Shared Health Care In Canada

The disproportionate, poor health outcomes experienced by First Nations Canadians have been attributed to an uncoordinated and fragmented health care system. This system is rooted in colonial legislation and social policies that have created jurisdictional ambiguity and long-standing confusion among federal, provincial and First Nations governments as to who is responsible for First Nations health care (Kelly, 2011; Lavoie, 2013). The responsibility of healthcare resembles a “political football and while it is being passed back and forth, the health status of First Nations people remains the lowest of any segment of the population (Cook, 2011, p. 40). Despite attempts over the last 40 years to address this pressing social issue, the absence

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).

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

In the book on a citizens guidelines to policy and politics, Katherine Fierlbeck argues that “The 1983 Canada Health Act replaced the 1947 Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services act because of the shift from a system of 50-50 federal-provincial cost sharing to a system of block funding established in Ottawa in 1977” (Fierlbeck 2011, pg.20). Until the period of the mid 1980’s, the Canadian health care system is to be categorized in a disarray, having no foundation to components and accomplishment. The system is to rely mainly on cost sharing; whereby in a health insurance policy only a portion is paid by the health insurance. While enabling the insured party to pay a portion of the price of covered services. In this case, cost sharing is based on 50-50 provincial and federal cost-sharing agreement to a fault. By Ottawa giving tax transfers to the provinces in replacement of direct transfers, but the federal government had no capacity to conceal cash. This in return is able to affect provinces because it deprived the federal government effective, efficient, and responsive measure of provinces holding the five principles of the Canada health care. According to About Canada Health Care, Pat Armstrong and Hugh Armstrong speaks about the five principles of health care, which are; “Public administration, Comprehensiveness, Universality, Portability, and Accessibility” (Pat Armstrong & Hugh Armstrong 2008, pg.28). These five principles holds the provinces accountable to the

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.

While many may argue that the Canadian health care system provides equal treatment to every Canadian, evidence shows that this is not the case. There are major discrepancies within the system regarding Indigenous people that need to be addressed including several factors such as: housing issues, stereotypes Aboriginals face and the lack of Aboriginal doctors.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the Canadian and the United States health care system. the first part of the paper will focus on describing each country health care system. The second part will focus on analyzing, evaluating and comparing these two countries system efficiency and benefits. The last part, is an overview of the recent policies changes and its effect (positive and negative) on each country citizens and proposed future reforms for better coverage in these countries.

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.

The proposed solution from current Alberta government would see the health care system incorporate the private sector. The government Most of all the government is looking to decrease cost, increase accessibility and efficiency. *****

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.

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

Canada 's health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens. It is publicly funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government. Under the health care system, individual citizens are provided preventative care and medical treatments from primary care physicians as well as access to hospitals, dental surgery and additional medical services. With a few exceptions, all citizens qualify for health coverage regardless of medical history, personal income, or standard of living. In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.

Granted, concerns exist within the public system in relation to dissatisfaction with wait times and access to primary care, however, there is sparse evidence to support the claim that these issues will be best addressed through increasing private delivery of services. Furthermore, there is no reason why some of the compelling ideas of private medical facilities (e.g. specialty short-stay clinics, multidisciplinary teams and focus on prevention) cannot be implemented within a public delivery framework, especially given that profits are not being deducted from the total available pool of resources. Such examples of primary care reform and innovation are already underway across Canada, with evaluations of these initiatives showing mostly positive results in terms of cost-effectiveness and quality of care (Carter et al.,