Latest headlines

Tuesday, 5 May, 2009

Provincial elections take precedence over federal politicking

One of the major fallacies commonly held about the Canadian healthcare "system" is that there is such a thing in the singular. The truth of the matter is that beyond providing funding and assessing some apparently arbitrary nominal fines for violations of the Canada Health Act, the federal government has little influence in creating or implementing the health policies that affect the majority of Canadians. Canada has health systems, plural. Counting each province's ministry of health plus Ottawa's administration of healthcare for First Nations, soldiers, veterans and prisoners, there are fourteen distinct systems.

Nevertheless, there is often much talk during federal election campaigns about threats to medicare or efforts to kickstart healthcare reform when instead those matters pertain to provincial politics. Perhaps because the characters are seen as more colourful or perhaps because the rhetoric is more inspiring, federal politicians tend to overshadow their provincial counterparts.

This is the case at the moment. While the chattering classes jaw about whether Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will attempt to topple the government sooner rather than later and whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper will work with the NDP or the Bloc Québcécois to keep his Conservatives in power, two provincial elections of significant consequence are coming up.

British Columbia's campaign is in its last stages and voting ends next Tuesday, May 12. The NDP's numbers are surprisingly high considering where they were several months ago, but the incumbent Liberals still hold a small lead in the polls. The Liberals have had some tumultuous years in terms of health policy, what with the Insite safe-injection controversy and a recently begun battle against Canadian Medical Association past-president Dr Brian Day over the constitutionality of denying patients full rights to use private health facilities.

On the other coast, the writ was dropped earlier today in Nova Scotia, triggering a June 9 election in which the Progressive Conservatives will attempt to either hold on to their minority government status or gain a majority in the legislature, while the NDP will attempt to leapfrog past the Tories to become the governing party. During the campaign Canadian Medicine expects to see the Conservatives forced to defend their healthcare record, which consists of an ambitious review of the entire system ("transformational system-wide realignment" was the catchphrase) conducted over a year ago but little substantive progress made in practice so far. The Tories did, however, manage to successfully negotiate an interesting collective agreement with the province's physicians a year ago this month, which may help lay the groundwork for future reforms.

Stay tuned. Canadian Medicine will endeavour to bring you the most important news on the health-related aspects of the two election campaigns.

Meanwhile, tell us your opinions of the campaigns on the coasts. Will the Liberals prevail in BC? Will the NDP defeat the Conservatives in Nova Scotia? What results would be of the most benefit to doctors, their patients, and the province's healthcare systems as a whole?

2 comments:

  1. FYI

    Canada has NO healthcare "system".... try to grasp this reality.

    What does it have?

    It has legislated standards with tenets which " must "be met by providers (within a system)in order to be paid.

    What are these tenets?

    The Canada Health Act has five tenets :universality, portability, accessibility,comprehensiveness, public administration

    check here for a brief description of "form":

    http://www.alantonks.parl.gc.ca/print.asp?lang=e&sid=2983

    Ok, so we have a description of " form" ...where is the "function"?

    AHA..... therein lies the controversy..

    Answer:

    Because of public demand and retrenchment of the health workers the "payor" has firmly reminded them all of these of the tenets of the Canada Health Act..... and challenged them to provide an operating "system" in order to be paid.
    ( by the way...congratulations governors!)

    Why can't they do this?

    Good question... here is the answer:

    The public sector is aligned with the private sector to fulfil the delivery of healthcare ( P.S. don't talk about "demand side/supply-side" stuff here because "monopolies' do not have a " demand curve".
    Another weakness of monopolies is when they give money "directly" to an intermediate ( at any level) "monopsony" occurs and the use of those monies can result in both pay-for-work in the intermediates hands.. and quality.. taking a nosedive.

    What to do?

    We have three significant sectors providing what they term as "healthcare" service to the individual.

    Let's do a SWOT ( strengths , weaknesses, opportunities threats)

    We have mentioned some issues in the SWT categories..let's focus on the opportunities...

    You mean there "are"opportunities?

    Yes.

    What are they?

    The public sector and the voluntary sector fully understand the "needs-based" position and how to fund it.

    The private sector fully understands the "variety-based ( wants-based) position and how to supply it.

    None of the three understand the power of the "access-based " position to be the ACTUAL avenue of correction ( drives me crazy!)

    What has muddied the waters that has created the present exponential growth in costs?

    AHA.... good question

    The answer is..ethics.

    Huh?

    The predatory ethic of the private sector provider has ?creatively infiltrated the ethic of the public and voluntary sectors ...and through differentiation and segmentation all 3 sectors have been sucking the task pool AND benefits pool dry.

    Interestingly the enduser ( patient) can't figure this out because they have not been doing less... or more.

    EGADS! What do we do now!

    1. Define payment boundaries clearly

    Package what you pay for ( carepaths, critical paths, redefine, D.A.D.S. ( surely Ontario remembers Darth Vader in hospital restructuring ?)

    2. Expand the "initiative" funding for "collaborative" team development above the frontline provider level...... up ......up...up

    ...until you encompass the public/private/voluntary sector players in the umbrella in a corporate structure that works for all.

    Is this possible?

    YES... a thousand times ..... yes!!!!

    What is stopping it?

    Oddly....... consumer apathy :(

    What can start it?

    Economic duress :) ( see...every cloud DOES have a silver lining)
    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S.
    In the event that you have now read the notice ( written by a politician) you will see that " accessibility" is DEFINED as primarily " a full service package that all of us can GET for an affordable price".

    Politicians see access issues as "getting"

    Voluntary sector sees "accessibility" as "a full service package that all of us can OFFER for an affordable price"

    Humanitarian perspectives see access issues as "offering"

    Private sector sees "accessibility" as a full service package that all of us can "deliver" for an affordable price.

    Private sector perspectives are "selling deliverables"


    How do we get on the same page of the same book?


    We don't.

    We see accessibility for what it " actually" is ...a geographic issue.

    Imagine taking a "tailor-made approach to an individual's needs and instead of delivering all options nearby with an "in case" perspective....... we stabilize the "everyday" access that impacts the features that " stabilize.

    To facilitate this a new element in case management is introduced....a "knowledge transfer worker"

    Imagine having your specific case managed, governed, provided under the guidance of a "knowledge transfer worker"??????

    The mind boggles!

    We could call that person "the community healthcare coordinator" who would be skilled in putting all parts together in manageable clusters ( spider clusters work well for this)

    Hmmmmmmmmm.........
    ReplyDelete