Assessing The Future Of Health Care

Health care expenditure accounted for an estimated 11% (214.9 billion) of Canada’s GDP in 2014 (CIHI, 2014). Canada boasts a universal, cost-effective and fair health care system to its citizens (Picard, 2010). However, despite great claims and large expenses incurred Canada’s health care system has been reported inefficient in it’s delivery to the population (Davis, Schoen, & Stremikis, 2010; Picard, 2010). As inconsistencies exist in health care delivery across the country, choosing priorities for the health of the Canadian people becomes of vital importance. In Ontario, progress toward a better health care system has been stated to be moving forward by putting the needs of the “patient’s first” (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC], 2015). This policy brief will give a background of health care issues in Canada related to Ontario. Three evidence-based priorities will be suggested for Ontario’s health policy agenda for the next three to five years. Furthermore, through a critical analysis of these issues a recommendation of the top priority issue for the agenda will be presented.

The Kirby and Romanow Reports were commissioned by different subsections of the Canadian government to give an overall view of the nation’s health care status and future recommendations for bettering the health care system. Senator Michael Kirby released the Final report on the state of health care in Canada on October 23, 2002 on behalf of the State Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Kirby, 2002). The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada chose former Saskatchewan premier Mr. Roy Romanow to ask citizens across the country their issues, thoughts and concerns regarding current and future status of the nation’s health care system. This inquiry resulted

In order to sustain the health care system, the Canadian government needs to strategically plan for the years ahead and invest more in preventative care rather than curative care. Canada should enforce non-medical health policies which are not only going to promise healthy living for

This paper will discuss the Canadian healthcare system compared to the United States healthcare system. Although they’re close in proximity, these two nations have very different health care systems. Each healthcare system has its own difficulties, and is currently trying to find ways to improve. Canada currently uses the Universal Health Care system; which provides healthcare coverage to all Canadian citizens (Canadian Health Care, 2007). The services are executed on both a territorial and provincial basis, by staying within the guidelines that have been enforced by the federal government (Canadian Health Care, 2007).

When asked to describe what makes Canada unique compared to other countries, many outsiders might yell out “Hockey!” “Cold Weather!” or “Free Health Care!.” Health care is definitely one of Canada’s most noticeable trademarks when compared to the United States, but the reality is that our health care services are not what they are made out to be. Canadians tend to take pride in the fact that they have a Government funded health care system, but the system is failing at a rapid pace. One can gage the quality of health care in our country while at the emergency ward in any hospital, where most Canadians realize its downsides. The Government spends most of its budget towards health care but Canadians are not feeling an improvement. Waiting

Its purpose is to provide facilities that already exist with health services and resources to provide the best possible health for Canadians (Royal Commission on Health Services, 2004). Public policy refers to the governments role in achieving an objective causing a change in society through major priorities. In this case the priority here is for every Canadian to have adequate an effective health regardless of their socio-economic status. (Role of Knowledge in Public Health, n.d., pg 89) However, this priority becomes controversial when political parties begin to get involved due to power shifts. The dilemma here is not about who is eligible to retrieve medical services but rather the policies that are made by the influence of other institutions such as marketing companies and political parties that result in health

Canada 's healthcare system is praised globally for its universal and free healthcare. It started to take shape after World War II in 1945. Health insurance was introduced and was attempted, but was not successful even though there was an increase in the spending of health related services and goods. Fast forward a few years to 1961 where Tommy Douglas, the premier of Saskatchewan, developed the idea for an all-inclusive insurance plan. He later inspired the Medical Care Act in Canada in 1967, when he pointed out health care is a right for all Canadians. From this one thought, Canada has become of the many countries with a universal health care system. Ever since Tommy Douglas sparked the idea for health care coverage, Canada is praised for the way it carries out its system because of several key features. This system is publically funded, is universal and is accessible to everyone across the nation. Because this is a public system, funding comes from the tax payers and some federal funding, so there is no extra cost for the patients. Also, being a universal system it has offered care to all Canadians, immigrants and visitors. Unlike the U.S who does not provide healthcare to its entire population because it is a private system; access depends on how much someone could afford, and how

Canada’s healthcare cost constitutes a large share of GDP. Although this may be a good thing as it reflects on a country’s increased wealth and ability to pay for valued care, however in the case of Canada, there is a strongly held belief that the growth rate in Canada is not sustainable nor is it necessarily improving our outcomes.

Most Canadians are very proud of their health care because it provides citizens universal coverage on the basis of need. However, in the recent decade, Canadians have observed obvious deterioration in the quality of the system in regards to waiting times, availability of the best technology, and adequate numbers of doctors and nurses. The apparent decline within the system has made many Canadians more open to a variety of options than they were a decade ago, provided that the core elements of the system are preserved and that these changes lead to tangible improvements in quality without damaging accessibility. In the article Canadians’ Thoughts on Their Health Care System: Preserving the Canadian Model through Innovation by Matthew Mendelsohn, he stated that 1/3 of Canadians support the two-tiered healthcare system, which offers its citizens an option of public or private health care. Canada will benefit from a two-tier health care system because it will shorten waiting times, other countries with two-tier healthcare have proven to be successful, will encourage doctors to return and stay in Canada, introduce competition and give citizens freedom to choose.

Throughout history there have been many great Canadians who have changed Canada in a positive way. Lester Bowles Pearson (see figure 1) was a Toronto professor, a historian, and the 14th Prime Minister of Canada. Lester Pearson was in office from 1963-1968 and was considered a great leader. Through his many important decisions and accomplishments, he made a significant positive impact in developing Canada’s history. Lester B. Pearson was born in Toronto in 1897 and died in 1972.

     In the past, Canada’s government-funded, universally accessible, health care system has been praised and admired both at home and abroad as one of the finest in the world. A great source of pride and comfort for many Canadians is that it is based on five fundamental principles. Principles that are a reflection of the values held by Canadian citizens since the formation of Medicare in 1966. These principles were reinforced in the Canada Health Act, (CHA), of 1984 and state that the Canadian system is universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and non-profit.

Canada’s health care system “can be described as a publicly-funded, privately-provided, universal, comprehensive, affordable, single-payer, provincially administered national health care system” (Bernard, 1992, p.103). Health care in Canada is provincial responsibility, with the Canada Health act being a federal legislation (Bernard, 1992, p. 102). Federal budget cuts, has caused various problems within Medicare such as increased waiting times and lack of new technology. Another problem with Medicare is that The Canada Heath Act does not cover expenditures for prescriptions drugs. All these issue has caused individuals to suggest making Medicare privatized. Although, Canada’s health care system consists of shortcomings, our universal

One of the greatest changes in healthcare in the past ten years has been the rise of managed care, much to the displeasure of many patients and physicians alike. Managed care arose out of concern about spiraling healthcare costs and was designed to encourage physicians to give patients treatments that were cost-effective out of their own financial interests. "The consumer strategy was directed at imposing some barriers to use by levying various forms of co-insurance. The most common approaches used either deductibles (where the consumer paid the first portion of the bill a technique familiar in other types of insurance) or co-payments (where the consumer paid a portion of the bill and the insurance company the rest) or a combination of both' (Kane et al 1994). Managed care has given health insurance companies an increasingly significant voice in how treatment is administered and allocated. Managed care has proliferated in the past decade despite considerable criticism of the practice of 'nickel and diming' patients as well as the considerable bureaucratic red tape it is has generated. Also, research indicates that healthy, well-insured patients tend to over-consume care without meaningful co-pays but poorer, sicker patients can be deterred even by moderate co-payments and suffer negative health consequences (Kane et al 1994). However, managed care has not gone away and is a reality that all healthcare

Medicare is facing a fiscal crisis that threatens its sustainability. The need for significant Medicare reform is increasingly urgent as 76 million baby boomers are expected to retire over the next two decade. According to the 201 Medicare Trustees Report, the Hospital Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2024. This translates to $27 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. Current projections indicate that health care costs will increase by more that 70 percent over the next ten years and will continue thereafter to consume an increasingly greater portion of personal income.

The future and direction of health care has been the topic of discussion amongst politician and U.S citizens today. There are several challenges surrounding the future and strategic direction in which health care should be heading. Accreditation, quality of health care and organization’s compliance; access to health care, maintaining a skilled workforce, information technology and pay for performance are some of the challenges that currently presenting itself in healthcare today. If health care is not dealt with appropriately it will have a significant effect an impact on the strategic direction in the future and direction of care.