group. “Our freedom of information laws are meant to increase transparency and this amendment undermines that spirit.”

The final act is expected to be passed by the majority Liberal government this Thursday (May 5).

Groups attack amendment that would protect hospitals from providing quality information

It was supposed to be a day of hearings on the provincial budget, but the insertion into the Act of an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that would exempt hospitals from providing information on quality had many individuals and organizations up in arms. Is the government getting anxious about its decision to open public hospitals to scrutiny? Schedule 15 in Bill 173 would exempt hospitals from divulging “information provided to, or records prepared by, a hospital committee for the purpose of assessing or evaluating the quality of health care and directly related programs and services provided by the hospital.”

Hospitals are to be subject to Freedom of Information beginning January 2012.

This is what some of the April 20 deputations to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs had to say on the issue (from Hansard):

“There’s absolutely no evidence that giving more information to patients means that lawsuit numbers will rise; in fact, the evidence is exactly the opposite. In the United States, where a few hospitals have taken the courageous position that regardless of the circumstances, patients are entitled to know the full details of errors—and the hospital has even assisted patients to file a claim—lawsuit numbers have plummeted, and the amount of money that is paid out per lawsuit is reduced. That’s the truth of what happens. Do you know why? If you think about it, you have a close relationship with the people who are looking after you in a health care setting. You don’t want to sue them. The people who come to me are not chomping at the bit to sue doctors and nurses; they’re doing it because it’s their last option, because they’ve tried other things and it hasn’t helped.”
–       Amani Oakley, medical malpractice lawyer

“I sued in frustration as a last resort, so that the truth would be told in the death of my father. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen. I wanted, and am still actively seeking, accountability, justice and transparency in the Ontario health care system in its entirety, and access to information that, in a democracy, must be available to the public.

I was offered the sum of $10,000 by University Health Network and the medical transportation company involved and told that if I took this money, I could never speak of my father’s case again or I would be sued. I refused this money, as I considered any monetary compensation as blood money, because this would not bring back my father and it would not right the wrong that had occurred, especially for people who still put their lives in jeopardy using the Ontario health care system.”
–       Lorraine Blue

“We in Niagara want, therefore, to have access to everything that the NHS and the LHINs have discussed under quality of care. Without that, we will not be able to have a full investigation, either under this government or a subsequent government. Without a full understanding of what has gone wrong—and this is not to put blame. I do not believe, and most of us do not believe, that we’re talking about individuals here at all. There has been a system breakdown because of the speed in having to do things and also because of financial constraints on an overly large amalgamated hospital.”
–       Fiona McMurran, Welland resident

“It boggled my mind when I saw this amendment, after the government had come so far in terms of opening up hospitals to freedom of information in the first place. No other province does this. All the other provinces open hospitals up to freedom of information. We’re the last province to put hospitals under freedom of information.”
–       Rick Janson, OPSEU staff expert on health care

“The hospital industry maintains that FIPPA will undermine patient safety culture, but has presented no data and no concrete example. The facts suggest that whatever is going on behind closed doors now is, in any event, ineffective. Recent data shows that adverse events in hospitals remain frustratingly high. The Canadian Medical Association recently estimated that between 9,000 and 24,000 deaths in hospitals across Canada were preventable.”
–       Paul Harte, President-elect of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association

“Imagine our surprise when a question was put forward regarding schedule 15 and our honourable health minister said that this was added for patient safety. In our opinion, schedule 15 does just the opposite. Patient security and privacy is already covered by the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The impact that this will have on Ontario’s health care system could potentially be frightening. Hospitals which engage in poor practices will be protected from scrutiny, potentially resulting in numerous victims. Even if your family doctor wants to access information regarding a hospital’s record of quality before he sends you there, access can be denied.”
–       Ed Vander Vegte, Niagara chapter of the Association for Reformed Political Action

“I’d like to know more clearly what it is that they’re concerned about. The examples that have been given so far don’t hold weight; they certainly don’t meet a public interest test. If there is something there, then we’d like to know what it is, but we haven’t been given that information. It certainly doesn’t belong in a budget bill and certainly not with the very short period of consultation that we’ve been given to date. There’s only one hearing; it’s only in Toronto. It’s just not the right way to do this properly.”
–       Natalie Mehra, Ontario Health Coalition

“RNAO agrees there is a need for protecting the identity of hospital staff when engaged in quality-of-care discussions, as the threat of disciplinary proceedings could indeed hamstring such discussions. On the other hand, it would not inspire great confidence in the hospital or the health care system if hospitals refused to release quality information for fear of litigation.

This approach is very different to the one the Ontario Hospital Association and its members demonstrated when they participated in the important and popular hospital report card series, allowing many facility-level quality indicators to be released publicly. That showed bold leadership. Unfortunately, the public no longer enjoys access to this window on the hospital system, as it was terminated in 2008.”
–       Kim Jarvi, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario

“The number one thing I hear about is not lawsuits. It really isn’t. It’s not the money. It’s not even an apology, because with the Apology Act, it doesn’t mean much. It’s not even disclosure; that’s just the first step. What people really want is to know that what happened to them did not happen in vain, that we’re learning from it, that we’re measuring the change and that we’re accountable to that change, so that they know nobody else has to go through what they went through.”
–       Cybele Sack, ImPatient for Change

“In my opinion, I believe it is time for Ontario citizens to have full transparency and accountability in all matters related to the health care they receive. I also believe that our health care should reflect the human and democratic right we each have as Canadians to have a quality health care system regardless of age, race, ability or gender.”
–       Kim Hessels, “mother of a child with special needs”

“You’re being asked to throw a large blanket of protection of secrecy over anything related to quality within a hospital, and quality care makes up the core, the essence and many of the functions that hospitals perform for the public.”
Eoin Callan, SEIU

Conspicuous by its absence was the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association, which had lobbied for the exemption alongside a major malpractice insurance company.

To read the full transcripts, go to: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=en&Date=2011-04-21&ParlCommID=8858&BillID=2475&Business=&DocumentID=25696#P56_3174

Lack of drug coverage a disgrace — HIV/AIDs activists

An HIV/AIDS activist group is calling upon all federal parties to include a universal drug coverage plan in their election platforms.

 The Canadian Treatment Action Council (CTAC) say they are working with a coalition of patient groups, researchers, patient-service organizations, activist, doctors and other health care professionals to put a national drug plan on the election agenda.

 The group says Canada’s patchwork of public and private drug coverage systems means that many Canadians fall through the cracks.

 “People are essentially suffering and dying because of a lack of political will to change a broken system,” says Louise Binder, Chair of the CTAC. “It is unacceptable and a disgrace that, in Canada, many individuals spend exorbitant sums, often selling homes or going into debt, in order to pay for prescription medicines.”

 The coalition points out that national universal drug programs have become standard in developed countries, including Austria, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

 They say politics is the only real barrier Canadians face to having the same.

Federal campaign health care platforms: Conservative, Liberals, NDP and Greens

Health care was supposed to be the number one issue for Canadians coming into the Federal election. Within days, all the parties had committed to some level of renewal of the Health Accord, set to expire in 2014. Under that accord provinces have been receiving a so-called “escalator” that automatically increases Federal transfers to the provinces for health care by six per cent per year. By the last year of the accord that transfer should amount to about $30 billion. This was part of what officials once called an agreement to fix health care for a generation. Given the concerns that Canadians have been expressing during the election, they haven’t exactly met that expectation.

The Federal party platforms vary considerably, from the 98-page Liberal Red Book, to the 66-page Conservative “Here For Canada” platform, to the 12-page Green Party Platform. While the NDP features a brief point-form platform on their web site, there is no book.

Conservatives

In his opening message to the Conservative platform, Stephen Harper doesn’t actually use the word health, although one of the top five priorities, to support families, includes a promise of more support for seniors and caregivers.

That reference is to a $2,000 Family Caregiver Tax Credit for those who care for “infirm loved ones at home.” The tax credit would apply to those caring for an infirm spouse, common-law partner, and children of minority age.

The Conservatives have said they will work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to renew the Health Accord and to continue reducing wait times. A separate agreement would be negotiated with Quebec.

With little accountability embedded in the first Accord, the Conservatives say in their “discussions” they will “emphasize the importance of accountability and results for Canada.” However, they also state in the next paragraph that they “will respect the fact that health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction and respect limits on the federal spending power.”

During the leaders’ debate, Stephen Harper said he had a different definition of privatization than Jack Layton. Harper did not include private delivery of publicly-insured health services as privatization, which he refers to as “alternate delivery.”

In a CBC radio debate earlier in same day as the leader’s debate, Colin Carrie (PC MP-Oshawa) said he rejected David Dodge’s four solutions (see story on Diablogue) for health care, suggesting it was not an either/or scenario. The Conservatives are often criticized for not holding up the Canada Health Act (particularly around private clinics). Carrie said “it was the law of the land.”

Carrie said the government is working on programs to keep Canadians well, including doubling the children’s fitness tax credit to $1,000 and establishing an adult fitness tax credit of $500. Neither would be implemented until the federal budget is balanced — according to their plan, that would be 2014-15.

Many in the media have questioned how the Harper government could reduce taxes and escalate health care spending faster than growth in the economy.

Prior to the election call, MP Maxime Bernier had suggested in 2010 the Federal government get out of health care and transfer tax points to the provinces instead. A tax point transfer effectively means the Federal government would reduce taxes to the equivalent of what the provinces need to raise them by, leaving the tax rate the same for individuals. There are several obvious risks to this.

  • The provinces could use the tax points to implement their own tax cuts.
  • We would lose any semblance of consistent health care delivery across Canada.
  • The Federal government would lose any leverage by which to enforce the Canada Health Act, allowing provinces to further privatize and delist services.
  •  Charges for hospital services and extra billing would be allowed to thrive.

Bernier claimed it would allow the provinces to experiment more with different delivery models. The Canada Health Transfer is expected to hit $30 billion by 2013. At the time the PMs office said Bernier was not speaking for the government.

However, Harper himself said as much back in 2001 in the now famous “fire wall” letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. In the letter, Harper, then President of the anti-Medicare National Citizens’ Coalition, argued that “each province should raise its own revenue for health care — ie., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years.”

(To get a full history of Stephen Harper’s attacks on Medicare, journalist Murray Dobbin has a detailed chronicle at http://murraydobbin.ca/2011/04/16/dr-harpers-new-and-improved-medicare/  The Star’s Thomas Walkom also looks at Harper’s record, including lack of enforcement of the Canada Health Act, at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/977249–walkom-harper-and-the-subtle-erosion-of-medicare )

Ujjal Dosinjh, the former Liberal Minister of Health, told CBC radio the Tories pushed the health accord into the Senate “to wash their hands of responsibility.” He raised Bernier’s comments and said the Harper government had a “shrinking view” of the Federal role in health care. Megan Leslie, an NDP candidate from Halifax, said the PM had started no conversations with the provinces on the next health accord.

To read the Conservative’s “Here For Canada” platform, go to http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf

Liberals

Unlike the Prime Minister, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff places considerable emphasis on health care in his opening message. Stating the Liberal platform is about equal opportunity, he says Liberal governments have built up the foundations of equality, including establishing universal Medicare. The Liberals have one of the more developed health care platforms among the four major parties. Ignatieff has also promised a Federal-Provincial summit on health care with the Premiers within 60 days of taking office. The Liberals have pointed out that the Harper government has never convened a first minister’s meeting on health care.

While much attention has been spent on their pledge to renew the Health Accord and provide $1 billion for home care, less attention has been paid to their promise to scrap the Harper government’s Public Private Partnership Fund, which the Liberals claim has only delivered 8 per cent of the funds allocated to it. The Liberals would instead use the money for public housing.

P3s have been a feature of much of the recent debate over the Provincial Liberal plans to build new hospitals in Ontario.

The Family Care Plan is similar to the Tory plan – instead of providing funding for professionally-delivered home care services, the money is aimed at supporting families to provide care themselves. One half of the Liberal plan would include an extension of the six-week EI benefit for those who have to take time off of work to care for a “gravely ill” family member. To be eligible, the family member must be “gravely ill with a significant risk of death within 26 weeks.” The Liberals would thereby extend the current six week period to six months (26 weeks).

A new Family Care Tax Benefit would assist low and middle-income family caregivers who provide “essential care” to a family member at home up to a year.  The maximum is relatively modest at $1,350 per year. The Liberals estimate 600,000 family caregivers could take advantage of the benefit at a cost of $750 million per year.

The Liberals feature numerous initiatives on health promotion, including investments in sport and the establishment of a national food policy:

  • Working with the provinces to set national targets for physical activity in primary and secondary schools;
  • A Healthy Choices program to educate Canadians on health eating;
  • Progressive labelling regulations for food, including improving the regulatory process for new health claims;
  • Standards on transfats and salt;
  • $40 million annually for a healthy start program to help children from low-income families to access healthy home-grown foods;
  • A comprehensive review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency;
  • An increase of $50 million over four years to improve food inspection;
  • Using athletes as role models, the Liberals would commit to stable and sustained funding for “Own The Podium” and Sport Canada.

The Liberals also commit to a Canadian Brain Health Strategy to assist Canadians coping with diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson’s Disease. The strategy includes public education on prevention, $100 million over two years for research, a sharing of best practices, and a more vague promise to look into potential economic supports for families coping with brain disorders and legislation to prevent discrimination against people showing symptoms.

The Liberals say they will work with the provinces to ensure all Canadians have coverage for catastrophic drug costs for illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, or arthritis.

The Red Book also makes several vague promises to work with the provinces and territories to bolster innovation in the health and bioscience field, improve rural health care, bring down prescription drug costs, improve home care, and address priority areas such as mental health and palliative care.

During a CBC-radio three-party panel on health care, former Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh identified new technology and drugs as the largest drivers of health care costs, but said it was something a Liberal government could handle.

To see the full Liberal plan, go to: http://www.liberal.ca/issues/

New Democrats

The NDP have also committed to renewing the Health Accord for another decade, including a six per cent escalator. The NDP would put strings on the money – including “a clear, monitored and enforced commitment to respect the principles of the Canada Health Act.”

The NDP say they will work with the provinces to promote a clear commitment to the single-payer system, make progress on primary care, take steps to replace “fee-for-service” delivery, and take the first steps to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

The centerpiece of the NDP platform is a plan to work with the provinces to increase the number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals, although the document only sets specific targets for the doctors (1,200 over the next 10 years) and nurses (6,000 new training spaces over six years). To put this modest promise in perspective, 120 new doctors per year would be added to the already existing 65,000 doctors in Canada — an increase of about 1.8 per cent over a decade. Likewise, there are about a quarter of a million nurses, of which the NDP would add an averge of 1,000 per year. 

While the NDP are pledging $165 million to create these new training spaces for doctors and nurses, they are also promising to increase the number of doctors and nurses (no mention of other health professionals) as a priority within the first 100 days.

Jack Layton said “we can’t wait three more years for the government to hire doctors and nurses for families who need them now.” Given the length of time it takes to become a doctor or a nurse, the training spots are not going to fulfill this promise. No detail is in the NDP platform on how many or where this immediate supply of doctors and nurses will come from. 

The NDP would also establish programs aimed at recruiting and supporting low-income, rural and aboriginal medical students.

Unlike the Tories and Liberals, the NDP would designate funding to guarantee a basic level of home care services. They would also include a federal transfer to increase long term care “spaces” and double funding for forgivable loans under the Home Adaption for Seniors’ Independence Program, a program intended to help seniors remain in their own homes. They would help up to 200,000 families a year to retrofit their homes to create self-contained secondary residences for senior family members. The “forgivable loan” would cover 50 per cent of the costs of a renovation up to a maximum of $35,000.

The NDP’s promises on pharmaceuticals include improved assessment to ensure the quality, safety and health effectiveness of prescription drugs, savings through bulk purchasing, a more aggressive price review, and the elimination of kickbacks from drug companies to pharmacists.

In the way of prevention, the NDP offer a Children’s Nutrition Initiative to expand provincial and local programs that provide healthy meals to school children. They would also introduce a National Strategy for Serious Injury Reduction in Amateur Sport Act – a plan to reduce concussions through a variety of strategies.

To review the NDP platform, go to:  http://www.ndp.ca/platform

Greens

Elizabeth May says the Green are not a one-issue party. Their 130-page “Vision Green” document is the most comprehensive of the four parties. However, there is very little in their posted 12-page election platform specific to health care. Her platform introduction makes a reference to living in healthy communities and enjoying a life-giving, healthy natural world, but nothing specific to improving health care delivery or prevention.

Vision Green, on the other hand, makes a strong commitment to upholding the Canada Health Act, including measuring the extent of two-tier health care in Canada and striving for its elimination.

It advocates not only the education and hiring of more medical staff, but also re-opening many of the beds that have been closed, better utilizing operating rooms, and purchasing new diagnostic equipment. Unfortunately, while they do talk about needing more health professionals in their preamble, the platform only talks about providing funds to train more doctors and nurses. They call for the fast-tracking and on-the-job mentoring of foreign trained health care professionals.

The Greens call for forgiveness of student loans for graduating doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other health professionals who agree to staff rural facilities and family practice clinics where recruitment is currently a problem.

The Greens also call for expansion of public coverage to proven alternative therapies such as chiropractic, massage and acupuncture. Their health plan also includes a national pharmacare program, accepting the principle that Canadians should spend no more than three per cent of total after tax earnings on necessary prescribed medications. Like the NDP, they would put emphasis on the effectiveness of drugs covered under the formulary.

Vision Green plans to expand home support, home care programs and assisted living services. At a time when seniors are being threatened with illegal hospital charges if they don’t take the first available long term care bed, the Green’s promise to enshrine a policy that seniors’ care must be provided in the communities where they or their families live.

The Greens would also transfer more money to the provinces to open more long term care beds.

The Greens have an extensive prevention platform, including $500 million over five years to aggressively address inactivity and youth obesity.

For mental health, the Greens would transfer funding for non-institutionalized mental health agencies.

While Vision Green sounds great, the budget numbers put forward in the other document – the election platform – certain does not include the wide sweep of Vision Green. The budget does include $300 million a year for national pharmacare and $43 million for a national campaign to discourage marijuana use after the Greens legalize and tax it. Canadians spend about $25 billion per year on pharmaceuticals, which leaves the Green’s $300 million rather limited in its ability to provide universal coverage.

To read the full Vision Green document, go to: http://greenparty.ca/files/attachments/vision_green_april_2011.pdf

To read the Green election platform, go to: http://greenparty.ca/files/attachments/green-book-2011-en.pdf

Groundhog Day again – new CD Howe report uses old data to raise panic about health care sustainability

Dr. Michael Rachlis told the CBC’s The Current that it was like Groundhog Day all over again.

Discussing the latest CD Howe Institute Report “Chronic Healthcare Spending Disease,” Rachlis and Diane Gibson, Research Director of the Parkland Institute, took issue with the gloomy scenarios painted by former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge and Richard Dion, a Senior Business Advisor with the law firm Bennett Jones.

The reports authors argue that health care spending is unsustainable, forcing Canadians to have a conversation about how to pay for it. The report outlines just four options:

  • a “sharp reduction” in public services other than health care
  • increased taxes
  • co-payment or delisting of services
  • a major degradation of publicly insured health care standards

Dodge, in an interview earlier with the CBC, had said health care costs were rising faster than growth in the economy due to advances in technology, a demographic shift, and prices and wages rising.

He said it was his “hunch” that all four of the scenarios would be implemented to some degree.

Rachlis questioned why the authors of the report used data from 2009 to support their argument instead of 2010. Rachlis says that according to the data, health care spending as a percentage of our overall economy went down (from 11.9 per cent to 11.7 per cent) and that the cost curve will continue to decline over the next three years.

He called Dodge “factually wrong,” stating the CD Howe Institute authors chose to draw their figures from the deepest year of recession. When the economy shrinks, as it did in 2009, it makes health care spending look larger. In fact, he said, health care recorded one of its lowest levels of growth in 2009.

“I don’t know why a report in April does not have data from 2010,” he told the CBC.

Rachlis said costs were in decline in part of because brand name pharmaceuticals have levelled off in price with the expansion of generic drugs. Drugs have been among the fastest rising category within health care.

Diana Gibson said it made no sense to delist services and make Canadians pay out of pocket. “As citizens we pay either way,” she said. By pooling our resources through the tax system, it would be “cheaper.”

She highlighted how the costs of vision care increased 17 per cent after being de-insured, and how the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimated $10.7 billion could be saved through a national pharmaceutical plan.

Frustrated with the “the same stupid debate,” Rachlis said there were numerous examples of how we could improve our system, but we never hear about them.

Gibson hinted at a motive behind these panic scenarios – she said that health care is attractive to private business – it is not only recession-proof, but demand goes up during a recession. “People are willing to pay whatever it takes. That’s an amazing business opportunity.”

Rachlis and Gibson also argued that the silver tsunami doesn’t really exist – that increased costs due to aging are averaging less than one per cent per year, well within normal levels of economic growth.

Dodge had told the CBC that costs would likely rise to 18 per cent of our economy by 2020. Even with better efficiencies and improvements to the system, he said it would only slow it down to 15 per cent. The problem is the data just doesn’t support that scenario.

He claimed that we don’t really have universal health care now, since 30 per cent of health care spending is private. He said the discussion should really be about where the borders between public and private health care should be.

Sunshine list reveals golden handshake for outgoing deputy minister

In the legislature this week the NDP raised questions about the golden handshake for former Deputy Minister Ron Sapsford.

The Sunshine List revealed Sapsford earned $762,000 last year despite leaving his job in January of 2010.

Sapsford’s payout was recorded under Hamilton Health Sciences despite the government’s promise not to hide government salaries in hospital budgets.

Sapsford had worked at HHS prior to coming to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care in 2005.

Sapsford’s remuneration is listed as $672,916 in salary and $89,152 in taxable benefits.

Sapsford has been working as Chief of Strategy for the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) since last October.

Canadian Health Coalition puts together federal election primer

The Canadian Health Coalition has put together a primer for the Federal election. The CHC raises several issues you can ask Federal candidates about, including where they stand on:

  • Enforcement of the Canada Health Act so Canadians don’t face user fees, illegal bills and queue-jumping.Establishment of  national standards for an integrated, seamless system of care that includes long-term care, home care and palliative care.
  • Creation of a universal public drug plan – Pharmacare –so all Canadians have access to safe, appropriate and affordable medicines.
  • Commitment to the renewal of the Health Accord in 2014 with adequate federal funding, national standards and accountability for how the money is spent.
  • Ensuring national standards and accountability through federal leadership.

Don Drummond: New commissioner author of failed corporate tax cuts strategy

The announcement was barely out of the mouth of Finance Minister Dwight Duncan before his new Commission Chairman contradicted his promise.

Don Drummond, former TD bank Chief Economist, was appointed earlier this week as Chair of a Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services.

During his budget speech, Duncan made it clear the Commission had two restrictions – they will not make recommendations that would increase taxes or lead to the privatization of health care or education.

The very same day everyone understood Drummond to take issue with those restrictions, stating bluntly that he would consider “almost anything” to fix the province’s finances, including health care and education.

Drummond got the attention of the media last year when he suggested that if left unchecked, health care would take up 80 cents of every dollar spent on provincial programs within 20 years. Of course, he ignored the fact that in recent budgets health care spending had remained about the same percentage of provincial spending, and within the last two years, had actually declined. This year the provincial budget suggests health care will take up 42 cents of program spending, down from last year’s 45 cents.

Drummond also ignores the his own admission that costs are connected to the funding restraint of the 1990s.

There is no question that Drummond has more privatization in mind, albeit privatization within the context of public delivery.

In a recent Toronto Star opinion piece, Drummond made his prediction of where health care would go: “It will likely still have the cherished single public payer feature, and indeed that might be extended to some areas like drugs and longer-term care that are now largely in the private domain. But the delivery of services within that public payer model will likely have a larger private sector presence.”

While Duncan speaks about taking privatization off the table for health care and education, it is clearly on the table for everything else. “Just because a government department is delivering a program or service today does not mean it should deliver that program or service in the future,” the budget documents state.

In health care Drummond has also taken on the idea of universality, advocating that wealthier seniors be kicked out of the Ontario Drug Benefit. By applying a means-test to government drug programs for seniors, he opens the door to similar plans for other health services. With no stake in such programs, it gives an incentive to wealthy Canadians to advocate for further financial restraint of a system they won’t be using.

The folly of Drummond’s idea about making certain Canadians pay more is this — by transferring the burden of health care to the individual, you don’t really save money, you just change who pays for it. As we have seen in the US model, greater privatization leads to much higher overall costs.

Drummond is no stranger to government. He also served as a senior official at the Federal Department of Finance. He is considered to be the architect of the corporate tax cuts begun by the Chretien/Martin government and continued by the Harper government.

In the first decade of the new millennium, the Federal government reduced the corporate tax rate from 29.12 per cent to 22.12 per cent. This was at a time when the economy was booming and companies were realizing double-digit growth. And yet the boom in private sector investment that was supposed to emerge never happened. From 2001 to 2010 investment averaged a mere 3.1 per cent.

“I hate to admit this, but I don’t think much of the growth of the past decade could be attributed to lower corporate tax rate,” he recently told the National Post. Yet Drummond continues to maintain it was the right move despite the huge impact it has had on public sector revenues. He just has no evidence to support it.

When the finance minister appointed Drummond to take on this role, he didn’t inherit someone who would study the situation and come to thoughtful conclusions based on the evidence, he hired someone with a clear track record of advocating privatization and lower corporate tax cuts.

Drummond’s advocacy should have immediately discounted him for this job. We all know where this is going and have every right to ask whether alternative ideas will get a fair hearing?

Can we really afford another Don Drummond mea culpa in a decade from now?