Comparative Analysis Of The Ontario Renal Network And The British Columbia Renal Agency

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.

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).

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

The Canadian health care system is funded majorly by the public, with very few private donations. Over the past few decades acts of large-scale philanthropy by wealthy private donors have started to increase, due to the investments in social programs and infrastructure from the government declining. Without the aid of private donors and large sources of income from outside of the public (government) the infrastructure of all hospitals, clinics, and the totality of western healthcare systems would collapse and ultimately fail as the system is set up presently. There is an opportunity of keeping a healthy and happy society sustained by public funds, as long as the government is able to step up and provide the healthcare system with enough funds, making the donations from philanthropists an excess instead of a necessity.

Public Policies strive to protect all citizens across the nation, includes low-income citizens who often go unrecognized in society. To make sure this happens, legislature has put forth the “The Canada Health Act”, which requires the provincial government to meet certain expectations regarding public-health care and insurance plans. Though this act states that health services are free and accessible facilities, issues arise when citizens need urgent medical attention but appointment are unavailable until weeks later. Many of these poor individuals cannot afford to pay the extra amount to receive faster care as oppose to their rich counterparts.

Under Canada’s healthcare system, citizens are provided with primary care and medical treatments, as well as easy access to hospitals, clinics, and any other additional medical services. Regardless of annual income, this system allows all Canadian citizens access to medical services without immediate pay. Canada is fortunate to have a free healthcare plan since this necessity comes at a substantial expense for people living in the United States of America. For instance, the Commonwealth Fund's Health Insurance Survey mentions that “80 million people, around 43% of America's working-age adults, did not go to the doctor or access other medical services because of the cost” (Luhby). Evidently, Canada’s healthcare system is notorious in supporting the demands of the population, and creating a healthy and happy society at a manageable cost.

Since 1984, Canada has established a publicly funded healthcare system through the provisions of the “Canada Health Act,” which states that the objective of Canadian health care policy is to “facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers” (“Canada Health Act” 1). However, many Canadians feel Canada’s healthcare system is financially restricting. This system does not cover many prescription drugs or speciality drugs, which are needed for 41% of Canadian citizens aged 6-79 years old (Rotterman, Michelle et al. 1). This excludes elderly citizens who require even more medications. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information it is estimated the provincial and territorial governments spent $10.4 billion on prescription medications in 2014 (Matteo, Livio Di 2).

Health care is an essential service needed by citizens. As a result, the government plays an important role by designing an appropriate health care system for its citizens. In this paper, a comparison between the health care system in the U.S. and Canada has been made. Using various literary sources, the comparison has been done considering the four components of health care services delivery; financing, insurance, delivery, and payment. The findings indicate that the health care system in the U.S. is expensive but more efficient than the single-payer health care system in Canada.

Yet the strings on the public purse continue to tighten. Transfer payments from the federal government continue to decrease as provincial debt loads increase. And, although the minister of health and the premier assured them that the costs of health care were doubling or even tripling, Albertans have witnessed a steady decline in government spending on health care. The proportion of gross domestic product, (GDP), which Alberta allocates to health care is ranked last among the ten provinces, (Taft, 1997). Albertans now find themselves with a struggling health care system and a waiting list.

In this paper, there will be a comparative analysis to the United States (U.S.) healthcare system and Canadians healthcare system highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of both.

Neighboring countries, United States and Canada have close ties to one another, share the same language and have many of the same fundamental and religious beliefs. It is an interesting debt as to which provides a superior healthcare system. In order to better understand the strengths and weakness of the two systems, this paper will review four important structural and functional elements of each system.

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

In addition to the mile-long waiting lists, the idealism of universal health care has also left Canada with problems, one problem being, having basic technology and machinery, when it could be advanced. Although Canada is the fifth highest among OECD countries in terms of total spending on health, it is generally among the bottom third of OECD countries in availability of technology.7 The local comparison is equally unfavourable. CT scanners, nuclear medicine facilities, MRIs, lithotriptors, positron emission tomography, specialized intensive-care facilities, and cardiac catheter labs are all less likely to be found at a community hospital in Canada than at a similar hospital in the United States. Angioplasty and transplant facilities

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.